Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 76

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 70 Archive 74 Archive 75 Archive 76 Archive 77 Archive 78 Archive 80


Edit request on 8 September 2012

OK, How is this: Under the "Economics" section, please remove the word "unprecedented" from the following sentence: "By passing the legislation, Congress was able to prevent an unprecedented U.S. government default on its obligations."1234 Does this work? Meshiah (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for providing the sources.--JayJasper (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


Hi. There's a discussion of the redirects Maobama and Chairman Maobama at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 September 11#Maobama, if anyone is interested. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Excessive purge rate

I think discussions on this page should be purged less often. (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Unless it's blatant trolling or vandalism, all threads are preserved in the talk page archive. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hussein is missing

Why is "Hussein" missing from The President's name in this article's title?

The articles on John Wilks Booth is not titled "John Booth", and the article on Lee Harvey Oswald is not titled "John Oswald".

Please explain...? (talk) 11:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

As a Muslim I think it would be really cool to have the pres.'s full name in the article's title - esp. if a serial killer can have his name in the title!!! Please consider adding Hussein to the title. Hussein was only an advocate of peace. Please don't let domestic political viewpoints hinder the accuracy of this article!! Axatax (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Because most people call him Barack Obama. The Ronald Reagan article isn't titled "Ronald Wilson Reagan." Acroterion (talk) 12:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
It's the second word in the prose and in the infobox. Anyone who reads the article will figure out what his middle name is. Hot Stop (Edits) 12:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
The article name itself and the top of the infobox generally reflect the colloquial rather than the legal name. That is why e.g. Newt's article is at Newt Gingrich, while Newton Gingrich is a redirect to that. Tarc (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I strongly agree that Hussein should be in the article title as it we have never had another President with a name even remotely similar to Hussein. (talk) 13:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, that's not going to happen, any more than we would move Calvin Coolidge to John Calvin Coolidge, Jr.. Tarc (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
That´s not sufficient reason not to follow WP:NAME. Maybe he should consider changing his name to James, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Got away from the subject raised and devolved into a pissing match. If there are concerns about editor behavior or content disputes, dispute resolution or WP:ANI is thataway.Tarc (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Comment It was determined a while back ago by a small minority of editors that anything negative or perceived ti be negative about Obama, must be kept out of the article. And anyone who disagrees with that, must be a sock puppet of a banned user. JOJ Hutton 14:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
    How many pieces of silver will I need to cross your bridge? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
    I'm not the one setting the price for the privilege to edit here, so you tell me what the going rate is. In fact you just solidified my comment with evidence, because anybody who even attempts to bring up good faith questions are automatically accused of either trolling or are accused of being a sock puppet of a banned user. JOJ Hutton 17:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
    Jojhutton, The editors who brought up this question above were not accused of anything. Could you point to the good faith question raised by you in this section? What I see from you is an attack on the hard-working editors of this article who have discussed this matter over time and where consensus has long been clear on this particular matter - well-supported by policy and employed across the encyclopedia without regard to politics or anything else. Many of the people who bring this up have been shown to, indeed, be sockpuppets of one or another banned user, banned for very good reasons. Many others are just here to disrupt. Those editors are often called out as such. Rather than raising any point or argument that is relevant to how we name articles, your comment seems to fall in the second category, absent any evidence of the first. Tvoz/talk 18:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
    Indeed. The original poster,, was answered fairly IMO. The other IP,, is a troublemaker from yesterday (see here who has already been blocked for a week for trolling. Tarc (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
    This obviously goes well beyond a single comment on a single thread. Its four years of silently watching every single person who has the audacity to ever come here and question the neutrality of this article get labeled a sock of some banned user. All I can see is that the best way to keep a "consensus" is to continually disregard any comment as trolling, and to label any editor a sock puppet.JOJ Hutton 19:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
As someone not from the US, even I think it would be ridiculous to add a middle name to his page title. About as ridiculous as demanding a rename to "Willard Mitt Romney" as a page title. (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree on the content issue. Also agree with Jojhutton though regarding editor conduct around here; the behaviour of the regular coterie here is nothing short of a disgrace. Tvoz, "hard-working editors of this article"; are you kidding? The update tag I placed in July is still there in September. This, Tvoz, is not a sign of hard-working editors. The article is a joke, and it disgraces our Featured Article system that it still displays the little star. --John (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

@ The answer is this: Wikipedia articles are titled after the most common name in English. Most people know him as "Barack Obama". People rarely use his middle name. In the case of John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald, people rarely exclude their middle name. So, basically, it's whatever the most common name is in English. For more information about how Wikipedia titles their articles, please see WP:COMMONNAME. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


A user has reverted the following, which I added to first days:

An analysis by Bloomberg News indicates that his administration has failed to follow the requirements of the Act.[1] White House spokesman Jay Carney defended the President's record, stating that the Administration has shown "unprecedented transparency."[2]

Now I can agree that it doesn't really fit into first days. The problem here is that by including Obama's initial transparency order, without including the follow-on, the article gives a misleading impression. How can we handle that? William Jockusch (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The text notes that Obama changed [the] procedures to promote disclosure, which is correct and still absolutely valid. That is not at all misleading. "Promoting disclosure" is not the same as guaranteeing it. I agree with you that the effect of these changed procedures as been far from satisfactory; nevertheless, that really doesn't have anything to do with the action Obama took in his first days in office. I would suggest that an exploration of the effectiveness of the policy in this particular article would be giving the matter undue weight. I believe your addition is better suited to Presidency of Barack Obama where it can be given the treatment it deserves. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
The weight of his taking the action is linked to the weight of the effectiveness of the action. If Obama promised and enacted transparency measures but they did little good, then likely the entire exercise is of little importance / weight. Conversely, if this has enough weight to cover we should probably mention at least in passing a consensus (or whatever you would call it) among analysts that the result differed from expectations. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with your point of view. While action and consequence are linked, the section in question is meant to document just the action part. And we don't know the longterm effectiveness of the changed procedures yet. My sense is that it should either be left as it is, or removed completely in favor of a fuller explanation at Presidency of Barack Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with Scjessey here. By only including the positive promises he made but not including referenced coverage of how the implementation of the promises went, we risk letting the article look like a puff-piece. --John (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I think you're agreeing with both of us. The overlap in our positions is that it's acceptable to remove the reference to his enacting transparency legislation - his because including its lack of effectiveness would be undue, mine because it would be an incomplete picture, and yours because it would be puffy. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
      • You're right, on reflection I agree with you both. Tell the whole story here, or remove it completely. --John (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
        • I've removed the sentence clause in question. There's an entire section on transparency at Presidency of Barack Obama where William's "rebuttal" can be incorporated, although the specific language will probably need to be reworked. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
          • OK, added it to the appropriate place in the Presidency article. William Jockusch (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
            • Looks good. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Racial accuracy

Perennial request, answered adequately both here and in the FAQ above. Move along, please. Tarc (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Mr. Obama is not the first Black President. He is the first Mulatto/Mixed/BiRacial President, perhaps even more significant. To designate him otherwise is to ignore and obscure the significant contributions of his mother and his mother's family. Mr. Obama's father is remembered by the President for the single month they spent together in December 1971, when the President was 10 years old. [3] (talk) 04:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see FAQ#Q2.--JayJasper (talk) 04:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
That FAQ answer is complete and utter nonsense. To say that "he is often called black by the media, so he is black" is a simple appeal to popularity- argumentum ad populum, a logical fallacy. Should we start calling tortoises turtles because most people who see a tortoise would call it one, completely ignoring that there is a marked difference between the words in that tortoises live on land? -- (talk) 05:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, Wikipedia says he's black. And why should it matter anyway? To me, he's human. And you're wrong about turtles too, or at least should not be displaying so much certainty. Have a look at Turtle#Turtle, tortoise, or terrapin. HiLo48 (talk) 05:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
And yet another fallacy present, this time you appeal to Wikipedia's authority. What's worse is that you completely disregard me pointing out the previous fallacy by desperately grasping at the minutiae of my nonspecific example. The point was that a tortoise is not a turtle, but many dullards (you are a prime example) will call it one anyway. When confronted with the fact that you're wrong, you'll simply say "well everyone else calls it a turtle." If someone with sense insofar as they are capable of understanding that I am simply pointing out a fallacious decision by Wikipedia wants to respond instead of HiLo, please do so.-- (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
LOL HiLo48 (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Obama is mixed race but self identifies as Black or African American. Put his picture up and cover up his eyes so you can't tell it is the President and most people will also say that the photo is that of a Black man. Wawaxi (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Election not covered and should be

Before every election, Obama has coverage, as does other politicians' articles. Except there is no coverage about Obama's state senate. I will fix that. There is a little negative to it but only because it is fact. There should not be a whitewash of negative fact as Wikipedia is not a pro-Obama campaign office, but overly negative for the sake of attacking the man is also not right either.

