Talk:Barack Obama

Template:Community article probation

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)

Chart makes perfect sense in the economic block of the article. It is official statistics from BLS and it illustrates what said in the block. Other presidents have economic charts too. There already was several revisions to the chart by several editors to fit all requests, so please respect their work. Innab (talk) 04:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Innab -- you say it makes "perfect sense", but you don't say why. I have given specific reasons why I believe it does not make sense. Namely, it gives undue weight to the change in employment figures, compared with the much more notable unemployment figures. Furthermore, another user has noted that the same data are ubiquitous in White House promotional materials. In light of all of this, the graph should go. I would lastly note that from personal experience, "respect" is in short supply around here. This may be bad, but it is a fact.William Jockusch (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This is truthful, verifiable and reliable information from respected government agency ( Bureau of Labor Statistics ) which responsible for statistics and has nothing to do with promotional materials. Even if Obama used similar statistics in his campaign, that does not mean that we cannot use it. This is a primary economic indicators, so it is not surprising that different people cite this data. It is essential to this article as illustration of economic situation during various periods in his presidency. I have seen this chart in independent newspapers and on TV. Please do not promote your political agenda by removing others work. Innab (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my fundamental criticism -- it gives more emphasis to the less-notable statistic (change in employment), and less emphasis to the more-notable statistic (unemployment rate).William Jockusch (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

"More/less notable" according to whom? By what criteria are you determining that one is notable and the other is not? --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

For example, if you look at the article on the Great Depression, you see a graph of the unemployment rate right at the top of the article. There is no corresponding graph of job gains and losses. Similarly in the article on the Panic of 1893. In that case, there is a chart [no graph] of unemployment rates right at the top of the article. But job gains and losses don't show up at all. Going back still further, the article on the Panic of 1873 mentions the unemployment rate [with no chart or graph; just a rate], but has no mention of the number of jobs gained or lost. Based on this, it is clear that in non-partisan contexts, where, due to historical distance, no one has an interest in making one party or the other look better, unemployment is viewed as the more important statistic.William Jockusch (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It's still not at all clear what your objection to the graph is (other than there are different graphs on other articles). Again, on what criteria are you basing your claim that the UE Rate is notable yet the Change in Employment is not (and should be omitted)? I don't really see how the data helps or hurts any point of view. Are you worried that it doesn't make job performance under Obama look bad enough? Is that your primary objection? --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

What is wrong with looking to other articles for guidance? Invariably, supporters of this or that point of view are going to take the position that this or that graph or statistic is appropriate for an article. Looking at other articles is a neutral way to get an idea of what might be fair. If I felt the worst-looking graphs were appropriate, I would be arguing for the inclusion of the ones I'm going to link below. You haven't seen me do that, have you? [The source for this particular graph has a rather strong right-wing bias, and its attribution of 2009 to Obama alone is unfair]. And then there is this graph, which again takes a rather strong right-wing POV. Again, you haven't seen me arguing that it should be put into the article, have you? William Jockusch (talk) 13:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Greetings. I am the creator of the graph in question, which was designed to assuage prior concerns of POV and to present essential and section-pertinent information in a concise manner. Some comments pursuant to the discussion above:

1. I don't think this violates WP:UNDUE. To the contrary, this graph succinctly presents the essence of the Economic policy section and helps ensure this FA continues to be comprehensive in its coverage.
2. By displaying both the UR (a %) and the net change (an absolute #) together, readers can more informedly interpret statistics by ascertaining the employment outcomes of Obama's presidency using two different indicators of essentially the same parameter: employment.
3. I believe displaying stats from only the timeframe of Obama's presidency, as opposed to going back further in time, is the best way to adhere to WP:NPOV and WP:PERTINENCE. Going back to any point prior to Obama's presidency (about which the section is dedicated) would require a judgment call (i.e., a POV). Nevertheless, a link to unemployment rate is strategically placed in the image's caption should the reader desire to learn about the UR in more detail or in prior administrations.
4. Presenting a more detailed analysis of employment during Obama's administration (e.g., public v. private, debt, GDP, etc.) would be interesting but would then violate WP:UNDUE. This image presents the high-level information that serves as the basis of its section.

