Talk:Barack Obama

Template:Community article probation

Eyes needed at 2012 BO campaign article

Would be helpful to have more eyes on Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 regarding POV fringe nonsense regarding the campaign slogan. Tvoz/talk 07:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 May 2012

Add the following to Obama's wikipedia page, under any relevant section:

On May 09, 2012, President Barack Obama announced his support for gay marriage, becoming the first sitting U.S. President to endorse equal status for same-sex couples.

Such002 (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done by Cadiomals. There have been some edits that added it to the lede, but since it is his "personal opinion" rather than any policy change, that's really not appropriate. This is "no big deal" in Obama's life and not worthy of mention in the lede.  Frank  |  talk  21:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I agree, Frank, that this is not a big deal in his life - in fact I think the historic nature of this statement is a bigger deal to his life than it is to policy. I expect we'll be adding it to the lede, and I support that, but would wait for some analytic sourcing that goes beyond just the announcement. As for policy, it remains to be seen what effect it has. But as he himself has described this as his personal evolution, I think it is not correct to say it isn't worthy of mention in the lede of his biography - for whatever reason it took him a long time to get to today, and today's announcement was not casual or offhand - it is a major shift in how he has described his fundamental personal beliefs, and that is central to a biography. Tvoz/talk 22:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

You make a fair point. It's probably worth some discussion here; media attention to this blows it out of proportion, I think, but...that doesn't mean it's not worth mentioning somehow. Given that he has gone to some effort to say it's a personal opinion and not a call for federal legislative change (and not likely to be one), and further that he thinks states ought to make their own decisions on the matter...I don't know that it is really a big deal. (See this ref for the big caveat.)  Frank  |  talk  22:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It's important to remember that this article is about Barack Obama, the very well known and internationally very highly respected person. It's not really about current politics in the USA. (That stuff is in the current election article.) Obama's announcement on gay marriage is major international news, because it comes from him, and from the President of the USA. It's highly notable, and really should be in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 03:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I propose mentioning President Obama's support of same sex marriage in the lead. As a major policy move, being the first President in history to support same sex marriage while in office, and the major coverage it is receiving, it seems like a small mention in the lead paragraph added to the other accomplishments mentioned seems merited. Naturally we should be selective of what we include in this section, as it shouldn't become clogged, but I think this is definitely worth a mention. Thoughts? --Politicsislife (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not especially convinced that wide coverage automatically equates to notability, and since this is a restatement of a previously-held position, one could say it is completely political rather than any real significance to the man himself. Nevertheless, I do see the point about him being the first sitting president to espouse this view and find the current entry in the lede appropriate.  Frank  |  talk  11:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It was added to the lead again, and I don't disagree that there should be a small mention of it there, so I tried to "fit it in" where it seemed most appropriate (without undertaking a complete rewording of the paragraph). As others have pointed out, it may not be "a big deal" to some editors here, but I assure you there are millions of Americans who believe the history of civil rights in the United States is a very big deal. I'd suggest it's probably a good idea to take a look outside of ourselves before we decide what's "overblown" or "not a big deal" for other readers. I don't have all the sources at my fingertips, but all day yesterday it was touted by numerous news sources as "historical" and was equated to Lyndon Johnson's stand on civil rights in the 1960s. I think there are several quotes from Michael Bloomberg and several other high profile politicians and historians basically saying the same thing, and I dare say, it will most likely be one of the things he'll be most remembered for 20, 30, 40 years from now, long after most of his official "policies" have long been forgotten. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

To reiterate: I may not be entirely convinced, but I'm not angling for removal either. Note my previous strikethrough above; my position has evolved. :-)  Frank  |  talk  13:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, Frank, good one. Ain't evolution grand? Tvoz/talk 05:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with all of this and like how you included it. Good job!--Politicsislife (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd again like to highlight, especially in response to Crakkerjakk's comment about "millions of Americans", that millions of non-Americans have been influenced by this too. I heard it mentioned twice by our national (government) broadcaster's radio news service here in Australia 16 hours apart yesterday. (It's Friday here now.) When any US president speaks, much of the world listens. When Obama speaks, it's even more likely. Those who hate his party in the US may find that hard to swallow, but it's true. HiLo48 (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Unemployment graph not consistent with NPOV

I believe that showing the job gains and losses in the unemployment graph gives undue weight to that statistic. I looked at the Wikipedia articles on "unemployment" and "Great Depression". In both cases, there were a large number of graphs of the unemployment rate, but I did not notice any graphs showing job gains and losses.

Making matters worse, the scale on that graph is chosen in a way that makes the job gain and loss bars appear larger than the unemployment rate graph. In other words, the more notable statistic gets less emphasis than the less notable statistic does. William Jockusch (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I brought this up a few months back, when there was a different chart, but it didn't get anywhere. I think any graph is a NPOV problem for a biography, when there exist an infinite number of factors complicating any economic data point. Public or private sector? Compared to which other presidency? At the expense of the debt? At the expense of GDP? At higher or lower wages? etc. Also note that this exact data is ubiquitous in White House promotional materials. It's just not good practice for a biography to have such a sunny use of data. —Designate (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The chart has already been changed earlier. I didn't agree with the change and thought it was more appropriate for the Obama presidency article, but others disagreed and the consensus was to keep the current chart in the article. Dave Dial (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The explanation accompanying the proposed removal makes no sense. The graph is a clear indication of the unemployment rate during the specific period of Obama's presidency. The numbers are the numbers, and there's nothing inherently POV about that. I do tend to think that focusing on unemployment and economics, which is a matter of the national and world economics more than one of than presidential actions, is more than a little removed from a person's biography and so is WP:UNDUE in the first place. That is how the game of politics and public perception are played, and could be mentioned in that context. I wouldn't necessarily add economic charts to this article but that's the stable version so it has consensus, any removal would require a clear consensus here to do so, not apparent lack of response to one among several simultaneous hard to fathom proposals. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Also, the edits from the OP have almost all had the same reasoning of POV and seem to indicate a want to lay a preliminary strike for a future battle. Dave Dial (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what the NPOV aspect would be, but there are two problems with the graph. 1, the scale for unemployment should include the maximum value. The maximum rate was 10.1% in October 2009, so the right side should go up to the next integer, or up to 12 to remain consistant with the number scheme. 2, the origin should be the same on both sides. Granted a value of less than 0% interest rate is meaningless, but not having the origin on the same point makes the graph a little confusing, there is a perception that the unemployment rate has changed much more than it really has because the natural assumption is that the origin line for job losses/gains is the same as for the unemployment rate. It should be fixed purely for proper graphing reasons, and as someone that has had several publications regarding statistical results and reviews journal publications from time to time, I would make the author change that graph for readability before publication. Arzel (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

According to the source(Bureau of Labor statistics), the rate was adjusted to 10.0 in October of 2009. The only POV issue I see with the chart is that it should include the data available since the start of the recession(Dec-2007), to show the trend. As the old chart did. This one does give more information, and including both is overkill. So probably best to keep it in the article and explain the economic situation in the body(which I believe is there). Adding more to this BLP, and not the presidency article, seems too much. Dave Dial (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I was mistakenly commenting on the main unemployment graph, not the change in employment graph. Indeed a far from perfect graph. It's a classic problem, showing a change and its accumulated value over time. I'm not entirely sure I agree that the unemployment rate should be made more explicit here, as there's already a separate graph for that and here it functions as more of a sparkline. It is a little confusing to put a bar chart below a line graph, though, and I'm not too keen on having so much about employment in this article in the first place. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Demon, are you now saying you support removal of the graph? Just to be clear, I would be fine with that solution.William Jockusch (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit war of first sitting vs. first African American president in gay issue

We can read in the first page on this article that "In May 2012, he became the first sitting U.S. president to announce his support for the legalization of same-sex marriage."