Basically, CNN, the Chicago Tribune, Wall Street Journal and New Yorker agree that Obama got all challengers kicked off the ballot so he would be unopposed. I did not look up Fox News because they suck. Disclaimer: I am neutral, not an American, and editing from a foreign oountry.Wawaxi (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed the following section added by Wawaxi (talk | contribs):

State Senate campaign
Obama ran against several challengers for the Democratic primary, including incumbent Alice Palmer. However, he successfully challenged all of his opponents and had them removed from the ballot by questioning the validity of petitions to have them on the ballot. As a result, he was able to run unopposed. Some news organizstions refered to this strategy as "Chicago politics".[49][50][51]

It was undue weight and not a WP:NPOV summary of Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama#State elections or Illinois Senate elections of Barack Obama. Newross (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Agree and Disagree. The last sentence about "Chicago politics" is potential POV and should not be there. Not to have anything at all is potential POV because it is customary to have something about the election and reputable sources, such as CNN, Chicago Tribune, etc. are used. Auchansa (talk) 05:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
This is a summary style article that is essentially reduced to the most key points of Barack Obama's life. With so much material to choose from, this article represents only a summary of the total body of information on the man that is available on Wikipedia. The specifics of the election that this section refers to are covered extensively in Illinois Senate elections of Barack Obama because covering them here would be undue weight. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight? Seems like complete omission of the election. I can see why some may not want any mention because it is negative info. Maybe it can be written in the best possible light but no mention sounds fishy. Axelrod, what do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennifer 1991 (talkcontribs) 06:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

It's undue weight because that one aspect of that one particular election had little to no impact on his life. This is a bio article, so only significant facts get covered while greater detail exists in sub articles. As the person above pointed out this incident is already covered in another article; why is it so important to cover it here in this article? That's what I don't understand about some arguments for including minor details here; people act like if it is not in this article then it is completely omitted and here again it is not omitted at all, just covered in a different article.Jdlund (talk) 01:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

As for the wikipedia article, there is an election section in all of his races except this one. it is clear that phony excuses are being made. It is possible to write a less negative bent but partisans will have not of that.....please cooperate for sake of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennifer 1991 (talkcontribs) 17:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't appreciate you presuming either the motives for my response or my politics. As it is, you are wrong on both counts. It is covered fully in a sub article, so the information is there and it's not as though it is somehow being omitted from Wikipedia. This article is a bio and there will be things for which there simply isn't room or significant justification for including every little anecdote, even if one feels totally super important to you.
I get that you think it is important; I get that you think it's fraud or dirty politics or what have you and that the only reason a person like myself wouldn't want it in is because I want to pretend it doesn't exit (which again is silly given that it is already on a Wikpedia article). I have no desire or incentive to keep "negative material" out. Consider for a moment how this one aspect of this one State election has received almost no attention from the media or from political opponents. Consider the fact that it has never had any consequence on his life, his political career or was ever the basis of a formal allegation of wrongdoing. His campaign challenged the candidate petitions filed by his opponents, which turned out to be inadequate due to not having enough valid signatures and they dropped out of that race. what? I have the same reaction to people who want to put into Mitt Romney's article that he has offshore accounts. So what? Unless you want the information in there for some vague, flimsy suggestion of wrongdoing (which is not Wikipedia's purpose) it's just irrelevant trivia. Just consider for a moment that what seems "clear" to you is not necessarily the case to everyone else and that just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they have some sinister motive. Ignore for a moment what you think this anecdote implies and give a cogent argument for why this one incident had enough, well covered, impact on the course of Obama's life or political career that it needs to be in the bio article rather than just being where it currently is.Jdlund (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

CORRECTION Jennifer1991: Obama is tied in most swing states and this election is very close. Wikipedia is not some campaigning tool, so take that elsewhere please. (talk) 00:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure that your message is to the same right person because Jennifer1991 was talking about an old Senate campaign and never mentioned swing states?-- (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Unemployment up

See: "Unemployment inched up to 7.9% in September 2012." It should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

No. We're not going to keep a month-by-month running total of unemployment figures in this article. The economic policy section is impenetrable enough as it is. Although I would like to see the horrible unemployment paragraph revamped: currently, it's an opaque mess of redundant figures that stops at 2010, for some reason. A concise summary of how unemployment numbers progressed during Obama's first term (and why) would be far preferable, I think. --Ashenai (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I also agree not to include it at this time since this is a biography on Obama and I don't think that we need to mention every change that happens in monthly unemployment numbers nor would I recommend and addition if it goes back to 7.8 next month. The only way I can see this particular increase being necessary to add to this article would be if this pushes a large number of undecided votes to Romney and there are reliable sources directly attributing this O.1% increase as as significant factor in Obama's loss. Taking a closer look the Article does not mention the slight drop last month so I see even less reason to mention this raise.-- (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Featured Article Review /// Feeback

Is the feedback being utilized to improve the article?

I believe it is in die need for Featured Article Review which the consensus is to begin on November 6, 2012 – Election Day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Um... sure we'll get right on that because you say so. I love it when POV warriors come here to demand that editors come and remove the "POV-slant" that they see. That somehow because they don't like what they read or that it doesn't include information they want to read/favor, that somehow the article is slanted, written by Obama supporters, that Wikipedia only shows the good things, etc. Sometimes the facts are just that, the facts. Just because you don't like them or disagree with them, doesn't make them wrong. If Obama did something seriously wrong, then it is either in the article or will be in the article with a large consensus of editors. However, most things amount to: "I don't like this guy so everything he does is somehow wrong" argument/criticism. Things along those lines have no place in the article. Finally, keep in mind that the Feedback mechanism is there to voice your opinion. The editors are under no obligation to heed it or pay any attention to it if they choose not to. Hint: instead of make vague suggestions of a FAR or saying the article is unbalanced, POV-slanted, etc why not try a productive discussion where you actually mention something specific in the article, or should be added to the article. Then let the discussion take its course and abide by its outcome. That is how things normally work. (Just saying!) (talk) 10:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I did not make that statement. You are presumptuous. Please search the archives for featured article to see the consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
The article just came off a FAR, less than two weeks ago. Also, what consensus are you referring to? --Ashenai (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I could not participate. Thank you for the notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe that there was a consensus to do a FAR on the 6th. There was some discussion about waiting until the election was over since there was some concern that doing a FAR review deep into a election cycle could be problematic but I see nothing in that discussion to indicate a consensus that the next FAR should start exactly one day after the election was over.-- (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I found the problem==the bot prematurely closed the FAR — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The FAR was open for 3 months, and was closed by User:Nikkimaria, not a bot. --Ashenai (talk) 06:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Weed and federal law broking accusations

This article is lacking info about possible federal felony. This is not a part of the Romney campaign(I won't give my vote to anyone racing today), but every article in Wikipedia, about USA citizen(and especially because of USA privacy law), who maybe probably broke law have this type of info. Why public person, especially politic shouldn't have this?

As written above Maraniss, who won a Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting in 1993, claims that Obama used mariljuana in high school(source). Mr Obama never said that this is false(e.g. but not only'On Bill Clinton's personal triangulation that he had tried marijuana but "didn't inhale," Obama said smiling in 2006, "That was the point, wasn't it?"'), and probably this may be a felony, which of course he currently have law protection because of current seat. Especially there is no difference between nowadays and decades ago, because this law is more than 75 years old(source).

You can say of course that this is somewhere in the article, but possible violation of federal law should be, like in other biography articles written under other paragraph, also with addition that no criminal charges was sued by federal officers because of the "over-the law shield of the highest politics seat". E.g. protected are candidates and winning people, and thing emerged on the surface during successful campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Smoking marijuana is not a felony, but that aside I'll attempt a response. First of all, he has on many occassions openly admitted smoking marijuana in his youth so there's no need to go into that whole bit about what some award winning writer said. His admission and this "crime" had no real impact on his life. It's just a personal anecodote of his past that he's shared but it's no where near significant enough to warrant a specific mention on his bio page. It's not a unique factoid that is noteworthy on its own and again, there's been no impact to his life for admitting this particular past action. It's not as though he was arrested or that there was any political impact for admitting he smoked pot when he was younger. So no, there's absolutely no point in including a trivial detail such as that.Jdlund (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
The noteworthy aspect may be that he is the first President to openly state that he smoked pot in his younger days. (Have all the others told us the truth?) It's also notable that American society has changed enough for it to be OK for a President to say that. HiLo48 (talk) 03:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
William Henry Harrison was a victim of reefer madness. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:17, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
He admitted cocaine use too. His use of drugs is already in the article. Hot Stop (Edits) 04:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Religion type

Instead of just saying Obama is a 'Christian', something that I think every US president, Vice President would say they were, I have included his 'brand' of Christianity, making it consistent with every other article about a US president. Rodchen (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

If you check the talk page archives, you'll see that this has actually been extensively discussed. The issue is that Obama left the United Church of Christ and that, in the time since, no RS specifying a current denomination has been presented. Thus, "Christian" is as precise as we can currently get. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
So why doesn't it say that? It does for Reagan and Bush II. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, seeing no objection, that is what I will do. Rodchen (talk) 04:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't figure out how to do it without making it 'red' in color. When I figure it out, I will make the change. Saying 'United Church of Christ, later Unaffiliate Christian' seems the most accurate. Other comments? Rodchen (talk) 04:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