Regards —Eustress ^talk 17:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Eustress. Innab (talk) 01:49, 22 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)

No, I'm not interested in enabling agenda-driven editing. Congress makes legislation, not POTUS. This biography should reflect stuff that has happened to Barack Obama, not stuff that didn't happen. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem I have with that is that the Reagan and Bush examples I quoted above were pretty clearly "agenda driven." Furthermore, I am not aware of any requirement in Wikipedia that things that didn't happen be omitted. And, as usual with the endless diversions from the issue, I can find plenty of examples in articles about other Presidents that show that "things that didn't happen" can and do make the articles, such as In 2004, Bush commanded broad support in the Republican Party and did not encounter a primary challenge and this: Critics have alleged that the administration[158] misinformed the public and did not do enough to reduce carbon emissions and deter global warming[159] and even this: the House Republican leadership decided not to put Social Security reform on the priority list for the remainder of their 2005 legislative agenda.William Jockusch (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

How many times does this need to be said? What happens in other articles is of no concern. I couldn't give a frog's fat arse what it says in the Bush or Reagan articles - I don't edit on either of them. The editors of a given article form a consensus for what it should contain independently of other articles. It's time you dropped the tendentious behavior and accept that a significant majority of editors reject your agenda-driven proposals. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

As usual, you are diverting from the actual issue; to repeat; Lack of a budget should be covered in the article. Please cease the diversions and stick to the actual topic. Thank you.

agreed the last budget had zero votes from either party, most certainly notable. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps notable, but not in this article. If the budget had zero votes, it never went to Obama for signature...since the US Congress is responsible for passing laws (budgets included), the fact that it didn't pass one that was brought up for vote has almost nothing to do with Obama. If they passed one and he vetoed it...that would be another story. But not sending it to him for signature because they didn't pass one? Yawn.  Frank  |  talk  15:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Deficits and unsustainability belong in the article

The Clinton article mentions his surpluses multiple times. It notes that they were the first since 1969. Similarly, the Reagan article repeatedly mentions his large deficits and criticisms of them. Both the Clinton and George W. Bush articles include graphs of their respective surpluses and deficits, meaning that the emphasis is even greater than it is in this article. Since the current deficits are (in GDP terms) far worse than anything that happened under Reagan, they belong. It is further notable that the Chairman of the Federal Reserve says the deficits are "unsustainable." In light of all of this, this belongs in the article, and it's not even a close call.William Jockusch (talk) 05:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NOTNEWS. The other articles have some historical perspective. We have no idea if a comment made in February will have future notability with respect to Barack Obama. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Plenty of criticism out there about the unsustainability of the deficits. Would you prefer a more extensive discussion? I will add that neither of the policies you mention appear to apply. I am getting tired of a pattern I am seeing of posts that allege that this or that critical addition violates thus and such a Wikipedia Policy, when a closer examination makes it clear that it does not. The notability is not related to this comment or that; rather, it is the pattern of criticism that the budget deficits are unsustainable.William Jockusch (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, what happens in other articles has no bearing on what happens in this one. Also, the annual budget deficit is lower as a percentage of GDP than it was when Obama took office. And most of the annual deficit is a legacy of the Bush admin tax cuts and Bush admin wars. If you want to make proposals for this article, first make sure they are actually related to Barack Obama's life in a significant way and then make sure your assertion is backed up by a preponderance of reliable sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you arguing that the Obama article is somehow uniquely unsuited to discussion of deficits? Is NPOV defined on some kind of ad-hoc basis, where deficits get significant treatment in the Reagan/Bush/Clinton articles, each of which makes the Republican look bad or the Democrat look good, but not in the Obama article, which makes the Democrat look bad? Are Clinton's surplusses somehow uniquely relevant to his life story, such that they get a graph in the article, while Obama's deficits are irrelevant and have nothing to do with his life story, so should not get a graph? William Jockusch (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm arguing that this article is independent of the others you mention, just like all Wikipedia articles. Each article reflects the consensus of those who write it. Another thing to understand is that there is considerably more material to work with when dealing with Barack Obama than with his predecessors. There are a number of reasons for this, including (but not limited to) Obama's background/ethnicity and the increased availability of online sourcing in the last few years. Not long after Obama announced his first run for President, the sheer volume of information led to the use of summary style. This article now represents only a brief summary/overview of the many existing articles on Obama, so issues of WP:WEIGHT are extremely important. Also, it is well known that the deficits that you wish to highlight are almost entirely the result of the failed policies of the Bush administration, so it seems that making a big deal out of them in this article would represent undue weight. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course you are. That makes it easier to bias the articles. For example, clearly the Clinton surplusses are important, because they make Clinton look good. And the Obama deficits are not important, because they would make Obama look bad. So by avoiding cross-article comparisons, you can argue that each article is NPOV. If you want to keep bias in the articles, you absolutely have to avoid comparing them to one another, or it all falls apart.William Jockusch (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This is getting old. Actually, it got old a long time ago. We're here to discuss improving this article as a biography of Obama, not supposed bias, the need to add criticism, or trying to manipulate things to balance portrayals of Republicans and Democrats. If you have trouble with any other article, discuss it there. Meanwhile, please don't accuse other editors of bad faith. There doesn't seem to be any consensus for this right now and unless you come up with a substantive argument on why this is relevant and of due weight to the biography, there's not much point. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Demon, it would be easier to respect your admonition if you made similar admonitions when scJessey accused me of bad faith, as he does in numerous other locations on this page.William Jockusch (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I have not accused you of bad faith. I said it was getting "really hard to assume good faith". Why? Because of your tendentious behavior, quite frankly. Because this article doesn't reflect the evil caricature of Barack Obama painted by the right-wing echo chamber, you assume it's biased and needs to be "balanced". In fact, Wikipedians have gone to quite extraordinary lengths to make this article as neutral as possible. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