On the other hand when I inserted this text: "First African-American President of the United States supporting the legalization of same-sex marriage: Barack Obama" on List of African-American firsts they have deleted this text twice. Why can we see this double standard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.186.102.17 (talk) 01:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• I quote: "He's the first African American president anyway, you can't put everything he did "first" that doesnt have to do with him being black". For instance, he's the first African-American to be a president and use the facilities in the White House. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree, his support of same sex marriage is not associated to the issue of race to anywhere near the same level as him becoming President so it is not necessary to mention his race in this context. As mentioned the article does not bring up his race for other first either. For example, the article does not say that he is the first African American to sign a bill into law or give the State of the Union address.--174.93.169.157 (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 May 2012

Under the sub-heading "Family and Personal Life" there's a photo of the Obama family. The description says it's in 2012 but if you click on the picture it takes you to the source link and there it says it's from the 1st of September, 2009. A little bit confusing, if you ask me. Which is correct? It seems like the 2009 date is the correct one.

Thanks!

173.29.222.186 (talk) 03:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done:The devil is a lie. But you're right, the source states it's from 2009. Dave Dial (talk) 04:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

General lack of criticism in the article not consistent with NPOV

The level of criticism in the article seems extraordinarily muted. I looked through it. Here are the references to criticism I could find. In each case, the reference to the criticism is brief and indirect. The actual criticism of Obama is typically not even stated.

Don't flood the Talk page with these types of posts
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
--- As multiple efforts by BP failed, some in the media and public expressed confusion and criticism over various aspects of the incident, and stated a desire for more involvement by Obama and the federal government.[191] --- Obama resigned from Trinity during the Presidential campaign after controversial statements made by Rev. Jeremiah Wright became public.[305] --- On October 9, 2009, the Norwegian Nobel Committee announced that Obama had won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples".[268] Obama accepted this award in Oslo, Norway on December 10, 2009, with "deep gratitude and great humility."[269] The award drew a mixture of praise and criticism from world leaders and media figures.[270][271] --- The purchase of an adjacent lot—and sale of part of it to Obama by the wife of developer, campaign donor and friend Tony Rezko—attracted media attention because of Rezko's subsequent indictment and conviction on political corruption charges that were unrelated to Obama.[292] --- By contrast, here are some excerpts from the first half of the article about George W. Bush: --- As the disaster in New Orleans intensified, critics charged that Bush was misrepresenting his administration's role in what they saw as a flawed response. Leaders attacked Bush for having appointed apparently incompetent leaders to positions of power at FEMA, notably Michael D. Brown;[189] it was also argued that the federal response was limited as a result of the Iraq War[190] and Bush himself did not act upon warnings of floods.[191][192][193] Bush responded to mounting criticism by accepting full responsibility for the federal government's failures in its handling of the emergency.[187] It has been argued that with Katrina, Bush passed a political tipping point from which he would not recover.[194] --- Midterm dismissal of U.S. attorneys Main article: Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy During Bush's second term, a controversy arose over the Justice Department's midterm dismissal of seven United States Attorneys.[195] The White House maintained that the U.S. attorneys were fired for poor performance.[196] Attorney General Alberto Gonzales would later resign over the issue, along with other senior members of the Justice Department.[197][198] The House Judiciary Committee issued subpoenas for advisers Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten to testify regarding this matter, but Bush directed Miers and Bolten to not comply with those subpoenas, invoking his right of executive privilege. Bush has maintained that all of his advisers are protected under a broad executive privilege protection to receive candid advice. The Justice Department has determined that the President's order was legal.[199] Although Congressional investigations have focused on whether the Justice Department and the White House were using the U.S. Attorney positions for political advantage, no official findings have been released. On March 10, 2008, the Congress filed a federal lawsuit to enforce their issued subpoenas.[200] On July 31, 2008, a United States district court judge ruled that Bush's top advisers were not immune from Congressional subpoenas.[201] In August 2009, Karl Rove and Harriet Miers testified before the House Judiciary Committee. A Justice Department inquiry into the firing of U.S. attorneys concluded that political considerations played a part in as many as four of the dismissals.[202] In July 2010, the Justice Department prosecutors closed the two-year investigation without filing charges after determining that the firings were inappropriately political, but not criminal. According to the prosecutors, "Evidence did not demonstrate that any prosecutable criminal offense was committed with regard to the removal of David Iglesias. The investigative team also determined that the evidence did not warrant expanding the scope of the investigation beyond the removal of Iglesias."[203] --- Those invasions led to the toppling of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq as well as the deaths of many Iraqis, with surveys indicating between four hundred thousand to over one million dead, excluding the tens of thousands of civilians in Afghanistan.[209][210][211] --- Some national leaders alleged abuse by U.S. troops and called for the U.S. to shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention camp and other such facilities. Dissent from, and criticism of, Bush's leadership in the War on Terror increased as the war in Iraq expanded.[224][225][226] In 2006, a National Intelligence Estimate expressed the combined opinion of the United States' own intelligence agencies, concluding that the Iraq War had become the "cause célèbre for jihadists" and that the jihad movement was growing.[227][228] --- Efforts to kill or capture al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden failed as he escaped a battle in December 2001 in the mountainous region of Tora Bora, which the Bush Administration later acknowledged to have resulted from a failure to commit enough U.S. ground troops.[232] --- Contentions that the Bush Administration manipulated or exaggerated the threat and evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities would eventually become a major point of criticism for the president.[242][243] --- The initial success of U.S. operations increased his popularity, but the U.S. and allied forces faced a growing insurgency led by sectarian groups; Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech was later criticized as premature.[247] From 2004 until 2007, the situation in Iraq deteriorated further, with some observers arguing that there was a full scale civil war in Iraq.[248] Bush's policies met with criticism, including demands domestically to set a timetable to withdraw troops from Iraq --- I will grant that Bush has been a subject of more criticism overall than Obama. Yet I find it remarkable that so many of the Bush excerpts contain direct criticisms, while the Obama excerpts do not. And keep in mind that I got less than half-way through the Bush article before deciding that I had more than enough material to illustrate my point. And the criticism of Bush does not end there; there are two lengthy cricital sections shortly after I left off. Overall, it appears that the amount of criticism in the Obama article is disproportionately small. --- In further support of my contention, here are some critical sections of the article about Ronald Reagan. Reagan is largely admired nowadays, and I think it is fair to say he is more popular than Obama. Yet look at these excerpts: --- Reaganomics was the subject of debate with supporters pointing to improvements in certain key economic indicators as evidence of success, and critics pointing to large increases in federal budget deficits and the national debt. --- Critics labeled this "trickle-down economics"—the belief that tax policies that benefit the wealthy will create a "trickle-down" effect to the poor.[139] Questions arose whether Reagan's policies benefited the wealthy more than those living in poverty,[140] and many poor and minority citizens viewed Reagan as indifferent to their struggles.[140] These views were exacerbated by the fact that Reagan's economic regimen included freezing the minimum wage at $3.35 an hour, slashing federal assistance to local governments by 60%, cutting the budget for public housing and Section 8 rent subsidies in half, and eliminating the antipoverty Community Development Block Grant program.[141] The widening gap between the rich and poor had already begun during the 1970s before Reagan's economic policies took effect.[142] However, Reagan's policies exacerbated the trend, as the 1981 cut in the top regular tax rate on unearned income reduced the maximum capital gains rate to only 20% – its lowest level since the Hoover administration.[143] --- The administration's stance toward the Savings and Loan industry contributed to the Savings and loan crisis.[153] It is also suggested, by a minority of Reaganomics critics, that the policies partially influenced the stock market crash of 1987,[154] but there is no consensus regarding a single source for the crash.[155] In order to cover newly spawned federal budget deficits, the United States borrowed heavily both domestically and abroad, raising the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion.[156] Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency.[132] --- Osama bin Laden would later cite Reagan's withdrawal of forces [from Lebanon--ed.] as a sign of American weakness.[167] --- Reagan believed that this defense shield could make nuclear war impossible,[188][190] but disbelief that the technology could ever work led opponents to dub SDI "Star Wars" and argue that the technological objective was unattainable.[188] --- Critics labeled Reagan's foreign policies as aggressive, imperialistic, and chided them as "warmongering," though they were supported by leading American conservatives who argued that they were necessary to protect U.S. security interests.[191] A reformer, Mikhail Gorbachev, would later rise to power in the Soviet Union in 1985, implementing new policies for openness and reform that were called glasnost and perestroika. ---