That's original research (WP:OR), aka an editor's opinion. Wikipedia normally uses reliable sources, particularly for things like a person's religion. Johnuniq (talk) 06:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
How is that OR? There's source for United Church of Christ (no?) and there's a source for now Christianity (no?). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, because it's delving into the mind of Obama without an actual statement from the subject. This has been discussed before, on several occasions. The decision has been to list his religion as "Christian" until he makes some sort of statement on his beliefs after leaving the UCC. Rodchen continually changing it is disruptive. Feigning consensus is familiar. In any case, I don't know if the UCC is a "religion", per se. Aren't they a "Protestant" church? Dave Dial (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
You're talking past the point: was he a member of UCC? Yes. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
There is a long-established consensus (see archive, multiple discussions) to just leave it as "Christian". Obama has been seen attending the churches of many different flavors of Christianity (sources are available for these), so there is no specific denomination anymore. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
You're missing the point as well: If it only matters what one is now, why do other presidents have past denominations in the infobox? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Who gives a fuck what goes on in other articles? We follow policies, guidelines, references and consensus here, not what goes on in other articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Hey Scjessey, other stuff does exist. Frankly, if there is one or more really good reference(s) saying he is "unaffiliated", I don't see the harm in saying something like "UCC later Unaffiliated". On the other hand, these religious categorization arguments get so ridiculous and muddy. Sticking with generic "Christian" to avoid debate might be wise.
Guess that opinion makes me sorta neutral...... NickCT (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Here is what Wikipedia says about other recent Presidents. I haven't tried to copy the formatting; just the content:
George W Bush: Religion Episcopal (Before 1977) United Methodism (1977–present)
Bill Clinton: Religion Baptist
George H. W. Bush: Religion Episcopal
Ronald Reagan: Religion Disciples of Christ later Presbyterian
Jimmy Carter: Religion Baptist William Jockusch (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how any of that means anything. Articles are independent, William. Obama describes himself as a "Christian". It says that in the text and it is well sourced. Those other articles clearly misuse the "religion" infobox field by showing denominations instead. "Baptist" isn't a religion, for example. It's a denomination. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I believe precedent is helpful in determining what is the NPOV way to handle an issue. William Jockusch (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
What has NPOV got to do with it? Are you saying that "Christian" isn't neutral? I'm suddenly extremely suspicious of the motives for changing this. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I haven't really followed this. Consistency in dealing with a category or descriptor is important, that's why we have a style guideline. A mistake in 4 non-featured articles doesn't justify making the same mistake in a featured article. But then again, local consensus shouldn't turn each article into a complete data silo. Off the top of my head, Christianity is a religion, but being a member of a given church denomination isn't a deep religious issue for most, particularly in America where membership is fluid and there aren't usually significant doctrinal differences - it reminds me of the old joke: "Church preference? Red brick with white steeple". I understand ScJessey's point, that the UC o' C thing relates to the whole Jeremiah Wright mess. That's why he quit for sure. Plus, if someone used to be a member of UCC and now declines to state their denomination, I think we're stretching things to use their last church. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Going back further --
Gerald Ford Religion Episcopal
Richard Nixon Religion Quaker
L.B. Johnson Religion Disciples of Christ
JFK Religion Roman Catholicism
Dwight Eisenhower Religion Presbyterianism William Jockusch (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Rodchen, you've been blocked before for edit warring. I suggest you stop, especially since this article is under single-edit probation. (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
A comment on the way Rodchen is being treated here. For this edit, he has been accused of OR, and someone supporting him was answered with the F-bomb. Such treatment is uncalled-for and creates a poor atmosphere on Wikipedia.William Jockusch (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
This is the Internet/Wikipedia, not kindergarten. I will use "fuck" for emphasis whenever I fucking well please. Sorry if you find that offensive, but there's no policy or guideline that outlaws it. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
No one was "accused of OR". Instead, it was (briefly) explained that the comment "Saying 'United Church of Christ, later Unaffiliate Christian' seems the most accurate" was an editor's opinion, and a reliable source would be needed to describe someone's religion. Johnuniq (talk) 03:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The last we know, he was United Church of Christ and reliable sources should list this. However, if we want to do OR (original research), we can put "United Church of Christ (2008 citation)". Actually, CNN did an article yesterday about Obama possibly moving closer to Christianity. The CNN article speculated that this could be because he's had more contact with mainstream pastors in recent years. Rev. Wright was a special and politically connected Chicago pastor and had slightly different theology. Auchansa (talk) 05:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

That's all irrelevant. The infobox says "religion", and Obama's religion is "Christianity". The specifics of denomination are discussed in the body of the article, but they are not for the infobox. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree with SCjessy here...I understand it's been done differently for some presidents, but that doesn't rise to the level of a rule or precedent of any weight for me. Even among denominations there are vast differences and nuances. Even if you specify "Baptist" there is a lot of nuance between a small town baptist in upstate NY, and a megachurch baptist from Houston. To avoid pigeon-holing and serve the intent of the article (a high level biography) and especially the infobox (a quick reference), we do best by erring on the side of generality. Religion = Christian. (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm slightly baffled by this argument, but I have to agree with one of the individuals above "United Church of Christ" is not a self contained religion, it's simply a denomination of Christianity. The religion is Christianity, that seems basic and obvious to me. I could see distinguishing between Catholic and Protestant as that is more than just a denominational distinction, but beyond that why is it even remotely important to include the name of the church he goes to? Not to mention here it's not clear what denomination he even belongs to and no formerly belonging to an organization doesn't mean he should still be listed as belonging to them. Bottom line Christianity is the religion, everything else is unimportant and, in this case, inaccurate.Jdlund (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Yep. HiLo48 (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Obama attended Trinity United Church of Christ for over 10 years until 2008. United Church of Christ is a Protestant church. In this Gallop study, 'Religiousness a Key Factor for Romney and Obama Support', they refer to him as a 'Protestant Christian.' [[1]] IP75 (talk) 12:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Include latest poll?

Gallup, 5 days ago 51% Romney 46% Obama

Should there be a section to provide this information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you please link to this poll? I am not aware of any major polls that had Romney with a 5% national lead.-- (talk) 04:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I've taken a closer look and the 51-46 percent figure only applies to people who already cast ballots (early voters). It also mentions that the results are 49-49 when people who have not yet casted are counted. The article covering this specifically states the the early voting does not appear to be swaying the election to either candidate. At best this can only be used say that Romney has a slight advantage with early voters and I don't think that is important enough to be mentioned here. A link is here [[2]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
This is not an election blog. Accuracy and interpretation issues aside, polls with a shelf life measured in days do not belong in biography articles. --Ashenai (talk) 06:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Gallup does have Romney leading Obama by that amount, but I agree with the people above that this is not an election article. Whatever the outcome of the election may be it will all be printed on the article for the 2012 US presidential election and on the articles for both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, regardless of whoever ends up winning. Polls leading up to the election will also be printed after the election is over. (talk) 07:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree Eu sou portugues 454 (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Strong Oppose. - Did you also want to include the polls where Obama was leading? What about Nate Silver's prediction that Obama has a 75% chance of re-election, should we also include that datum? This does not belong in the article. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
There are many polls. The only one that matters, and should be included in this article, will occur on November 6. SMP0328. (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Yep. I see no encyclopaedic value in including polls. HiLo48 (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Also CNN just recently had a poll which has the two men tied at 49%. These polls seem to be shifting based on different samples and margins of error etc meaning that no single poll should be used. At most an overall trend could be used.-- (talk) 03:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


Any particular reason why Romney's name is mentioned but once in the article, as part of a source name? I would change the article, but was wondering if campaign matter had been moved to respective pages. dci | TALK 03:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I just checked and completely agree with you. To not mention Romney even once in the body of the article itself makes absolutely zero sense. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 03:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Added a mention in the section on the 2012 campaign. Much more information is in the associated articles that are prominently linked at the start of the section. Dezastru (talk) 05:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

5xx errors

Did people experience frequent 5xx errors (e.g. HTTP 504) on this article today? 2012 election day error 500s.png Nemo 07:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Obama image

  • I am aware that there are many good images for Barack Obama, including the official portrait. Has anyone written a script that randomly selects one every time a page loads? Thanks! --Marianian(talk) 16:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
    • To my knowledge, Wikipedia doesn't generate random photos of a subject every time the subject's article loads. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 18:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Obama's parents

Why isn't Obama's real fathers & mothers name and backgrounds mentioned with this information? What is there to hide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

That information is included in the "Early life and career" section of this article. Also see Family of Barack Obama, as well as Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Obama, Sr..--JayJasper (talk) 04:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

It say's Obama is the first African-American president but isn't that a bit incorrect or lacking. He is the first bi-racial president? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

See the section at the top headed "Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)". Look at question 2. HiLo48 (talk) 06:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Obama won. Some one fix.

Obama won the election. An administrator should update this.

Already done --Webclient101talk 04:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

He has not officially won yet. He very likely will, but an encyclopedia should wait until it is official, not based on projections. At least wait until the concession speech. 72Dino (talk) 05:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
can someone softlock this to prevent nonsense please?

Magma armor0 (talk) 05:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Even Fox News called it. It's over. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 05:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
The projections of news stations, even Fox, does not make it official for an encyclopedia. What is the rush? 72Dino (talk) 05:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Um, yea, it kinda does. When dozens of reliable sources call the race, then that's all that is necessary. Romney is giving his concession speech at this very minute as well. Tarc (talk) 05:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
It's a moot point now, but projections are still not official. It can be stated that XYZ has projected Obama as the next president (as long as there's no conflict with WP:CRYSTAL, but I think an encyclopedia should show official results instead of this rush to update WP with unofficial projections. 72Dino (talk) 06:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Why is there always a rush to have Wikipedia up to date minute-by-minute. There are already places on the internet for that sort of thing e.g. news websites (talk) 06:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
(ec x42) Legally speaking, of course, no one wins in any meaningful way until December 17, but you know.... Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 06:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

He just did — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Who just did what? HiLo48 (talk) 06:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Referring presumably to Romney, who had just given the concession speech. (I would have said to give him time -- apparently he had to write it on the fly.) - Tenebris 18:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Obama has not won a second Presidential term. He has won more than the 270 delegates to electoral college, necessary to be elected to a second term. Saying he has won a second term is factually false, and misrepresents the US electoral system. When the electoral college meets and votes, then presumably Obama will be elected to a second term, but not before RevDan (talk) 03:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Obama hasn't been elected for the second term!

WP:RS. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

From the current article: "on November 6, 2012, he defeated Republican nominee Mitt Romney to win a second term" and "On November 6, 2012, Obama was elected to a second term as president."