(To William Jockusch). You may want to rethink your last post here. Do you really mean to suggest that it's okay to make tit-for-tat accusations against other editors because they've accused you of something? Both of those are explicitly against the article probation conditions that governs this page. You announced and vowed, in so many words, that you will advocate to make this article look more negative to Obama, something that is not a legitimate purpose for proposing biographical article content. You're on a collision course with editing process here. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you can begin accomplishing something constructive if that is your purpose. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

speaking of old, hard to imagine a user with as much exp not knowing the most basic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section#Introductory_text which specifies the need for critism, something i am unable to find, and have mentioned before. the current article reads like a wp:peacock. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to imagine, I know. We don't add criticism just for the sake of adding criticism, in the lede or anyplace else. Please don't egg this user on. If they're going to contribute productively the approach has to change. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Why do you oppose the very guide for the lede which specifically mentions criticism? have you us believe there be none of this president, is there some other reason obscured? you answer confused me, plz state specifically which guide would prevent the criticism required by the basic lede guide. should it simply be your opinion, or the opinion of your unidentified "we", plz begone. i would also ask you hold you opinions of the laborious nature of this convo, i am equally frustrated with you, but neither rants belong here. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Guidelines follow consensus, not the other way around. Neither this article, nor most any other on Wikipedia save for some special cases like those about films, (1) add negative opinions of commentators to the lede or anywhere else merely for the sake of presenting negative views, or (2) tries to make its subject look just as negative as the articles about the subject's competitors. We, meaning the community of editors here, have already considered proposals to restructure the article this way several times and soundly rejected them. Things are added, if at all, because they are well sourced, of due weight, and relevant to the subject of the article, in this case the life, career, and legacy of a person. If you must, other than WP:CONSENSUS the relevant policies include WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:POLICY. I'm not going to debate you on this, I'm just reporting how these discussions have turned out. The editor I'm addressing is advocating vociferously and repeatedly for things that just aren't going to happen, and making accusations of bad faith in the process. Depending on how things progress, that will lead at best to people tuning out and ignoring them. That's not productive for the encyclopedia, or from their perspective either if what they're after is a change to the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The lead...summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. [4]. are you are suggesting these issues are not controversial? did the "we" decide no controversy should be included in the lede? if not, perhaps you would add one more apropos then these you and we deemed insignifigant? Darkstar1st (talk) 05:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You're quoting a style guideline. The community has decided several times, firmly, that it will not add criticism, controversies, or negative material merely for the sake of adding criticism, controversies, or negative material. If there's a significant relevant issue that otherwise merits inclusion and it happens to be positive or negative, or criticism, or praise, it's included because it's significant and relevant, not because it pushes the article in a positive or negative direction. Wikipedia's articles are written for encyclopedic value, not partisan handicapping, and the chips fall where they may. That's pretty basic. If you want to find that in the passage you're quoting, it's in there. Meanwhile, the proposer's accusing other editors of bad faith motives, demanding that this article's praise-level be adjusted, or trying to equalize Obama's image against corresponding American politicians from a rival party, are not winning or even viable arguments here. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