Again, I made it less than halfway through the article, and there are a large number of direct criticisms of his actions as President. William Jockusch (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, thank you for fixing the formatting, but you still haven't presented a coherent case. We don't define balance as having an equivalent amount of criticism in every presidential candidate's article. I'm sorry, but that's just nonsensical. Any events leading to criticism of Obama need to considered individually, not according to some mystical view of equality of numbers of critical comments.. If you want a particular event mentioned, suggest it in a new section. Your approach in this section will never succeed. HiLo48 (talk) 00:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Lol. I was the one who fixed the formatting. William Jockusch posted this about 12 hours ago and it was almost immediately closed, then reopened, and I was just fixing a glitch in the re-opening which made the section appear to be part of the "Edit request" section above it. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Whoops. Sorry. Well, thank YOU for fixing the formatting. HiLo48 (talk) 03:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

At the moment, it's not a question of an "equivalent amount of criticism." It's more a question of having any direct criticism at all. None of the four "critical" sentences in the Obama article actually states the criticism of Obama. This is in stark contrast to the Bush and Reagan articles. William Jockusch (talk) 04:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, for fuck's sake. I repeat....

Any events leading to criticism of Obama need to considered individually... If you want a particular event mentioned, suggest it in a new section. Your approach in this section will never succeed. HiLo48 (talk) 05:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Immediate hatting/closure of criticism

I do not believe this hatting/closure was appropriate. See the text above. The issue is worthy of debate. I ask all users to take actions which promote debate, not actions which inhibit it. Thank you. William Jockusch (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

That will likely continue to happen if you stick to your current manner of bringing up criticism. In your hatted case, for example, you state a number of perceived issues but do not present any actual solutions or edit suggestions. You say the actual criticism of Obama is often unstated, but you fail to suggest what that missing actual criticism is in any of your examples. You also make the mistake of "other stuff exists" or "look at this article about someone else, it has more criticism." That is not a valid argument. Obama is not Bush. Obama is not Reagan. Obama has not done the same things as either of these two individuals. While I haven't looked, I'd guess that our article on Gorbachev may have less criticism than that of Stalin, as the two people took different actions while in office. Furthermore, your comparisons to Bush and Reagan also fall afoul of time. Barack Obama has not even completed one term in office. Both Bush and Reagan had two terms in office. Simply by time, it is entirely possible for them to have more criticism.

The goal is not to make every article for every president have the same amount of criticism as anyone else, therefore these comparisons by volume are not very relevant. Instead, make concrete suggestions of criticism you feel relevant to this article that is currently absent. Besides, until concrete suggestions are made, what exactly do you expect to happen? Even if listened to, you only listing grievances results in nothing changing as no one has actually suggested a change. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I made several mildly critical edits. Most were reverted within the hour. I also removed the non-NPOV employment graph. Again it was quickly reverted. So I did make constructive edits, and they were reverted, with a request to bring up the issues in talk. So I made a lengthy and constructive post about it in talk, and that was hatted with an inappropriate sarcastic comment from the administrator. Though I see that someone wisely has wisely reversed the hatting. As for specific criticisms, the following are recurring themes among Obama critics. Inclusion of several of the following would be consistent with NPOV:

• Failure with the economy. His economic team predicted that if the stimulus was enacted, unemployment would never exceed 8%. Yet it quickly rose above that level and remains there today.
• Excessive class warfare rhetoric.
• Disastrous attempt at rapprochement with Iran and Syria. Outcome: both have slaughtered thousands of their own people.
• Obstructionist attitude towards some businesses. See Keystone Pipeline, lawsuit against Boeing for building a factory in South Carolina, and raids at Gibson Guitar based on flimsy justification.
• New Black Panther Case -- refusal to enforce civil rights laws against its allies.
• But above all -- failure to grow the economy. The number of employed Americans today is still lower than it was when O. took office. When was the last time that happened -- after 3+ years of a President, the number of employed Americans has dropped.

But the main point is that the article currently contains extremely little criticism. I could accept the ratio argument if the Obama article had a similar percentage of criticism in proportion to its length. However, it does not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Jockusch (talk • contribs) 00:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