From President of the United States: "the president is indirectly elected by the people through the Electoral College to a four-year term". So what has Obama won? Only electors in the Electoral College (United States), from the same article "no elector is required by federal law to honor a pledge". This is not only a book example that couldn't happen in real life as there were many Faithless electors in the past. To sum up I suggest to remove the above two sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It is very unlikely that Obama's election will not be recognized. --Doyouevenlift84 (talk) 13:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You are probably right, but Wikipedia is still an encyclopedia, and not a crystal ball. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
We can write that according to reliable news sources, Obama is projected to win. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, projected to win the electoral votes, but not the second term. That will decide the electoral college. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
When reliable sources report that a majority of electors have broken precedent and chosen an alternative to Obama, then those two sentences can be changed. Until then, our responsibility is to report what reliable sources have said about this election, which is that Obama has been elected to a second term. Dezastru (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
The quoted source does not say that he won a second term, only that he is projected to win the election. I am revising the text to state that he has won the delegates needed, to be elected to a second term ( which is more accurate and sufficiently states obama's victory). RevDan (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Which quoted source are you quoting? The Washington Post's article title is "Obama wins a second term as U.S. president." The first line of that article reads, "Barack Obama was elected to a second presidential term Tuesday, defeating Republican Mitt Romney by reassembling the political coalition that boosted him to victory four years ago, and by remaking himself from a hopeful uniter into a determined fighter for middle-class interests." The USA Today article's title, in its current incarnation, is "In winning second term, Obama has work cut out for him." The first line of that article reads, "President Obama won re-election in the USA's costliest and perhaps most bitterly contested national campaign in recent memory." Dezastru (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
I should have said referenced, not quoted.The source referenced on that statement is "Obama projected to win Ohio, will win re-election". CBS News. November 6, 2012. Retrieved November 6, 2012.

RevDan (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, you might have noticed that the Wikipedia front page says, at the top of the in the news section, "Barack Obama (pictured) is re-elected President of the United States." Dezastru (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

To be super-precise, he won the vote (apparently) but the results have not been ratified by the electoral college (something that is not an election). Right? - Wikidemon (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

(resp to IP)The electors don't vote until December 17, 2012 & the results won't be known until January 6, 2013. It's highly likely, that the 303 (or 332) electors pledged to Obama & Biden, will vote for Obama & Biden. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
We shouldn't be hypertechnical. The Electoral College officially elects the President and Vice President, but the individual Electors are mere functionaries. All of the Electors pledged to vote for President Obama will do so. So for all intents and purposes President Obama has been reelected. SMP0328. (talk) 19:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
This isn't being hyper technical, it is being factual. Obscuring the electoral process, does not bring any more clarity or readability to the article than stating the facts as they really are. Maybe someone who believes we have direct elections, might learn it isn't so. 03:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevDan (talkcontribs)

SMP and Dezastru have it right. We had the same conversation four years ago about whether to call him "President-elect" or "presumptive President-elect" or "President-designate" between the election and the Electoral College meeting, and our conclusion, as I recall, was to go with standard, logical Wikipedia practice and policy, which is to say: follow the sources, not anyone's original research about the mechanics of the Electoral College process. As it was then, the case now is that all reliable sources say he has been re-elected, the technicality of getting through the Electoral College notwithstanding. This is s silly dispute, and not helpful to the improvement and maintenance of this article. The purpose of this article is to give our readers a biography of the man and his career, not to teach them about the vagaries and terminology of a fairly obscure process, about which they can read at the appropriate article. All sources say he was re-elected - he is already President, so "President-elect" would be confusing and unnecessary. He will be President until January 20 at which time he will be sworn in again as President in a seamless manner. There is no point in this. Tvoz/talk 07:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Edit request on 8 November 2012

Please add specific date of November 6, 2012 instead of just November, 2012 for The President's re-election. Please change the above mentioned content Ritviksharda (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is that for an article introduction, specific date details need not be mentioned. And in 20 or 30 years, people will find it insignificant to be listing 'May' of 'year' Barack did something or 'March' of 'year' Barack did something else; the months are irrelevant to people once enough time has passed, usually around a year.--ɱ 22:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Not done. There is only one presidential election in the United States in November 2012. No reason to add this to the article. gwickwire | Leave a message 23:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Hurricane Sandy It should be covered how Obama as a president handle the causes of this major hurricane, what is currently the second costliest hurricane in US history. It looks like not very satisfactory, add to the article "In addition to the generators, a food services truck dropped off hundreds of cases of water, sparking angered responses from hurricane victims." One victim from Coney Island said that: "People have no food, no water, nothing.". Not speaking about the 113 deaths in USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

NY Post is a highly biased source... and causes of this hurricane? Water on trucks didn't cause this hurricane. We are far too early in the recovery to start judging yet. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 12:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Wait, so a food services truck "dropped off hundreds of cases of water" - and this angered the victims, who claim to have no water or food? Huh? Psychonavigation (talk) 02:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Austin, TX rally photo's caption should say 2007 instead of 2006.

Date is wrong on photo. Unable to fix myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! -- MSTR (Chat Me!) 11:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Trinity United Church of Christ

I revised two inaccurate Trinity United Church of Christ sentences in the "Religious views" subsection:


Obama was baptized at the Trinity United Church of Christ in 1988, and was an active member there for two decades.[323]
He resigned from Trinity during the presidential campaign after controversial statements made by Rev. Jeremiah Wright became public.[324]

323. Kantor, Jodi (April 30, 2007). "Barack Obama's search for faith". The New York Times. Retrieved April 30 2007.
324. "Obama's church choice likely to be scutinized". Associated Press. November 17, 2008. Retrieved January 20, 2009.


Obama met Trinity United Church of Christ pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright in October 1987, and became a member of Trinity in 1992.[323]
He resigned from Trinity in May 2008 during his first presidential campaign after controversial statements by Wright were publicized.[324]

323. Garrett, Major; Obama, Barack (March 14, 2008). "Obama talks to Major Garrett on 'Hannity & Colmes'". RealClearPolitics. Retrieved November 10, 2012. "Major Garrett, Fox News correspondent: So the first question, how long have you been a member in good standing of that church? Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), presidential candidate: You know, I've been a member since 1991 or '92. And -- but I have known Trinity even before then when I was a community organizer on the South Side, helping steel workers find jobs…Garrett: As a member in good standing, were you a regular attendee of Sunday services? Obama: You know, I won't say that I was a perfect attendee. I was regular in spurts, because there was times when, for example, our child had just been born, our first child. And so we didn't go as regularly then."

  • Associated Press (April 29, 2008). "Obama denounces former pastor". Retrieved November 10, 2012. "I have been a member of Trinity United Church of Christ since 1992, and have known Reverend Wright for 20 years," Obama said. "The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago."
  • Miller, Lisa (July 11, 2008). "Finding his faith". Newsweek. Retrieved November 10, 2012. "He is now a Christian, having been baptized in the early 1990s at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago."
  • Remnick, David (2010). The Bridge: The Life and Rise of Barack Obama. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. p. 177. IBSN 978-1-4000-4360-6. "In late October 1987, his third year as an organizer, Obama went with Kellman to a conference on the black church and social justice at the Harvard Divinity School."
  • Maraniss (2012), p. 557: It would take time for Obama to join and become fully engaged in Wright's church, a place where he would be baptized and married; that would not happen until later, during his second time around in Chicago, but the process started then, in October 1987...Jerry Kellman: "He wasn't a member of the church during those first three years, but he was drawn to it, he was drawn to Jeremiah."
324. Associated Press (November 17, 2008). "Obama's church choice likely to be scrutinized". Retrieved January 20, 2009.
  • replacing an old 2007 NYT source with multiple later reliable sources which contradicted it
  • removing "baptized in 1988" because a later reliable source says he was baptized in the early 1990s
  • removing "was an active member there for two decades", because Obama was only a member for 16 years and attended "in spurts"
  • changing "became public" to "were publicized", because Wright's sermons were given in public and subsequently available from Trinity on DVDs, and only became controversial and a 2008 presidential campaign issue when ABC News publicized out-of-context snippets from Wright's sermons on DVDs obtained from Trinity
  • adding a reliable source—Maraniss (2012)—supporting his first meeting Wright in October 1987 (the same month he and his boss, Jerry Kellman, attended a Harvard Divinity School conference on the black church and social justice)
  • adding consistent reliable sources supporting Obama's Trinity UCC membership beginning in 1992 (the year he married Michelle at Trinity, after graduating from Harvard Law School and returning to Chicago in 1991).

Newross (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Nothing on the Bengahzi murder of the ambassador?

There is nothing here about the US Ambassador being murdered and the President's response about it being because of a youtube video. Shouldn't something be added? (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

No. This is Wikipedia, not the Romney campaign website. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
34 embassy personnel were killed during Bush's tenure, and none of them are mentioned in his article, either. It is simply undue weight to list such incidents. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

And this isn't the Obama campaign site either. I don't think there is anything wrong with simply mentiong the Benghazi affair as long as it is done in a neutral way without placing any direct blame. The affair is a controversial issue that does have stronger evidence of negligence on the part of the Obama Administrationin it. Secretary of State Clinton has also taken the fall for it, and the parents of two of the four killed are blaming Obama for their son's murders. Just mention those facts without making it sound like campaigning. (talk) 01:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot of "controversial issues" that are picked up for a couple of weeks and then no one ever remembers them again, especially when campaigns are in full swing. Remember Obama talking about the "fifty-seven states" he visited in 2008? Or the big controversy about Obama not wearing a flag pin? These were both huge stories, big controversies that everyone was talking about at the time. Do you want them in the article? Of course not, because they're stale news, and who cares anymore. Well, that's exactly what's going to happen with the Benghazi "controversy" in about... four days. We're not going to cover every single thing the talking heads on the television are all riled up about at any given moment. Not in the biography article. See also: WP:RECENT --Ashenai (talk) 03:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds to me like you are trying to be political here. FOUR PEOPLE DIED UNDER OBAMA'S WATCH!! FOUR PEOPLE DIED, INCLUDING AN AMBASSADOR OBAMA WAS SUPPOSED TO BE PROTECTING!! That is much different than Obama making stupid comments or refusing to wear a lapel pin. (talk) 08:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