When writing about controversies in the lead of the biography of a living person, notable material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm[5], you repeated that we decided to not add controversy, yet you and we do not wp:own and have been overruled. i doubt anyone reading this would agree with you there have been no notable controversies associated with Obama. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It's really quite simple. None of the so-called "controversies" are notable enough to put them in the lede. Doing so would be a gross example of undue weight. So the guideline has been followed to the letter. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

So even though the economy has been the main issue during his entire presidency, we cannot mention it because it is a controversy that is not notable enough for the lead? How does that work? Arzel (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The economy is mentioned in the lede. Specifically, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act. As a result, the economy is on the right track and much of the damage done by the Bush administration has been repaired. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

If the damage has been repaired then why does the economy still suck? Unemployement is still above 8% (a number Obama claimed it would not go above), and if you add in the number of people that have simply left the workforce the unemployment is well over 10%. Unemployement for new grads is something like 30%. We have the lowest participation rate in our workforce in decades. 60% of the country think we are on the wrong track, thus none of that sounds like the right track. Stating what Obama did without stating the effect is not a very neutral presentation. Arzel (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

To address various points, the community has firmly decided to reject making the article more negative as a basis for adding criticism or controversy, or to have them here for their own sake, something made explicit several times in lengthy discussion. This decision is consistent with policy across the encyclopedia, was made explicit several times and put into the FAQs at the top of this page. If you don't believe it you can check the archives, or refer to FAQs 6 through 9. I'm not going to get into a WP:FORUM discussion over whether Obama was effective dealing with the recession and stimulus programs that he inherited, but it may well be that a characterization of the economy belongs in the lede, and the fact of the deficits deserve more prominence in the article. To get anywhere, that discussion needs to be had on terms of how significant and relevant that is to the biographical story of the President, and how that could be worded in a way that is neutral and encyclopedic in tone. On the other hand, if that material is one missile among a rapid-fire list of supposed controversies proposed just to have negative material, accompanied by accusations against the editors here, it's hardly worth discussion. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

All I am saying is that if you are going to promote what Obama has done regarding the economy, you should at least point out that the economy has not improved much and that he has been plagued by continued unemployment and historically low numbers in the workforce. It is well known and not an unimportant aspect of his presidency. Arzel (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Arzel, nobody in the Obama administration ever said employment would not go above 8%. That is a lie based on this document that discussed the possible impact of the stimulus (prior to the legislation being written). And anyone with any understanding of economics who is not a Republican trying to get their man elected will tell you the country is better off now than at the start of Obama's term. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Only a person with no understanding of how the economy works would actually believe that. The large influx of printed money into our system is going to cause huge increase in inflation. Why do you think gas prices are still high? Our money is has been devalued my a substantial amount, and if not for the current failure of the EU the true effects would be immediately noticable. It is, of course, the whole point of Krugman's economic approach. Inflate yourself out of debt. Temporarly good for the government's books, but bad for anyone with assest or our seniors on fixed incomes, which includes most people. Terrible for the very poor. It is ironic that Obama's policies will do more to destroy the middle class than anything GWB ever did, all in the name of 'Fairness'. Go ahead though, continue on with your campaign for Obama. Arzel (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The question of whether most of Obama's policies are helping or hurting things will have to wait for historians. AFAIK, it's well accepted among mainstream economists and serious commentators that the stimulus and bailout programs, which Obama inherited and continued from the Bush administration until they became politically untenable, saved the economy and a number of industries from a vastly worse crisis, at the cost of deficits that contribute to long term debt, and that the deficits and resulting debt are a long term drag on the economy that will push it over some tipping point if they continue long enough. That's all kinda basic macroeconomics, right? As President, Obama has a central role in the policy and programs, but his administration is just one piece of the machinery along with the legislature, the states, other countries, and consumers, workers, and companies that make up the economy. Dealing with the economy is one of his main job functions, and ways in which his success will be judged. So I think it's fair to say that he presided over the Great Recession, which began shortly before he took office, and a considerable expansion in the federal debts and deficits during a period of reduced (?) tax revenue and increased government spending. Whatever the pundits, political horse race handicappers, opponents and supporters, and news commentators have to say about that is spin. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree, not only deficits, but no budget should certainly be relevant to this president. Darkstar1st (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