What is this? The military approach of attacking on several fronts? I responded to your points in the thread above, and then you post here, as well as on my Talk page. This scattegun approach will get you nowhere. My advice is in the thread above. Follow it! (Oh, and my repsonse to what you posted on my Talk page is "No".) Join the conversation and discussion. If you can't do that, perhaps this isn't the place for you. HiLo48 (talk) 01:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not taking sides (I haven't looked at your talk page), but in defense of William Jockusch, he only started this thread after his first thread was closed (before many of us even saw it). Ok now. Full disclosure: I'm personally a fan of Barack Obama, but I can see where, in some instances, the article might need to provide a broader scope of a given subject. The difference between this article and the Reagan article (for example) is that with former presidencies we have the benefit of historical hindsight. Well respected, impartial historians have had a chance to evaluate the Reagan administration without the effects of "recentism" to cloud their perspective regarding every single thing he said and/or did. Nowadays, If Barack Obama makes a speech declaring the sky is blue, we have pundits at FOX News, and numerous other "critics" who will immediately dispute it. With the political climate the way it is today (which is very different than it was even just 20 years ago), including every single "criticism" of president Obama would make the article extremely tedious for the reader. This would mean that we would need to list Obama's position; "The sky is blue", then list criticism from the right; "the sky isn't blue at all", then list criticism from the left; "he didn't declare the sky was blue enough", on and on and on and on. I'm not saying that this is what you're suggesting, but the point is that we need to be extremely selective with which "criticisms" we begin to include. Given this, I'm more on the side of stating which positions he's taken (without characterizing whether this side or that side thinks it's "good" or "bad") and then be extremely careful when deciding which criticisms need to be included. One example was what is now known as "Obamacare". Even reputable news outlets repeatedly reported for months that something like 60% of Americans polled were "unhappy" with his health care plan while 40% supported it. Once the numbers were broken down, it was revealed that 20% of those that "disapproved" thought his health care plan didn't go far enough, which meant 60% either approved or thought it needed to go farther, leaving only 40% who genuinely thought health care was better before he was elected to office. Again, I'm not saying that you're trying to distort the issues, but I'm just using this as one example as to how easily (even reputable news sources) can distort "criticisms" just to fill today's 24-hour news cycle. I think this might be one of the reasons why there is resistance to going too far down this road in this article. Once we include one "criticism", then we need to include the counter "viewpoint", etc, etc.. I'm not saying that there should be no mentions of any criticisms whatsoever, but I'm just saying that once we begin to add detailed criticisms, the article instantly becomes three times as long (and tedious), so, in many cases, many editors would rather not go there. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

(to original poster) If you have any specific content you wish to propose for the article that's relevant, sourced, and of due weight, it's worth a shot. A generalized claim that the article doesn't have enough negative stuff about Obama isn't really worth serious consideration. Even if you could prove it, it's an irrelevant point. It's not actionable, and the exercise in making an article more negative towards its biographic subject, or loading criticism for the sake of criticism, is storybook POV. It's not the job of a biography to present criticism of the subject. It's to tell the story of the person, their life, career, legacy. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Believe me, I will be proposing plenty. I want to take strong issue with the claim that my point is "irrelevant." Recent polls have shown that approximately 45% of respondents disapprove of Obama's job performance. So about 45% of the US population holds a primarily negative view of the President. In a balanced article, their views would be described. Right now, all the article does is note their existence. It does not describe their criticisms of the President. 45% is a large enough number that their point of view is a major one within the population. Yet their point of view is not represented. That is why the article does not conform to NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Jockusch (talk • contribs) 12:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Careful - you seem to miss a point made above. If 45% are unhappy with Obama, that does not imply that those 45% have even one notable criticism. There could be 90 groups of 0.5% each, members of which are unhappy for different and even contradictory reasons. Some may dislike that Guantanamo hasn't been closed, some that it hasn't been expanded. Some think the stimulus is a waste of money, others think there was not enough. Some wonder why the US hasn't nuked Iran, others why they muck with the Near East to begin with. And so on. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't bode well. While individual proposals will get a hearing if well supported and accompanied by reasonable discussion, I think the community's patience level is wearing thin here, and taking a combative or rapid-fire approach doesn't work. People are not going to be swayed by any argument that we should bias a biography to be more negative or that the story of the President's life should be filtered through the lens of political campaign stories. Those arguments, in the past, created nothing but trouble and interfered with the orderly upkeep and progress of the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

But here is the problem, Wikidemon. I started off by doing exactly that in the case of the unemployment graph/job creation graph. The only responder supported my point of view that the graph was POV and should be removed. So I removed it. My removal was promptly reverted. In light of this, how can I believe that I am getting a "fair hearing?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Jockusch (talk • contribs) 15:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I will add that very recently, the discussion on the graph issue has picked up, and that's a good thing. However, at the time I made the posts above, the situation on the graph was creating a rather strong perception of a lack of a fair hearing at my end. William Jockusch (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

There's lesson one of several, don't mistake people ignoring your suggestion for approval. The reason people ignored it is probably that it was recently discussed, that you accompanied it by unnecessary accusations of POV bias, and perhaps (without checking the history here) that people were already beginning to overload on your multiple proposals and tuning out. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It was my first proposal in talk here. William Jockusch (talk) 05:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:OR in source 1, source 2, source 3 -> "frequent"

Listing a small number of sources for claim X does not support that "X is a frequent theme". There are many thousands of editorials published daily. To show "frequent", you need a high-quality source that says "frequent". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, then why not leave the new paragraph in place, but remove the word "frequent." If you had simply removed the word "frequent" without disturbing the rest of my addition, I would have had no issue with your action, and would in fact have thanked you for improving my post. That would have been a useful and positive course of action. It would have build trust rather than destroying it. William Jockusch (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Because there is no evidence that the criticism is notable or significant. Your approach would open the opportunity to insert each and every comment ever made in a letter to the editor of the Backwater Enquirer. Of course political opponents criticise actions of an administration. But not all such criticism is significant enough to include in a biography. For that you must be able to positively answer the question if this criticism has had a significant influence on Obama or his administration. This is, of course, easier in historical hindsight. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Fox News is by far the most watched TV news source. It is therefore a notable and significant source. Sure, it has bias against Obama. But the Bush and Reagan articles quote the NYT all the time, and the NYT also has bias against those Presidents. William Jockusch (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Just found this, from the host of the most-watched cable news program in the USA. That ought to qualify it as a high-quality source. It does not include the word "frequent", so I would have no problem leaving that out. But it is a high quality source for the class warfare criticism. http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/2011/09/29/bill-oreilly-pushback-class-warfare William Jockusch (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

There were more problems with that section than one can easily list. Predominantly using Fox News attack pieces to source a biography of Obama is just strange. Use of primary sources. Messing up the citation format. Using bizarre Republican talking points, mistaking political attacks for actual criticism, and on and on. A low quality proposal in a new or out of the way article is only reasonable, you can start from there and improve it collaboratively. But aggressively inserting bad material into one of the most trafficked featured articles here? There seem to be some WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and, frankly, WP:COMPETENCE issues. This is not a good place to learn basic editing stuff. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

If the New York Times were banished from the articles about Republicans, I could agree with you. But it is patently unfair to say that the NYT is a valid source for its Republican opponents and simultaneously say that Fox is not a valid source for its Democratic opponents. The policy should be consistent. William Jockusch (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but sources do not enjoy affirmative action. The New York Times is a widely recognised quality newspaper - somewhat on the left of the US spectrum, fairy centrist from a world-wide point of view, but in either case well-regarded for quality journalism and a separation of facts and opinions. Fox, on the other hand, is off the scale, and is famous for mixing a very small amount of fact with a very large dose of "opinion" (if it is even that, and not just rabble-rousing). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec - addressing WJ) We're talking about the Obama article here, not about other articles. Be that as it may, opinion pieces on the New York Times are also primary sources that do not establish in and of themselves that there is noteworthy criticism of a subject. Comparing Fox News to the New York Times is absurd. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

If it is so "off the scale", why does it have more viewers than anyone else? Surely the total number of viewers and readers is a good way of measuring how mainstream a source is. By that measure, Fox is more mainstream than the NYT, and is the most mainstream news network. Additionally, if you look at the controversies that have engulfed the two over the years, it is clear that the editorial failures that have happened at the NYT have been much more serious, and it's not even close. That is a factual statement, which you can easily verify by looking at the articles for the two. As for respect, what you say is true among liberals, but it is absolutely false among conservatives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Jockusch (talk • contribs) 17:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Ergo: Eat shit; billions of flys can't be wrong?TMCk (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