And as others have pointed out, it's happened during the tenure of pretty much every President. It's not particularly pertinent. Thekithless (talk) 09:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
The cover-up (or alleged cover-up) is quite relevant, as are the controversies about whether or not to call it "terrorism". These CAN be treated in a manner that is NPOV -- to minimize or exclude these significant election issues would be one-sided partisanship!Tripodics (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
That you see this as an election issue tells me that it IS POV. (Bring on Tuesday, quickly, please, so Wikipedia can escape this partisan crap!) HiLo48 (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, there is a lot of name-calling regarding this incident, but very little substance. This is simply an issue the GOP has decided to hammer for the election, not an actual significant part of Barack Obama's life (which is still what this article is about.) But hey, if I'm wrong, then it'll still be a significant event in a week. And apparently then we'll have actual information instead of endless, content-free screeching about "WHAT IS OBAMA HIDING" and "WHY IS ROMNEY POLITICIZING THIS TRAGEDY." Please read WP:RECENT. --Ashenai (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a very good issue to bring up since there is a lot of controversy surrounding this one issue. There were emails leaked that showed the white house had received calls for help prior to the killings and Clinton even owned up to them. This was reported on every news agency for a time. This was definitely a different issue for this administration vs. previous administrations. This incident can be cited by any news agency and can be written in a neutral manner without making outright accusations. (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

If your idea of writing in a neutral manner is simply not making outright accusations, then you have no idea. HiLo48 (talk) 09:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

A mention of the incident is fine with me but the details of the event are still under investigation so adding details here when they're still changing on the wiki page of the actual event would be pointless. These sorts of things are normally left for several months so the information is clear and accurate Pongley (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

While the issue is current, changing, and controversial, it is nevertheless a significant issue in the presidency of the subject (as well as the the election). Excluding it from any mention is, I believe, a clear violation of NPOV. I base my assertion on the definition quoted below, which clearly requires coverage of "all significant views" without bias.
The issue cannot be described as insignificant; deliberately excluding a significant issue IS bias, and therefore not NPOV. Tripodics (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it.
  • Oppose inclusion of this politically loaded datum. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
It is not up to you to oppose. The policy is clear (see above). Excluding a "significant view" is NPOV, and the policy is mandatory on Wikipedia. Tripodics (talk) 04:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
in a word: nope. we're not gonna let a mention of bengahzi stick in the article. there won't be anything either about the new party or about bowing to foreign kings or any of that other hogwash certain rightwing talk radio lovers keep adding. we will keep deleting. Cramyourspam (talk) 07:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't go that far; if there's ever actual notable, verifiable, and encyclopedic information on the subject, with a clear and significant link to Obama, we can add it. Right now, it's nothing but ignorant pundits flapping their gums uselessly. --Ashenai (talk) 08:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I know the election's over now, but if this was perceived as such a significant issue related to Obama's continued tenure as president, wouldn't it be more suitable for the 2012 US election article (note that it may already be there, I haven't actually checked)? Just my "two cents", as they say. Incidentally, I'm glad it's Obama again. Peace :). Psychonavigation (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Obama does not presonally manage embassy security as has been said by the US government, attributing every single event to Obama makes no sense. I am glad that Obama won, Romney would do something stupid, his foreign policy is awful, if he managed to upset us Brits so much I wouldn't want to see him trying to negotiate with Iran or China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdsdh1 (talkcontribs) 19:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's keep this objective... I'd argue in summation that there are two excellent arguments against inclusion made in here- 1) Thekithless argued that this has happened under every president's tenure... yet we don't see POLITICALLY CHARGED comments on any other president's page saying how each prez is a blockhead and 2) Fdsdh1 pointed out well that Obama doesn't handle embassy security... just because something happened under Obama doesn't mean that it's his fault... not to mention that Patraeus is taking tons of fire for his actions on the attack. Prove these two points beyond a doubt and you can have your tiny precious section on Benghazi... (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for inclusion

I feel that this text should be included in either this article or the Early life and career of Barack Obama article. It is an important detail, the citizenship and past citizenship of Barack Obama, and is part of his history and life. It can be reworded or simply copied from the 'List of Presidents...' article because WP:CWW allows it as long as the editor mentions the article copied from and the date copied. Thanks.--ɱ 20:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
This is birther garbage. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
No, it's really not. Please be polite and considerate. And I am only ever trying to build more complete articles. FYI I know very well that the American President was born in the USA and is a citizen of the USA alone.--ɱ 01:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ɱ (talkcontribs)
This is an irrelevance that has no place in this article, and it is indeed part of the birther nonsense. We have amply covered his place of birth and obvious citizenship, and we are not adding this to it. Tvoz/talk 05:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Not really of any importance to note that Obama was technically a British subject for all of 2 years of his life. Also, whoever you are, your signature must contain at least a link back to your actual user page. Tarc (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
In response - If you all wish it not to be included, then I respect your opinions and will not include it or pursue the matter any further. Yet I would like to point out that I still believe it a valid contribution to the Early life article as it states a fact about the US President's early life- that he was a citizen of the UK and then Kenya. I did not know that interesting fact until I read the text linked at the top of this topic, and I feel that the information has good encyclopedic value.
Tarc, you are incorrect in your statement against my signature. Signatures do not need links. My lack of signature linkage is not in violation of any Wikipedia policy. The only thing that it is against is the guideline here - WP:SIG. So why make such a big deal of it?--ɱ 20:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
WP:SIGLINK is significant here. Lack of a link to your user page or contribs is viewed as obstructive. Do you wish to be obstructive? If so, you may find yourself at WP:RFC/U, particularly if you are being obstructive while pushing birther garbage. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
I have been very polite during this entire discussion, so please do not assult that information that I support as 'birther garbage'. That phrase is disgusting and truthfully gives off the impression that you are one who blindly and ignorantly follows and supports this man's every move, and that you will not tolerate anything negative or even neutral to be placed on any pages regarding the man. Regarding RFC/U, go right ahead. Is that supposed to scare me? Look here- [3] at the nature of RfC/U. Basically, they can't do anything. In addition, I have not broken any policies at all, so the case would be a weak one. Guidelines are called guidelines for a reason, they do not need to be followed, yet they should. I choose not to. In addition, the Wiki preferences page gives you the option to de-link your signature. Go look for yourself. Why would they give you that option if they feel it is illegal enough to get people into a RfC/U or worse? Anyway, all it is is a convenience issue. Just search my name and you'll find it in a second, I'm not restricting any information or anything.--ɱ 18:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
So what you are basically saying is that you want to be a dick about it and be all contrary over the signature issue while pushing birther garbage. Okay. Now we know where you stand. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hey, well you're the one who started complaining. Also, you talking about user conduct; look who is displaying vulgar conduct now, using profanity and the likes while being rudely accusatory.--ɱ

First warning to Scjessey for personal attacks and incivility. If you post similar posts here, on edit summaries, and on other talk pages, and continue to revert without proper reasons in the edit summaries, I will be reporting you to ANI for disruptive editing and personal attacks/incivility. Regarding the inclusion request, that is trivial and not notable. - M0rphzone (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Please do so if you wish to be a laughing stock. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Remarks like this and the one you just posted are nice examples of your arrogant/patronizing tone in your comments to other editors. You might want to keep it down or you'll end up on there pretty soon. - M0rphzone (talk) 20:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The first

I would suggest to include: "The first reelcted black president." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

No. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree, I don't see the reelection as as big a historical moment as the original election.-- (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, while the reelection per se was as important as any other presidential election, the fact that he's the 1st re-elected black president would be significant only if there were a number of other black presidents who weren't reelected. It's also implied by the fact of his election as the 1st black president plus his re-election with no gap between his terms. rewinn (talk) 04:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 November 2012

The figure showing the change in unemployment (as well as the net change creation by month) is misleading because the right axis is label improperly. The right axis only shows a small range of unemployment values and thus makes it look as if unemployment has returned to "normal". The specific change I would request is to remove this figure and replace it with one that show either the full range of unemployment starting at zero or the starting at the historical minimum for unemployment. (talk) 13:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I see no validity to this request. The range is from the beginning of Obama's first term to the end, that is all. Tarc (talk) 13:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Repeated inaccurate change to lede

I corrected an inaccurate first sentence of the second paragraph of the lede section by Joker123192 (talk | contribs):

Obama first received national attention for his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004, and his subsequent election to the United States Senate in November 2004.


Obama received national attention during his 2004 Illinois U.S. Senate election campaign with his March primary victory, which intensified with his July keynote address at the Democratic National Convention and November election to the United States Senate.

which is an accurate summary of the text in the "U.S. Senate campaign" section of this Wikipedia article:

In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won in an unexpected landslide—which overnight made him a rising star within the national Democratic Party, started speculation about a presidential future, and led to the reissue of his memoir, Dreams from My Father.[66] In July 2004, Obama delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention,[67]

seen by 9.1 million viewers. His speech was well received and elevated his status within the Democratic Party.[68]

66. Mendell, David (March 17, 2004). "Obama routs Democratic foes; Ryan tops crowded GOP field; Hynes, Hull fall far short across state". Chicago Tribune. p. 1.

67. Bernstein, David (June 2007). "The Speech". Chicago Magazine. pp. 80-83, 121-129.
68. . (August 2, 2004). "Star Power. Showtime: Some are on the rise; others have long been fixtures in the firmament. A galaxy of bright Democratic lights". Newsweek. pp. 48–51.