POV Tag

I've removed the POV tag that William Jockusch added as it seems to be only him in the above discussions who feels the article violates WP:NPOV. If I'm mistaken, please undo. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

100% approve of this action. One or two editors cannot hold an article hostage when consensus is clearly against them. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm really getting sick of the shenanigans on this talk page, but I'm just chiming in to say I honestly don't see any NPOV problems on this page and I support the removal of the tag. I actually hate when editors slap all these various tags onto pages in general (even ones that obviously need improvement), but I really don't see any problems with this page touting how "wonderful" Obama is.. It just simply states the FACTS and lets the reader decide for themselves whether they agree or disagree with his opinions, policies, etc.. The assertion that because there are criticisms on other former politician's bios somehow means this page is lacking a NPOV just doesn't fly. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I stumbled across this issue and thought I’d offer my thoughts on two major points to help prevent further unnecessary conflict here.

1. NPOV tags and other I-Don't-Like-It tags may be removed whenever there is a consensus to do so. The “consensus” may be based upon a common-sense reading of pre-existing discussion threads (a lone hold-out, for instance, who slaps such a tag in the face of a clear consensus against his or her wishes). Or the removal of the tag may be done by consensus over whether the tag is unnecessary, irregardless of whether the underlying dispute has been resolved with a clear consensus. Consensus rules on Wikipedia. At all times. For all things. The only tags that may not be removed without follow-through are AfD and MfD tags; that is not applicable here.
2. Wikipedia’s “anyone can edit” principle of collaborative writing makes for a widely diverse editorial base where there is bound to be someone who believes that gold is a really bad thing. Because of that, it is not the job of mere wikipedians to don their powdered wigs and presume to debate over tea with their little fingers held in the proper position as to how history ought to be judging a sitting president. We look towards reliable sources for facts and we rely upon most-reliable mainstream sources such as The New York Times, Newsweek and The Washington Post for guidance as to how much weight should be given to the positive and negative issues and to help identify what those issues are. Since Obama hasn’t finished his presidency, there will be relatively few most-reliable sources that have undertaken all-encompassing historical examinations of his tenure.