That faulty logic based on assumptions that many "Fox" watchers make that just aren't true. Fox is the most watched CABLE news network, mainly because they parrot what some people believe and those same people believe there is a inherit bias in mainstream media. But Fox doesn't compare to regular news viewers, where Fox receives about a third of viewers of NBC evening news. Much less the combined viewership of CBS, ABC and NBC news. And let's not even get into the total readership of the NYT. It's not even close. Dave Dial (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I admit I have my own differences with President Obama's positions on a whole host of issues, but objectively, I can recognize that nobody coming to Wikipedia gives a flying f#@k what I think, so I'm not going to waste my valuable time looking to dig up obviously biased sources to substantiate my "criticisms", just so I can stick them into his Wikipedia bio. As others have pointed out, this is one of Wikipedia's relatively few Featured articles, so you have to understand that editors watching the page are going to be extremely vigilant with regards to the edits made to it. Comparing Fox News to the New York Times is honestly just laughable. List of Pulitzer Prizes awarded to The New York Times. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, then how about this. Name some prominent right-leaning sources that you would consider high quality. Preferably more than one. Then I'll find the class warfare there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Jockusch (talk • contribs) 18:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Looking for left or right-leaning publications to source material is a POV exercise. And sourced or unsourced, this kind of partisan talking point hyperbole isn't biographic. He's also called a fascist, communist, socialist, Muslim, and so on. We can source all of that, it's not even criticism. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Demon, here is the problem -- if Wikipedia is unbiased, then the number of sources that Wikipedia considers high quality should contain roughly similar proportions of left- and right- leaning sources. Otherwise, it merely shows that what Wikipedia considers "high quality" is itself biased. Unless you think that right-leaning sources are somehow inherently worse than left-leaning ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Jockusch (talk • contribs) 19:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It's important to make a clear distinction between what a given news source presents as "fact" versus what they present as "opinion". In my personal view, a "reliable" source won't slant their reporting of the "facts" of a topic by injecting "opinions" or broad generalizations into it. The same news source may also provide "opinion" pieces, but in order to be deemed "reliable", they should make every attempt to make a clear distinction between the two. This again leads to my previous point - before we open the door to present one "opinion" regarding one of President Obama's policies, we'd need to source criticism from all sides of the issue. As far as I'm concerned, in the vast majority of instances this isn't really the article for hashing all of this out. You'll notice there are backlinks to articles about practically all of Obama's policies which present a wider scope of "reactions", "criticisms", "praises", etc. - In my opinion, that's the appropriate place for them. Yes, there are criticisms mentioned on other Presidential bios, but (as I've stated before), with the passage of time comes the benefit of highly reputable and well respected biographers and historians to view an administration from the 20,000 foot level. Adding daily updates of broad general criticisms to this page would largely amount to a lot of clutter and would almost certainly get the page downgraded from it's "featured" rating.--- Crakkerjakk (talk) 20:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed Crakker. Fox does make precisely that distinction. O'Reilly, Hannity, and Greta van S. are opinion. The earlier programming is fact. I don't know if they do it every day, but I've heard them say this shortly before O'Reilly comes on. At any rate, opinion pieces appear to be valid sources of criticism for the other Presidential articles. For example, the Ronald Reagan article notes that critics labelled his policies "trickle down economics." It is factual that that label was applied, but the label itself would have to be considered opinion. If a label like that is fair game for the Reagan article, it seems entirely consistent to include the "class warfare" label in the Obama article. As for your assertion that passage of time is the determining factor, I would suggest taking a look at the George W. Bush article as it existed at various times while he was still President. I actually just did this. I'll spare you the details, but there was plenty of criticism in there. William Jockusch (talk) 02:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on the policies of the Reagan administration 30-something years ago, but "trickle-down economics" appears to have been the "opinion" of Reagan's own budget director David Stockman. This is in no way the same thing as routine mud-slinging by political opponent's spin-doctors (some may feel the term "trickle down" is a pejorative, but a rose by any other name...) It's important to keep in mind that Fox News cannot verify their own credibility. When taking a "news" source seriously, Wikipedia is likely to ask: How many Peabody Awards does Fox News have? How any Emmy Awards for journalism? How any Alfred I. duPont–Columbia University Awards? How many Pulitzer Prizes? Of course there are much lighter-weight sources that haven't won Pulitzers which are used for Wikipedia, but that's usually acceptable when we're talking about "celebrity" articles (actors, singers, athletes, etc). However, this is a featured bio article about the President of the United States, not the newest starlet on American Idol. No offense intended, but Fox News is basically considered to be the ugly stepchild of the world of legitimate journalism (and that's honestly being generous). If we're looking to add "criticisms" to this bio such as Obama declaring "class warfare" because Fox News "says so" then I can already tell you that we're wasting our time. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 03:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Fine, name some American right-leaning sources you consider first rate sources. I'll find it there. Unless you believe that American right-leaning sources can't be first rate sources, in which case I'll take strong issue with that contention. William Jockusch (talk) 05:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hm. No. Finding acceptable sources is your responsibility since you're the one who wants to write something. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

But here is the problem. It looks like there is a double standard on what constitutes a "first class source". Fox is by far the most popular right-leaning news source, and the argument here appears to be that it does not fit the bill. It is true that Fox has had a lot of hate directed at it from the left. But if that were the standard, the NYT would not fit the bill either, as it has been the target of plenty of hate from the right. And if you look at the actual lapses at Fox (e.e. using the wrong video of Sarah Palin, making her appear more popular than she actually is) and compare those with the actual lapses at the NYT (e.g. failure to cover two separate instances of genocide, with millions of dead each time), it is clear that the NYT's are far worse. If people on the left are refusing to even name right-leaning sources they consider to be first class sources, that underlines my point. How can NPOV be achieved if the only sources allowable for certain kinds of statements are left-leaning and centrist sources? William Jockusch (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a lot of words, and irrelevant points, in defense of an untenable proposition, that Fox News is equivalent as a source to the New York Times. There is one standard, that's WP:RS and the real-world equivalent for reliable journalism. Where you get off track is seeing everything as liberal versus conservative (or the contemporary American partisan politics approximation of the same). You're looking under stones for something that is not there, a respectable source that parrots an absurd election-year talking point. You know what class warfare is, don't you? It involves violence, strikes, revolt, take-over of factories by the workers. It's not a term that any serious historian, academic, or journalist would use to describe modern American politics. That's one reason why the vast predominance of mentions are in marginal and fringe sources, it's part of the demonization of Obama as a communist, socialist, fascist, foreigner, etc. Fox News sometimes veers into that territory in articles it promotes as news coverage, and when it does that, it is not reliable. Wikipedia isn't a ratings contest, if it were we would source everything to Howard Stern and Good Morning America. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

“ You're looking under stones for something that is not there, a respectable source that parrots an absurd election-year talking point. ”