This is the fourth time Joker123192 (talk | contribs) has made the same inaccurate and contentious change to the lede section (10 September 2012, 13 September 2012, 19 September 2012, 12 November 2012) without consensus or talk page discussion to content which had been stable for three years (see Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 75#Major changes to lede). Newross (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I support your reversion. Joker123192 rarely engages in talk page discussion of any kind, often makes problematic edits and ignores warnings. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
The wording that I found on Nov 12 in the lead was gibberish: He received national attention during the election and primaries of the 2004 U.S. senate in Illinois which he won, and his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.
I took a stab at it, but am mostly ok with Newross' wording, except I find it to be too compressed - e.g., "Illinois U.S. Senate election campaign" is shorthand and should be spelled out a bit more,. Try this: In 2004, Obama received national attention during his campaign to represent Illinois in the United States Senate with his victory in the March primary, which intensified with his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July and his election to the Senate in November.
Does that work for you? Tvoz/talk 09:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Tvoz's revision is fine with me since it does not change the content and is an accurate summary of the "U.S. Senate campaign" section. Newross (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, great - I'll do the tweak. Thanks Tvoz/talk 20:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Costs of the second inauguration?

If somebody has an official estimate, then probably it would be worth to include in the article. Not impossible to get this info, just read the numbers for Bush: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Question: Did you see any article that includes those costs? I assume you didn't because it's trivial at best.TMCk (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
This sort of thing is just a dumb right-wing talking point if it exists anywhere, nothing relevant to this article. Tarc (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
agree William Jockusch (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Why would that be important information in the biography of Barack Obama instead of in the article on his second inauguration? (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The lede again

An editor has removed "intensified" a few times regarding the 2004 keynote as well as the phrase about the victory over Romney being a closer margin - I previously asked that this be discussed first, as per the section above, rather than removing it with edit summaries like "more concise". Yes it is more concise, but it also is removing content. So, can we please get some consensus on this. Thanks. Tvoz/talk 22:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The lede is supposed to summarize the most important things in the article. "A closer margin" does not fit that description. As for "intensified", that seems opinionated and somewhat unenecyclopedic. Pass a Method talk 23:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree about 'A closer margin'. The lead is not a 'play by play', it is an overview.
Sowlos (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
The sentence in question could (and should) be more elegantly worded. It looks very forced, however Pass a Method (talk · contribs) simply deleting text breaks it.
The sentence in question with the contested text in bold:

In 2004, Obama received national attention during his campaign to represent Illinois in the United States Senate with his victory in the March Democratic Party primary, which intensified with his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July and his election to the Senate in November.

Sowlos (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I first added the three contested words "which intensified with" in my 15 November 2012 edit, and am indifferent as to whether or not they are retained.

In 2004, Obama received national attention during his campaign to represent Illinois in the United States Senate with his victory in the March Democratic Party primary, which intensified with his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July and his election to the Senate in November.


In 2004, Obama received national attention during his campaign to represent Illinois in the United States Senate with his victory in the March Democratic Party primary, his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July and his election to the Senate in November.

both accurately summarize the content of the "U.S. Senate campaign" section. Newross (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok with me too - given that this is the lede to a FA under article probation, it seemed like a good idea to raise the question here for comment before making the edit. Tvoz/talk 21:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

A majority of the popular vote?

The sentence "He is the first Democrat since Franklin D. Roosevelt to win two successive presidential elections with a majority of the popular vote." is factually wrong. Please change "majority" to "absolute majority". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabana85 (talkcontribs) 00:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Why? HiLo48 (talk) 00:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I have a different take on this. Sure, Clinton didn't win an absolute majority the first time, because of Ross Perot. But he was a clear winner. My feeling is that this sentence should not appear at all. The fact that Obama won an absolute majority while Clinton did not is a historical accident and not particularly significant. Therefore it does not belong at all. William Jockusch (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with William Jokusch. Why keep a factually wrong sentence when its content wouldn't even be that relevent at all?

Can somebody please explain the difference between an absolute majority and a majority in a US Presidential election? And, given that it's not obvious to at least me (not that I'm all that important) accept that the terms might need clarification in the article? HiLo48 (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I think an absolute majority means over 50%. Since it was a three way race that year Clinton was able to win the popular vote (a higher percentage than Bush or Perot) without winning over half of the overall vote. I don't think we need to add that though.-- (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
If that was not clear to put it simply an absolute majority means that a person wins more of the popular vote that all the other candidates combined. In the case of Clinton Bush's and Perot's combined total was higher.-- (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Clinton won popular vote pluralities in 1992 and 1996. Obama won majorities in 2008 and 2012. Majority in US elections refers to more than 50% of votes cast. The language used in the text is appropriate. Dezastru (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
It may be appropriate in a technical sense, but it's not appropriate in a practical sense if big chunks of the intended audience don't understand it. And there's certainly some confusion, even in this thread. HiLo48 (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I just looked up the terms once again there seems to be a difference between American English and, well, other English in the usage of the term Simple majority. If you want to avoid misunderstandings like this in the future the word majority may be linked to this disambiguation page.Cabana85 (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, "absolute majority" just isn't a real term. It's "majority" (or "simple majority") vs. "plurality". But it's not an important fact at all. —Designate (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - Apologies for adding my two cents in RfC format, but; Per William Jockusch. This sentence is potentially confusing and doesn't really add much useful information. Don't see any reason to keep it. NickCT (talk) 14:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep, factual, accurate, relevant. I am sorry if the Clinton supporters feel this somehow diminishes Clinton's win, but I really must disagree that it does. As others have pointed out, that was a three way race. Obama's majority win does not in any way lessen Clinton's clear win in his election. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Notice that the sentence is combining four different statements. He is the first Democrat(1) since FDR(2) to win two successive elections(3) with an absolute majority of the popular vote(4). Take out any one of the four, and it becomes false. If you string enough stuff together, you can make anybody unique. But it's not particularly interesting information.William Jockusch (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - trivia; not relevant to the subject of the article; barely relevant to an article on American presidential politics, which this is not; not important enough to go in the lede; since Obama's only the 2nd Dem since FDR to win 2 terms, there are a huge number of firsts. e.g first Democrat since FDR to carry Virginia twice; OR (no citation to an authority on the subject); finally please assume good faith and refrain from speculating on motivations of other editors, e.g. "Clinton supporters" rewinn (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
There is a citation in the body of the article. And at the near-certain risk of complaints of other stuff arguments, may I draw your attention to some of our other bio articles on US presidents?
-Bill Clinton: "In the 1996 presidential election, Clinton was re-elected, receiving 49.2% of the popular vote over Republican Bob Dole (40.7% of the popular vote) and Reform candidate Ross Perot (8.4% of the popular vote), becoming the first Democratic incumbent since Lyndon Johnson to be elected to a second term and the first Democrat since Franklin Roosevelt to be elected President more than once." (note: this language in place for at least 2 years now)
-George W. Bush: "The previous President to win an outright majority of the popular vote was Bush's father in the 1988 election. Additionally, it was the first time since Herbert Hoover's election in 1928 that a Republican president was elected alongside re-elected Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress. Bush's 2.5% margin of victory was the narrowest ever for a victorious incumbent President, breaking Woodrow Wilson's 3.1% margin of victory against Charles Evans Hughes in the election of 1916."
-John F. Kennedy: " Another 14 electors from Mississippi and Alabama refused to support Kennedy because of his support for the civil rights movement; they voted for Senator Harry F. Byrd of Virginia, as did the elector from Oklahoma. Kennedy was the youngest man elected president, succeeding Eisenhower, who was then the oldest (Ronald Reagan surpassed Eisenhower as the oldest president in 1981)."
-Lyndon Johnson: "Despite the landslide victory, Johnson, who carried the South as a whole in the election, lost the Deep South states of Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia and South Carolina, the first time a Democratic candidate had done so since Reconstruction."
-Jimmy Carter: "Carter became the first contender from the Deep South to be elected President since the 1848 election. Carter carried fewer states than Ford—23 states to the defeated Ford's 27—yet Carter won with the largest percentage of the popular vote (50.1 percent) of any non-incumbent since Dwight Eisenhower. It was only half a percent less than what Ronald Reagan would defeat him by in 1980."
-Calvin Coolidge: "They also won in Tennessee, the first time a Republican ticket had won a Southern state since Reconstruction."
-George H.W. Bush: "Bush became the first serving Vice President to be elected President since Martin Van Buren in 1836 as well as the first person to succeed someone from his own party to the Presidency via election to the office in his own right since Herbert Hoover in 1929." Dezastru (talk) 06:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Your Other Stuff argument provides ONLY examples comparing a candidate to more than one prior president, thus proving its triviality. Obama was the first Democratic president since ?who? to have been elected from a Midwestern state, the first Democratic president to have been elected without completing a term in Congress, the first Democratic president to have lived in Indonesia ... this does not belong in the lede.
Turn it around: what is the significance of this factoid that rates it a position in the lede? Why pick FDR at the limiting point? Why not Woodrow Wilson or Grover Cleveland. I fact, let me propose a compromise: Obama is only the 2nd Democrat since Woodrow Wilson to win reelection with a majority of the popular vote. Isn't that noteworthy? rewinn (talk) 27 November 2012
Seems kind of a WP:POINTy argument. Firsts are remembered. Seconds much less so. Dezastru (talk) 07:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
This particular "first" is not just trivia,it is misleading, see below. And almost no-one outside of obscure pundits, whose job it is to recycle trivia, remember or care that Obama was the first since FDR to blah blah blah. rewinn (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - Trivial twaddle...not a historical, significant, or even an interesting factoid Tarc (talk) 04:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with Killer Chihuahua - this is sourced, factual, and relevant. I didn't see this discussion when I reinstated it in lede - this has been stable content, so shouldn't be deleted until consensus is reached, but I would be ok with it in the body and out of the lede. Tvoz/talk 06:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Why is this noteworthy; in particular, why is it noteworthy about the subject of the article? Maybe it is noteworthy in a general discussion of the Presidency and why the Dems have had trouble winning re-election, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the story of the guy this article is about. rewinn (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's customary to include information like this when describing presidential election outcomes. We could just say so-and-so won the election and leave it at that, but readers expect more info from an encyclopedia than that. Bland narration of Electoral College and popular vote tallies alone is a less effective way of communicating the outcome of elections than is providing the kind of contextual information about the mood of the electorate and where an election fits in relation to the history of presidential politics that these kinds of facts provide. I'm far more likely to remember that Reagan won the most electoral votes of any candidate in US history in his second election than I am to remember exactly how many electoral votes he won or what the popular vote tallies were for that election, and I suspect that is true for most other readers as well. Agree with Tvoz that this particular info doesn't necessarily need to be in the Obama article lede, but it should remain in the body of the article. Dezastru (talk) 06:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
But this is trivia. There are many much less trivial things, like expanding the roster of states in play, or the use of social networking to overcome monetary disadvantage. If you want to research noteworthy things about the 2012 campaign, there is no shortage, so why pick something so meaningless? rewinn (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
No, trivia is what his favorite ice cream is, or who he thought was cute in third grade. How strongly he was re-elected is significant, just as W Bush being both one of the most popular and one of the most unpopular presidents. It gives context. It gives background. It shows where the voters' stood regarding this president, in this election. Trivia does not matter. This does. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
This does not "show where the voters stood ... in this election"; it compares this election to an arbitrary selection of elections going back an arbitrary length of time. What context/background does this show? to understand this trivia item, you have to understand that there were significant 3rd party candidates in 2 elections, without whom Obame would not have been the 1st whatever since whenever. rewinn (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - This is a meaningless statistic without any basis for importance. I am not even sure why it is in the body since it's primary source is The Nation, which is hardly a mainstream publication. I am sure that if some blogger wanted (probably have alread) they could come up with a ton of meaningless statistics comparing Obama with the number of letters in his name or age at whatever, you name it. The only reason that this was even possible is that this is the first Democrat to win an election without a major third party two elections in a row. Usually I find correlation without causation connections interesting if stupid, but this doesn't even rise to that. Arzel (talk) 01:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I've added an article by Ron Brownstein from the National Journal, so it's not just being noted by someone writing in The Nation. Dezastru (talk) 07:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Again: Delete As Misleading Trivia - [striking repeat non-vote] above, I advocated for delete on the basis of trivia, but just as important is that it is misleading. For the reader to understand this factoid, the reader must understand
    • JFK was assassinated
    • LBJ and Truman chose not to run again
    • Carter was the ONLY Democrat since FDR to be defeated for a 2nd term
    • Clinton was the ONLY modern winner of a field of 3 major candidates.