Greg L (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a cogent and sensible analysis, and it's nice to see a subtle nuanced view of how consensus works. Alas, it is a general statement that could apply to any issue on the encyclopedia, but it omits two overriding factors specific to this article. First, this is a featured article, one of the most prominent and trafficked on the encyclopedia, and a current hot-button political matter. That means we have to be particularly wary of editing process that degrades the article or mis-serves the reader, and a POV tag definitely does that. If there's a dispute we can handle it within the Wikipedia community and not mess the experience up for the tens of thousands of readers per day. And second, this article has had trouble for years with bad faith, fake, tendentious, and off-wikipedia attacks. Over the past few years these provocations have wasted thousands and probably tens of thousands of hours time of otherwise productive editors, and caused a lot of anxiety and grief. There have been hundreds of blocked and banned accounts, and as we near the election sockpuppets are becoming a daily occurrence again. We have to be quick, forceful, and matter-of-fact in clearing out that mess and not let troublemakers deliberately hijack the process and mire us. At this point (and for a long time, really), the responsible editors around here have been fed up and aren't in a mood to be lectured by well meaning newcomers, admin boards, or arbcom about one process or another. The rules aren't a suicide pact, as they say. Both of these, arguably, fit within the consensus argument, in which case there is a strong consensus here that POV tags, notice board disputes, AN/I reports, personal accusations on the talk page, attempts to add litanies of criticism, etc., can be dismissed more or less out of hand after politely (initially) informing the editor about consensus on the matter. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your conclusion (and remedy), that I highlighted, above. This is a high-profile article that attracts more than its share of hits. Ample POV-pushing has occurred on other types of articles too, like terrorism-related ones over the last few years. In such cases, far, far too much time can be—and has been—devoted to wikidrama, which tends to feed on itself if we allow it to. When the long-standing consensus view is clear and that consensus view solidly upholds Wikipedia’s Five Pillars, we can—and should—more quickly end the disruption right here, without letting the wikidrama spread and further waste everyone’s time. Greg L (talk) 20:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting that your list of the three "most reliable sources" consists of two left-wing sources and one center-left source (the WaPo). Complaints about the left-wing bias of all three are legion in the conservative media, e.g. digitally altered photo of Michelle Bachmann on Newsweek cover. If you define "most reliable sources" to mean the "most notable left-wing sources", long-term bias is inevitable.William Jockusch (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Some perspective is needed here. What you call "left wing" is actually the center. What you call "conservative media" is actually so far to the right that if you were driving in a NASCAR race you would've hit the wall. The listed sources are perfectly fine. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

You, Scjessey, are of course quite correct. Arguments such as William’s are non-falsifiable; one could point to RSs discussing how The New York Times, Newsweek and The Washington Post are all considered to be mainstream, centrist publications, but such critics would merely declare that the RS is itself a “left-wing” organization run by effete snobs. Such nonsense-traps must be avoided here or we will just get bogged down in circuitous wikidrama that would be as meaningful as arguing which of earth’s 3000 religions is the One True Religion.©™® At some point, we declare that “common street wisdom talks” and “endless primary policy debate walks.” Greg L (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Not quite as simple as all that, but I think you just proved the counter point.JOJ ^Hutton 19:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is a simple, objective criterion. How many times has a source endorsed the Democratic candidate for President over the last 40 years? How many times the Republican?William Jockusch (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You know, I didn’t vote for Barack and could not possibly care less how much negative stuff is in our article on him. I only care that how much we have and what it is about mirrors mainstream, most-reliable sources. Mere wikipedians have no business pretending to be cigar-chewing editors at a major metropolitan newsroom barking inquiries as to the whereabouts of Jimmy Olsen and pretending that it is within our dominion to debate what major shortcomings of a president ought to be covered here or not. Your proposal sounds fair enough. So if you know the answers for The New York Times, Newsweek and The Washington Post, I’d personally be quite interested in seeing if reality matches intuition. Greg L (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I did some googling. Here is what I came up with. The NYT has endorsed the Democratic candidate in every election since 1960 . The WaPo has endorsed the Democratic candidate in every election since 1980, with the exception of 1988, when it didn't endorse anyone. [I couldn't find their endorsements before 1980 and don't have the patience to go through one election at a time.](1, 2, 3) I was unable to find any record of Newsweek Presidential endorsements. However, I did come across their latest cover, which does give a rather clear impression: Newsweek William Jockusch (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

So what? Just because the editorial board of a news organ decides to endorse a particular politician, it doesn't mean that it must be dripping with bias. These are respectable newspapers with very good reputations. Only in the echo chamber of the extreme right wing is that respectability called into question. Perhaps the NYT leans 4 or 5% to the left in the way the Wall Street Journal leans 4 or 5% to the right, but that's insignificant when it comes to reliable sources and insignificant when compared to the extremes of stuff like DailyKos on the left and RedState on the right. Please step outside that crazy bubble of Free Republic and The Blaze and get some perspective. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

William, please do not add ref tags to the Talk pages. I changed your post only to include your links within the body of your text. It really clutters up the Talk page and makes it difficult to read. Regarding your accusations of bias, the endorsements an editorial board of a journalistic reference does not necessarily reflect it's bias. There are different criteria used for endorsements and making editorial decisions. In any case, even if the editorial/opinion section of a news organization is left/right, it does not exclude the source from being a reliable source. Most cities have at least two competing news organizations that have opposite political views. The Detroit News and Detroit Free Press almost always endorse different candidates, but both are reliable sources. Same with the two big Chicago papers. We differentiate between the opinion section and the news section. So this big 'conspiracy' you are claiming is just a futility. Let's move on from this silliness. Dave Dial (talk) 14:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Well… I appear to have walked all fat, dumb & happy into that one, didn’t I?