You've said it better than I have. And I honestly feel like we're beginning to talk in circles on this. As I've stated before - Even if we did find a "reliable" source reporting on the broad accusations which are constantly being thrown around by his opponents, I would still object to adding them to the article. If we're going to add these types of "editorial" characterizations (and I use the term "editorial" loosely), then we'd need to add all viewpoints on the issue (and this article simply isn't the place for all of this). We're not trying to be snobs about sources. To be clear, not every source needs a Pulitzer Prize or a Peabody Award to be "reliable". I use "fluff" sources all the time – such as Variety, Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly, etc, – for actor/entertainer bios. The difference is that I use them as sources for a date of birth or the announcement of an upcoming film, or album, etc, not for including partisan "opinions" into politician bios. Highly contentious criticisms (opinions) alleging "class warfare", etc, are in a completely different category than innocuous biography info such as date of birth or where someone went to high school, etc. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The "trickle-down economics" criticism in the Ronald Reagan article is attributed to the left-leaning PBS. Additionally, the Ronald Reagan article says that critics label his foreign policies "warmongering", again attributing it to PBS. Additionally, I note that George W. Bush's campaign against John McCain is described as a "smear campaign", with the citation going to the New York Times. That's three cases where generally left-leaning media outlets have been cited to criticize recent Republican Presidents. In light of those precedents, I don't see how you can argue that it is not fair to cite criticisms of Obama from right-leaning outfits such as Fox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Jockusch (talk • contribs) 23:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Only someone who gets their news solely from the right wing echo chamber would describe the neutral, objective and impartial PBS as "left leaning". Also, the quality (or lack thereof) of other articles has no bearing on this one. If you feel other articles have problems, go there and edit them. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The history of PBS government funding shows that they are anything but "neutral." Republicans typically want to take it away. Democrats typically want to keep it. The pocketbook doesn't lie. And don't even get me started on their generally positive portrayal of the Cuban health care system, or their failure to correct false partisan talking points from David Axelrod. I will happily concede that PBS's leftwards lean is milder than that of other organizations, such as the NYT. But it does exist and is real. William Jockusch (talk) 01:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

At this point this thread has degenerated into a WP:FORUM about supposed liberal bias by the mainstream American press, and the need to introduce unabashedly partisan WP:CRITICISM from Fox News so that Obama will appear more unsavory to the reader. That's nowhere close to being a reasonable approach to article discussion and editing, much less a specific changes to the article. We're supposed to use this page to improve the article. You can't get there from here using this approach, so I think we're done and ought to wind down this line of discussion as being off topic. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Demon, look. The point is simple. Either it is fair to use sources that lean towards the opposite party for criticism of a President or it is not. I'm not the one who keeps diverting from that simple issue. If others want to make it into a forum by diverting from my central point, I'm not going to stop them from doing that. But it does not invalidate my central concern, and diversions introduced by others give me no reason to drop anything. I find it interesting that none of my opponents have come out and said "It's fair to use left-leaning sources to criticize Reagan/Bush, but it's not fair to use right-leaning sources to criticize Obama." The fact that my opponents keep degenerating this into a forum-like discussion by distracting from that central question ought to be telling you something. William Jockusch (talk) 03:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

You can bring sources that lean toward the right, but not the moronic extremist-junk that FOX farts out to be consumed by half-illiterate crypto-racists. Is that clear enough now? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Fox News is on the margins of reliability when it reports on politics and, as such, gets scrutinized whenever it makes a controverted claim about anyone. There is no policy or guideline on Wikipedia that measures the acceptability of sources by their purported partisan affiliation, nor is fairness to the article subject a measure distinct from verifiability, neutral POV, relevance, and due weight. That's not how articles are constructed in an encyclopedia. Our constituency is the reader, who should be informed according to the best knowledge at the time, not politicians vying for equal air time. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, the consituency is the reader. But you appear to be making a judgment that a left-wing partisan critique of Bush/Reagan fits "the best knowledge at the time", while a right-wing partisan critique of Obama does not. At any rate, I am going to take another shot at this one, find what I believe to be the most prominent critique along those lines (which might be "Big Government" rather than "Class Warfare", but I'll look into it) and take another shot from there.William Jockusch (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

As I've already explained – A 2-minute Google search shows that "trickle-down" was the "opinion" of Reagan's own budget adviser David Stockman. The Reagan article may quote PBS (which leads every other network in Peabody Awards; leads every other network in Emmy Awards for journalism; leads every other network in Alfred I. duPont–Columbia University Awards, etc, etc, etc...), but PBS is simply reporting Stockman's own words in a piece done by The Atlantic. Feel free to read it for yourself here. Your assertion that any network that doesn't parrot Fox News' POV is somehow "left-wing" is never going to hold water, so I honestly suggest you drop this pointless quest of yours to begin injecting right-wing distortions into the most prominent articles on Wikipedia. It's a losing battle and, judging by the lack of responses in the last 24 hours, other editors have decided to just start ignoring you. This should most likely be taken as an indication that people are just sick of dealing with you, and not as a "green light" to do whatever you want. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep. HiLo48 (talk) 02:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You guys didn't want me putting in long lists of examples of bias. So I stuck to one. Now you are both pointing to one difference between the example I gave and the current Obama issue. Well, guess what. If one restricts oneself to a single example, a difference can be found. That is the nature of a single example. Fine. I'll post a list of them. Don't complain; by rejecting the one example, you asked for it.

Reagan believed that this defense shield could make nuclear war impossible,[188][190] but disbelief that the technology could ever work led opponents to dub SDI "Star Wars" and argue that the technological objective was unattainable.[188]

--

Critics labeled Reagan's foreign policies as aggressive, imperialistic, and chided them as "warmongering," though they were supported by leading American conservatives who argued that they were necessary to protect U.S. security interests.

--

Many Central Americans criticize Reagan for his support of the Contras, calling him an anti-communist zealot, blinded to human rights abuses, while others say he "saved Central America".[228] Daniel Ortega, Sandinistan and president of Nicaragua, said that he hoped God would forgive Reagan for his "dirty war against Nicaragua".[228]

--

After his diagnosis, letters of support from well-wishers poured into his California home,[272] but there was also speculation over how long Reagan had demonstrated symptoms of mental degeneration.[273] In her memoirs, former CBS White House correspondent Lesley Stahl recounts her final meeting with the president, in 1986: "Reagan didn't seem to know who I was.

--

In each case, we have a label that Reagan's opponents applied to either him or his policies in the article. William Jockusch (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Lack of criticism in the section on economic policy

The economic policy section needs to contain criticisms related to class warfare and over-regulation. These are common and notable criticisms of Obama's economic policy. Therefore, they should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Jockusch (talk • contribs) 15:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