Without that context, this factoid is misleading as to the historical record, as well as being such an obscure bit of trivia that it would appear on almost no-one's list of Top Five Obama Firsts. rewinn (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

What is it "misleading" readers to take as a message, in your view? Dezastru (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. - Per Killer Chihuahua, Dezastru and Tvoz. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 November 2012

the article clearly states Obama is of English (mother) desent and African (father) therefore he is not African -American. The title should be ommitted or added as "and/or English American. Perhaps if the country understood this, they wouldnt be so quick to point out the skin colour differenct.

Adamkingdon1975 (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree, this has been discussed numerous times and the consensus as well as reliable sources have overwhelmly supported African American.-- (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The enquirer should look at the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) at the top of the page. Click on [Show].) Q2 applies. HiLo48 (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Misuse of Categories: "African-American Christians" and "Presidents of the United Nations Security Council"

There have been several categories that seem to have been applied to the Barack Obama article in contravention of the categorization guidelines. Two specific examples are "African-American Christians" and "Presidents of the United Nations Security Council."

According to the Categorization guideline, "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people)." The guideline gives as an example: " 'Caravaggio, an Italian artist of the Baroque movement ...', Italian, artist, and Baroque may all be considered to be defining characteristics of the subject Caravaggio." The Overcategorization guideline says that "Categorization by non-defining characteristics should be avoided," and further states that "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining."

Obama is unquestionably African-American and Christian. But is his being an African-American Christian one of his defining characteristics?

Same question with his having been the President of the UN Security Council. Is this a defining characteristic? United Nations Secretaries-General would be a category reflecting a truly defining characteristic — for an article on Kofi Annan or Ban Ki-moon. But that's very different than the case with the Security Council president, which, for those years that the US holds the presidency, is usually occupied by the US ambassador to the UN, not by the US president. The US president takes that role only, as a technicality, when present at Security Council meetings. Dezastru (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow. I've never looked at the categorization guidelines before. I've often thought that many categorization claims in Wikipedia have very minor connections, and according to that guideline you have quoted, thousands of them probably shouldn't exist. It's actually possible that the "African-American Christians" claim for Obama does have some validity. That's because a lot of his less rational or less honest opponents have tried to argue that he is Muslim, and being "African-American" was certainly an issue when he first appeared on the scene. It still is for some racists. HiLo48 (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I completely understand the feeling that some editors may have that the Obama article should explicitly include the African-American Christians category as a response to the ridiculous 'Obama is a Muslim' nonsense. But doesn't that inclusion go against the guidelines? Maybe the guidelines should be changed, since editors don't seem to be aware of them. (Just wondering about this after looking at categories on several completely unrelated bio articles over the past few days.) Dezastru (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

If these facts are verifiable, then why not include them? ChromaNebula (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I have three things to say about this. Firstly, I agree with those who say "African-American Christian" is not a defining characteristic for Obama. Secondly, we must be acutely aware of category creep, which has been a recurring problem on this article. Finally, I have to ask why on Earth the category "African-American Christians" even exists? It is equivalent to having "Left-handed Christians" or "African-Americans who own iPads". I see that the category twice went through CFD and managed to survive, which is incredible, quite frankly. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I have to ask why on Earth the category "African-American Christians" even exists? - Well, I was wondering that myself. But I have only started exploring the people categorization trees in the past few days, so not sure I fully understand the thinking behind the categories that have been in place. One explanation for this category, I suppose, is that it fits in with sister categories for Category:African-American Jews and Category:African-American Muslims, all under the parent category of Category:African-American people by religion. Given that organization, it might be reasonable to maintain the category. I think very strong arguments, however, could be made for removing many of the people currently categorized as African-American Christians, since for many of them it is not a defining characteristic. For individuals such as Martin Luther King, Jr, T. D. Jakes, or Jesse Jackson, for whom ministry in the Black church is a defining characteristic, the category might make sense. For the vast majority now grouped in the category, though, it does not. The category Category:African-American Muslims would seem a reasonable categorization for people like Muhammad Ali, Malcom X, and Keith Ellison, but not for some of the other people categorized as such, like Shaquille O'Neal and Q-Tip. Dezastru (talk) 23:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
If these facts are verifiable, then why not include them? See the rationale at WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION. Dezastru (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
In your face, chromanebula. Have a good Senscape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polandnotbrazil (talkcontribs) 09:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Lots of confusion in categories

See below the list of categories:

  • Top-importance biography (politics and government) articles
  • Mid-importance politics articles
  • Low-importance United States Government articles

How the same subject can be at the same time top and mid importance, or even low and top importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

If you're talking about the importance level assigned by the various Wikiprojects as seen in the box on top of this page - it's their call as to where this particular biography fits into their set of articles, not ours. Tvoz/talk 18:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 December 2012

It would be more accurate to say "first half African American to hold the office" rather than "first African American..." African American implies he is full; however, he is not. (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death. No. Look through the talk page archives if you want to know why. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done Tvoz/talk 19:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Official White House portait

Does this president have an official portait/oil painting of him, courtesy of the White House? Could it not also be included?Journalbug (talk) 07:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Presidents do not get their official painting until after they leave office, usually in some sort of ceremony. Bush received his this year. The photo of Obama that is on this article right now is his official picture. There's a portrait and a photograph.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 06:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Mass murdering at Sandy Hook Elementary School

Please add: "Under Obama administration the second-deadliest school shooting in U.S. history was the mass murdering at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012. Furthermore the Aurora shooting with 12 deaths and 59 injuries made the most victims of any mass shooting in United States history in the same year.

(ref: and )

And possibly write about the liberal gun control policy. In the recent year(s) there are too much rampage killings and with unexpectedly more deads/victims so that not writing about this in wikipedia would raise many red flags for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I broadly agree with your sentiments, but the wording you propose makes it look like the shootings were Obama's fault, and that's just nonsense. He has made some pretty pointed comments in response to the latest shooting. They may lead to some legislative changes, but until they do there's nothing we can really include.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talkcontribs) 00:44, December 15, 2012‎
Of course HiLo is completely right. This is not the place at all. Tvoz/talk 02:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Interesting, because now it seems that there could be a change: "Democratic Congressman Jerrold Nadler of New York called for more talk about stricter gun laws: "If now is not the time to have a serious discussion about gun control and the epidemic of gun violence plaguing our society, I don't know when is." He also stated, "I am challenging President Obama, the Congress and the American public to act on our outrage and, finally, do something about this."" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Let's wait and see. It will be interesting to watch. HiLo48 (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I have placed information about Obama's statement after the shooting in the separate article Presidency of Barack Obama under the section "Gun control". --Pine 22:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

- I have been criticized too many times for WP:SYNTH to know that sandy hook / obama's gun control policy is wp:synth & should not be added here. Angelatomato (talk) 00:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Why not combine the main article links?

Most articles have a section above sources. I looked and couldn't find any, which made me think there were none. Prevent this by making it predictable about where to find these links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quacod (talkcontribs) 06:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Time Person of the Year

Please add: "Joseph Stalin also named twice (in 1939 and 1942) as a Person of the Year, moreover Adolf Hitler was the Person of Year in 1938."