  I wholeheartedly agree with Scjessey and Dave Dial. No matter what the issue, right-wing ideology can raise points that on first-blush seem to undermine common sense. They will complain about the “liberal left” and their agendas like “global warming” and cite how *in fact* the earth’s temperature decreased from 1998 to 2008. All rational people can do in the face of a hurricane of diversion is sigh, quote Benjamin Disraeli’s “Lies, damned lies, and statistics,” and fill up our talk pages with a boring glut of “Well… that bit is true but is highly misleading.” (You can see that the earth’s temperature really did decline across that decade using those two cherry-picked endpoints.)

  And so it is with the fact that these centrist publications have widely endorsed Democratic candidates over the years. The far-right trumpets that fact as irrefutable proof that they have patented and copyrighted all that is True and Holy®™©. The simple fact is that mainstream publications like The Washington Post, which is physically located in the midst of the political heart of the country, tries to appeal to the middle of the bell curve with its news articles and feature articles so as to not alienate either half of its readership. So too for Newsweek. Features like editorials, blogs, guest commentary, and endorsements are understood to be persuasive writing; these centrist publications are totally up-front in declaring when they are indulging in the practice.

  None of my critique should be interpreted as dumping on right-wing conservatives; left-wing kooks like Rachel Maddow are as extremely liberal as Rush Limbaugh is conservative—that’s their schtick and both are financially rewarded for taking extreme positions. However, at least Rachel has an over-the-top, rather tongue-in-cheek delivery style that suggests she isn’t trying to camouflage her material as centrist.

  It’s quite simple: for all the shortcomings that one can point to with regard to publications like Newsweek, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal—they are all the product of flawed human beings—they clearly endeavor to appeal to the middle of the bell curve and are therefore the best we wikipedians have to look towards when gauging the balance of good and bad in a president that is encyclopedically notable. Greg L (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Dave, regarding cleaning up my post, thank you. I didn't know you could do references that way. Regarding bias, I understand the distinction between "reliable" and "bias." I further understand that the NYT meets the Wikipedia definition of "reliable", and I am not contesting that. However, when you have an editor stating that for facts and we rely upon most-reliable mainstream sources such as The New York Times, Newsweek and The Washington Post for guidance as to how much weight should be given to the positive and negative issues and to help identify what those issues are., this makes arriving at NPOV to be impossible, as they have excluded sources which give fair weight to the conservative POV. If they had listed an equal proportion of conservative and liberal sources, I would have no issue. Additionally, while I do not contest that these sources meet the Wikipedia definition of "reliable", I would strongly contest the assertion of most reliable. Just looking at Newsweek, in addition to the digital alteration of Michelle Bachmann, we have the false "Koran in a toilet" article that led to riots in which a bunch of people were killed.William Jockusch (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Reality has a well-known liberal bias. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Since who has endorsed what isn't a criteria of a reliable source in this project, your tangent regarding this topic is largely irrelevant to Obama's Wikipedia article. As your justification of POV tag's placement has garnered no support over several days of discussion, I believe it is time to move on. Tarc (talk) 13:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Two(?) initiatives bearing his name.

In the "U.S. Senator: 2005–2008" section, under "Legislation", the article says "He introduced two initiatives that bore his name", then lists only one with his name in it. Has something got lost in some editing? HiLo48 (talk) 22:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Judicial appointments

Hi,

Many of the previous presidens have a section entitled 'judicial appointments'. There is no such section for president Obama. He ofcourse appointed 2 Supreme Court Justices already, for example. Robin.lemstra (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Check out List of federal judges appointed by Barack Obama. Safiel (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)