No, for reasons already discussed. Drop it. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. I post a change to the article. I am told to take it to talk. I do so. And the response is "drop it." This is trying my assumption of good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Jockusch (talk • contribs) 16:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't helpful either. You came to the talk page, where your proposal doesn't seem to be gaining support based on initial comments. At that point you should let the discussion take its course, instead of continuing to edit war on the article page while making many new sections to accuse the community of things and propose the same thing again (and a bunch of other semi to nonconstructive proposals). Yes, you should drop that approach. Please listen to the community's cautions and requests here because this is heading nowhere very fast. - 16:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, the Reagan and Bush articles both include prominent left-wing criticisms, including how their policies were "labeled" by the left. I am proposing that the Obama article get the same treatment. I am pointing out a double standard. The double standard and its existence are important. They go to the very core of Wikipedia. That's why I'm not going to drop it. If Wikipedia is serious about NPOV, it needs to either (1) allow both prominent left-wing labels applied to policies of Republican Presidents and prominent right-wing labels applied to policies of Democratic Presidents, or (2) allow neither.William Jockusch (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Why would you choose a predecessor and try to make them look equally bad or good? If looking for parallels, why not his father? His wife? The leader of Russia, or China, or Iran? His rival for the law review at Harvard? Eventually, we'd be adding praise and criticism to every article on the encyclopedia to achieve some arbitrary level of positiveness from Charlie Manson to Mother Teresa, like a baker adding more flour, or water, to make a batter. The proposal to add criticism to achieve parity with the Bush (or McCain) articles has been discussed and thoroughly rejected many times. You can take a look in the article archives, but a caution, many of the editors making that proposal are doing so from now-banned fake accounts. It's not going to gain traction this time, and not really worth extended discussion. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

William Jockusch, quite frankly, I agree that the current version of this and several other articles on Obama, such as the article on his presidency and the article on his political positions, paint entirely too rosy a picture. A Martian who had previously known nothing about Obama or American politics would have no idea of just how difficult Obama's tenure in office has been and how widespread the dissatisfaction with Obama's policies has been among a certain group of Americans if the Martian were to get its information on Obama from WP.

However, you are going about trying to improve the article the wrong way. Creating and maintaining WP is a collective process that is based on consensus. If you want certain changes to be made to an article, you have to be able to persuade others that your way of looking at things is more consistent with their own views than is the current version of the article. Telling your collaborators that they are all biased and they are wrong, which is effectively what happens when you criticize an article in the way you have been going about it, is unlikely to win you very many supporters for your point of view. Instead of listing dozens of instances of bias, why not target just a few high-priority sections of the article and begin offering suggestions for specific changes to those sections. If it is likely that a change you want to propose will be particularly contentious, make the suggestion here on the Talk page first, rather than directly on the article page, and develop a consensus before posting the change to the main article page. With an article of such prominence as this, it's unlikely that your suggestion will be completely ignored (something that could happen on a Talk page that has far fewer watchers). Point out what's wrong with the current version of the article, explaining specifically why the material needs to be modified, and then propose the language you believe would be an improvement. For less-contentious changes, making the modifications directly to the article might be better accepted. Then, by taking the article section by section over time, you will probably stand a far better chance of having some of the changes you would like to see be incorporated. Make an effort to show that you view the rest of us as your collaborators rather than as foes. Dezastru (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

And be patient. There's no reason that all of the changes have to be made at once. If you are making reasonable suggestions, there's a good chance other editors who agree with you will eventually join in if you give the discussion process a chance to play out over a few days. Dezastru (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

To be fair. I thought William was met with a certain degree of "dismissal" when he originally tried to post here. From watching other (far less contentious) articles, I completely understand that even experienced editors/admins can get tired and "cranky", particularly when it comes to topics that have been previously discussed in depth (I fully admit my own guilt on this front, particularly late at night when it's past my bedtime. lol.) But I'm just pointing out that I personally didn't think he was being fully respected either when the discussion began (yes, less experienced editors may not understand all of the intricacies of editing a high profile article such as this one, but we were all new editors once.) I'm not taking sides or blaming anybody - I'm just pointing out that it's important for everyone to keep the above admonitions in mind, or else we can expect that people are naturally going to feel insulted and frustrated (even if they may be wrong on the technical aspects of an issue). --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Lack of a section on Egypt

Obama's role in Mubarak's overthrow should be included in the "foreign policy" section. Obama's attitude towards Mubarak played a significant role in his overthrow. This also had implications for Israel and Libya, both of which are covered. In addition, Egypt is a much more populous country than either Israel or Libya. It's role in the world is certainly far more significant than that of Libya. This is a further reason for the inclusion. William Jockusch (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure whether this merits inclusion. If so, it would be a few words within a sentence about the Arab Spring. Do you have any specific language to propose? - Wikidemon (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I did propose some a few days back. It was reverted several times, with a different justification each time. Rather than attempting to improve the section, other editors resorted to wholesale reversion, with a different reason each time. But if the language can be improved, I would welcome an attempt to do that. It would have reinforced my assumption of good faith, rather than destroying it. The main thing that I think needs to be included is that Obama wanted Mubarak gone. Plenty of sources say that.William Jockusch (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not see a proposal here, but in checking I see we don't even mention the Arab Spring. We would start from there, as otherwise an entire section on egypt would be undue weight. The article's editing history isn't convenient for purposes of a discussion. Please see WP:BRD, it is a preferred editing practice. Do not accuse other editors of bad faith. That only antagonizes people. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I could certainly support inclusion of the Arab Spring. I believe Tunisia should get only brief mention. Then Egypt, Libya, and Syria should be covered more extensively.William Jockusch (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Health Care Reform section should include the subsequent legal cases alleging unconstitutionality.

The Supreme Court has taken this up, and allotted several times the usual amount of oral argument. This is a major and notable development. It should therefore be included. William Jockusch (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the law was challenged in the SCt is worth a sentence at the end. If the challenge fails it's not worth noting more than that, because the case history and arguments in a failed case aren't terribly germane to a biography. If the challenge succeeds that would be noted, and why, and the section would be rewritten to concentrate on the provisions that survived, if any. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, one response, and it's positive. Does that mean there is consensus to include this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Jockusch (talk • contribs) 01:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Lack of a budget should be covered in the article

The Government's failure to pass a budget for three years in a row is a historically unprecedented development that should be covered. I understand that Congress shares the blame here. But it is remarkable that the Obama Administration has failed to push hard for the passage of a budget. William Jockusch (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

No, this is a fact of contemporary politics that is not biographically related to Obama. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Reagan, Clinton, and both Bushes managed to get budgets through a sometimes-hostile Congress. So stating that the lack of a budget is "a fact of contemporary politics" is bizarre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Jockusch (talk • contribs) 16:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

This is getting into WP:NOTAFORUM territory. The talk page isn't the place to discuss your opinion of Obama, it's for discussing specific changes to the article. Simply starting a thread by saying "This article should discuss [your opinion]" is not an acceptable way to get around this. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

This section started off with a proposal for an addition to the article. I didn't start the diversion; I merely responded to it. I am happy to return to the original subject.William Jockusch (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, the lack of a budget is not an opinion. It is a fact. William Jockusch (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

That is exists is fact; that it is important, opinion. Tarc (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

William, this is the BLP of Obama. Your initial post highlights "The Government's failure to pass a budget". Can you see the problem? HiLo48 (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

If that's the standard, then how about including the votes against Obama's proposed budgets? This would be consistent with the Bush article, which includes Congressional defeat of his immigration bill, and the Clinton article, which includes the defeat of his health care proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Jockusch (talk • contribs) 14:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

How about this: "Republicans, focused on ensuring Obama will only be a one-term President and beholden to a pledge they have made to Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform never to raise taxes, have succeeded in blocking the passage of all of the President's budget proposals." That about covers it. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The vote in the House against Obama's last budget was 0:414. The makeup of the House is 242 Republicans and 193 Democrats.William Jockusch (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

LOL. I assume you're being intentionally disingenuous to get a laugh, so there's mine. Says this conservatively-biased newspaper, "President Obama's budget was defeated 414-0 in the House late Wednesday, in a vote Republicans arranged to try to embarrass him and shelve his plan for the rest of the year." It's because of tactics like this one it makes zero sense to bang on about defeated budget votes. It's just political bullshit that's essentially meaningless. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You made a post which gave the false impression that Republicans are solely responsible for the failure to pass a budget. I produced information contradicting that impression. And now you say I am disingenuous? Are you asserting I should simply let your false assertion stand? Who is being disingenuous here? I would be happy to return to the original issue -- the failure of the Administration to get a budget is significant and should be included. William Jockusch (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It is the responsibility of Congress to make legislation, and when it comes to budgets that means the Republican-led House of Representatives. It's not a "false impression", but an irrefutable fact. The failings of Republican legislators have no place in a biography that is meant to represent the life of Barack Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting that you keep diverting the discussion away from Obama's failure. Obama proposed a budget. It was defeated 414-0. All Democrats and Republicans were in perfect agreement. I find it perplexing that you somehow blame this on the Republicans. William Jockusch (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It's getting really hard for me to assume good faith when I read comments like that. Was it not clear in the source I provided, beyond all doubt, that the vote was a Republican stunt designed to embarrass the President? Not even the Republican who brought the Amendment forward voted for it, for fuck's sake. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy to concede that the actual vote was a Republican stunt to embarrass the President. I have never suggested otherwise. But the lack of support from any member of the House for said budget was no Republican stunt. That lack of support was apparently unanimous, and would have existed whether or not the Republicans had pulled their stunt by insisting on an actual vote. Thus, the "stunt" merely made clear to everyone a reality which existed already -- namely, no one in the House wanted to pass the President's budget. And that reality is the issue. My initial suggestion was, and I quote, Lack of a budget should be covered in the article. HiLo asserted that wasn't Obama-related, which I think is a debatable assertion, but to placate him/her, I suggested changing it to the actual votes. If you have trouble with AGF because I modified my proposal to please HiLo, that's your problem, not mine. Would you help you if we return to something like the original? We could phrase it as "Obama budget proposals were not passed by Congress." Then it is Obama related, and the Republican stunt is also not mentioned, and not relevant to the statement added, as the statement would have been true regardless of whether they had pulled their stunt or not.William Jockusch (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The number of visits Adm. Mullen made to Israel is not worthy of inclusion in the article

This is simply not important enough for the article. It has nothing to do with my NPOV issues. William Jockusch (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. To keep the article at a reasonable length we'll have to pare down some of the less important and less relevant old stuff and make way for ongoing things. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Demon. Could you do the honors of taking it out? I have a feeling if I try there could be trouble.William Jockusch (talk) 03:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Bribery of Jeremiah Wright

In the ‘The Amateur’, American author Edward Klein’s book, it claims Barack Obama or a high ranking official in his campaign offered Jeremiah Wright 150,000 to stop giving speeches during the 2008 presidential campaign. If this accusation is true it would constitute bribery on the part of either Barack Obama or someone close to Barack Obama. As this is an impeachable act as outlined in Article II Section 4, this seems noteworthy enough to include in on the Barack Obama page. It could be something like. When Obama was Campaigning for president in 2008, many sources claim he offered a $150,000 bribe Jeremiah Wright because he believed Jeremiah Wright’s speeches would hurt his chance to become president. While still unconfirmed, if true, this is one of the few acts specifically outlined in the US Constitution as an impeachable act. --192.195.66.3 (talk) 11:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting sick of this bullshit. I'll copy across something I just posted on the Romney Talk page....

Why not? Because the only people contributing to such a section would be his political opponents, guaranteeing non-neutral POV. I'm not American. I cannot vote for your President. Maybe it makes me more objective. The behaviour of the opponents of Romney AND Obama here at the moment is heading down the path of destroying any encyclopaedic value these BLPs have. Grow up and treat this place as an encyclopaedia, not a campaign opportunity. HiLo48 (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

If you read elsewhere on this page, you will see that I am certainly no friend of Obama, and am arguing strongly for more criticism of him. But this simply does not fit the bill. For one thing, even if true, this would not constitute "bribery." One might argue about whether or not it is ethical. But even if not, it would not be illegal. People pay for confidentiality agreements all the time. Addionally, Klein makes all sorts of strange claims in his book. For example, he claims to have interviewed Obama's physician. Really????? His doctor gave an interview about him? Seems hard to credit. William Jockusch (talk) 14:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

To carry on with the two above, this info makes fun reading in a blog post. We're not supposed to be a blog, we're supposed to be an encyclopedia.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, no. Speculation from unreliable sources. Leave this one open a few more hours then close as a proposal that does not have consensus. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

William, you posted "I am certainly no friend of Obama, and am arguing strongly for more criticism of him." I have hardly ever seen an editor decalre a more blatant, non-neutral POV approach. You obviously don't understand what this encyclopaedia is, and what the requirements are for BLP articles. Please stop wasting your time and ours here. HiLo48 (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Woah, easy there. You took that comment in the worst possible way it could be taken. That says more about you than him. Arkon (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Bullshit. William's goal is clear. His approach doesn't belong here. This place as an encyclopaedia, not a campaign opportunity. HiLo48 (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

QED. Arkon (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

You want Wikipedia to provide campaign opportunities? If you had been paying attention, you would have noticed that I expressed very similar concerns over at the Romney article. HiLo48 (talk)

You want to continue to misrepresent peoples comments? Ease off, address the editors concerns, and ffs, go find your good faith whereever you left it. Arkon (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48 I'm on your side here, on Mitt's page, and commented on a 3rd state politician with the same type of issues. But I too think you should AGF at least until you disagree with something he's actually trying to insert. There's silly season garbage, but there can be a NPOV need at times to keep BLP's from being hagiography's. If he's here for the second, well and good, if he proves to be here for the first, then you can start ranting.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Arkon. The comment has been misrepresented and HiLo48 would do well to refactor it at the very least. That being said, even the most cursory examination of William Jockush's Wikipedia contributions makes it abundantly clear that he's engaged in politically-motivated editing. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I just think several of us have fuses that are beginning to burn short. I don't mind explaining things to editors who may not understand all of the intricacies of editing on Wikipedia and genuinely want to edit in good faith (I'm sure we've all made our fair share of mistakes when first editing Wikipedia), but once we've explained something two or three times, people begin to get tired and short tempered. I'm just not sure what else there is left to say and I'm personally getting ready to "tag out" myself for a while.--- Crakkerjakk (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I've seen enough. There's no way I can assume good faith over any contribution here from William Jockusch. He has made his intentions clear. He is not here to make Wikipedia a better GLOBAL encyclopaedia. His garbage doesn't belong here. HiLo48 (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

You may be right overall, but in this section, he's in the right, and he agrees with you in opposing inclusion. If he's proposing impropper things above, that's where I'd rant if I were you, not in a thread where he's 100% right.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Oddly Worded Sentence

"He ordered the closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp[114] was unable to persuade Congress to appropriate the required funds." This is oddly worded, I think its missing a couple words. Could someone repair it? 74.132.249.206 (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)