Just to illustrate that it is not a prize or award like Nobel Peace Prize. And people often regard this as an honor from Time magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

No. Why this particular selection when e.g. Ronald Reagan, Willy Brandt, Martin Luther King, Jr., Mahatma Gandhi and even The Computer have also been named? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, the wikilink to the "Time Person of the Year" where this is noted is enough. Times Hitler-article was very interesting, by the way. They really didn´t like the guy, even then.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Aptostichus barackobamai

The Aptostichus barackobamai Bond, 2012: The new spider species of the genus Aptostichus from California in ( : The specific epithet is a patronym in honor of Barack Obama, first African American President of the United State and reputed fan of spiders). Thanks --Kmoksy (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done Added to List of things named after Barack Obama#Animals. IgnorantArmies – 12:23, Thursday December 20, 2012 (UTC)

"He is the first African American to hold the office."

This sentence is not necessary in the leading paragraph. Remove it. Cheisu7 (talk) 16:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Why? It is possibly the most notable part of him being the first AA president.TMCk (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid that after 219 years of 42 white gentlemen holding the office of the President of the United States, the fact that number 43 was black is of quite historical significance. Tarc (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
It certainly is. Dunno how old the OP is, but for almost all of my life of over 60 years it was inconceivable that a black man could become president. HiLo48 (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

POV Violation in Lede Trivia

There is a continuing effort to put trivia about the Democratic Party into the lede, something about Obama being the first Democrat since FDR to win two terms with a popular vote majority both times. An attempt at balance was struck by citing also to Reagan, making the trivia at least bipartisan, but that was also deleted. I reverted the lede to include both (although better would be to include neither.) For the record, there has been only ONE case in which a member of the Democratic Party between FDR and Obama was re-elected, and in that ONE case the election was by popular vote plurality; between Reagan and Obama there is NO CASE in which a candidate of ANY party was elected twice with a majority of the popular vote ... which is surely a much more significant factoid. If the lede is to be cluttered with trivia, let it be non-partisan trivia. rewinn (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Suppose you're right; I don't see how adding more POV-snippets would make it any better... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 18:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Fine. Let's delete both. It's trivia anyway, and the lede is already too long. If the trivia is important (?contradiction?) it can go in body of article. Anyway, it is trivia not about the subject of the article but about the Presidency or the Democratic party. rewinn (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I think we need to tone down the drama-queening here a bit. It is not "trivia" to note something that has been a rarity in the president's political party. Tarc (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Attempting to balance? That's silly. This is an article about Barack Obama, not Ron Reagan. Obama is in the Democratic party, not the Republican party. In 2048 if a Republic can win the Presidency and get re-elected, it would be significant enough for the ledge in that persons bio. Thanks-from my hotel in Miami. Dave Dial (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It is a meaningless statistic. All it shows is that for the first time in over a generation there has been no major third party opponent in consecutive elections in which a Democrat won. There are tons of statistical factoids which can be made if one looks hard enough, there is no point in putting any of the attempts of puffery in least you agree to some of the non-puffery statements as well, like the factoid that he is the first president to be re-elected with a smaller winning percentage than his first election, which by the way is more rare than this strange factoid. Arzel (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Though I don't see any POV here, it is a meaningless sports statistic and of no biographical or career significance. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Obama effect - suggest merge

Hey everyone, I ran across the article Obama effect, which seems to me to be a bit unnecessary as a standalone article, but something which should definitely not be ignored. What do you all think about moving it over as a sentence or two in this article? Prodego talk 18:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it would fall foul of WP:WEIGHT in the main article. It's a shame we can't have an article called Miscellany of Barack Obama or something! -- Scjessey (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
What is in there is already touched upon broadly at Public image of Barack Obama#Around the world, in subject if not in literal "Obama effect" name. Add a line or 2 there and redirect, I'd say. Tarc (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Tarc's option seems like a good one to me. Prodego talk 21:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The worst day of Obama's presidency

Add something from these sentences: "Obama said he hopes that the Newtown killings spur Americans to take action and not let the shootings feel like "one of those routine episodes," the emotions of which fade with memory. ""It certainly won't feel like that to me. This is something that, you know, that was the worst day of my presidency," he said." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

What edit are you proposing? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Given the wording of the title of this section, and this "event", the best place for this content would be Presidency of Barack Obama‎, rather than this article. HiLo48 (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 January 2013

I request that Obama being the first African american to hold this position be changed to the correct term Mulata,or Bi racial president to hold this position. The reason and the proof are evident Thank you

Chris Bordenkircher (talk) 00:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

See the FAQ. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 January 2013 "early life for Barack Obama

The last sentence of the second paragraph regarding the early life of Barack Obama. "From ages six to ten, Obama attended local Indonesian-language schools: St. Francis of Assisi Catholic School for two years and Besuki Public School FROM one and half years, ...". There is a misuse of preposition. the FROM should be replaced by for. Chongminwang (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Done Thanks for catching this. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request on January 14, 2013

Why is there no mention of Dodd-Frank in domestic or economic policy? One of Obama's key pieces of signed legislation.

"The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub.L. 111-203, H.R. 4173) was signed into federal law by President Barack Obama on July 21, 2010." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshboyette (talkcontribs) 17:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It is in the article lede already. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Conflict in Mali Please add: "U.S. could provide logistical, intel support in Mali"

It could be Obama's next bloody war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

This may belong in Presidency of Barack Obama, but not here, Obama's biographical article. What you have written is also speculative, and Wikipedia doesn't do speculation. HiLo48 (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
"What you have written is also speculative, and Wikipedia doesn't do speculation", yes that was my own comment to describe why it is important to include it. The dry facts that he lead so far 3 wars, in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. This could be his 4-th war in 4 year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
You may want to see WP:BURDEN, in a nutshell its your job to provide evidence that this will be Obama's next bloody war or it can't be included here, not our job to prove a negative.-- (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Approval/Disapproval Graph

The Wikipedia articles for most modern politicians contain approval/disapproval graphs (Hillary Rodham Clinton, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton are just a few examples of this), yet I see no such images regarding the current president's approval/disapproval ratings. I suggest that one be added to this article to help readers to visualize President Obama's public opinion over the course of his presidency.--Philpill691 (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem here is that different polls give different results. Are we supposed to aggregate the results? Another problem is that the sum total of Obama-related "stuff" on Wikipedia is more than all those other people you listed combined and we have limited space on this article. From a biographical standpoint, approval/disapproval graphs aren't very significant, so what would you advocate tossing out in favor of this not-very-important data? My feeling is that approval/disapproval data is of low importance, and even if it were somehow significant it would be more appropriate at Presidency of Barack Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, looking at the three examples I already pointed out, two of them use Gallup, and the other uses an average of several surveys, so there seems to be a precedent for going either of those directions. Now, seeing as Gallup data is already used via text in this article in the "Cultural and political image" section, it would seem that the question of what data to use has already been settled. The size of the George W. Bush article is about 217,000 bytes, while the size of the Barack Obama article is about 237,000 bytes, so there is not a significant difference between the two. So, an extra image on an article which already has dozens will not make a terrible difference. Furthermore, I suspect that an image visualizing the public opinion of President Obama during his presidency is at least as important as an image of him playing basketball, or the county results of his senate race, both of which are currently present in this article. A precedent for showing graphs of presidential approval has been largely established, and on this article it would be a valuable visualization of the president's public perception.--Philpill691 (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Born in Honolulu

According to a birth document, right? -- (talk) 11:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you a birther? How about you? Do you have a birth document? One that proves you were born from human parents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes and according to the memory of others. How else can anyone prove they were born somewhere? Biscuit1018 (talk) 11:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
See the section near the top of the page titled Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ). Click on "show" beside it, then on "show" beside Q5. HiLo48 (talk) 11:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Middle initial

Read the FAQ, please
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

He introduced as Barack H. Obama, like on the first inauguration. I would suspect that this is his official name, so please change the article's title! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

A person's middle initial is used only when necessary to avoid confusion. For example, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush. This isn't such a case. SMP0328. (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
He doesn't have "an official name", nor do we look for one. We're looking for the "common name". Just search for "Barack H. Obama" and see how many book titles you get compared to "Barack Obama". —Designate (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
It makes no sense what amazon writes. Third example: this is also interesting, because in that Obama takes the oath of office saying: "I Barack Hussein Obama...". For me what it counts is that how they name on official meeting and how he names himself. And none of them used the "Barack Obama" name. I would say that is better source than — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 02:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
That confirms me. Used search engines, and none of the above examples used "Barack Obama". How can you imagine a better source than him and ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
"Titles are often proper nouns, such as the name of the person, place or thing that is the subject of the article. The most common name for a subject [is] determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources[.]" The quality of the reliable sources consulted is not relevant. The majority of RS's use the two-name form, so that's what we use. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 03:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
"The majority of RS's use the two-name form" Is it your own research? That is not accepted on Wikipedia.
Neither is not signing your posts and not understanding the concept of WP:OR. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 12:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

This is such a non-discussion, of which for starts I'm wondering whether it would even take place were his middle name not "Hussein" and which has been discussed ad nauseam in the past. There is a difference between an occasion as taking the presidential oath, when one's full name is used, and the every day name with which that person is associated. I don't see anybody wanting to rename the article about "Bill Clinton" as "William J. Clinton" or "William Jefferson Clinton", whereas that's his full name. The full name is mentioned in the article but is not the main artcile title. The same standard applies to President Obama. -- fdewaele, 22 January 2013.

I also don't see the user wanting Barack H Obama suggesting on the Richard Nixon page that it be titled Richard M. Nixon or Richard Milhous Nixon nor have I heard anyone demand that Bret Favre be renamed Brett Lorenzo Favre or Brett L. Favre. The only reason that the middle initial should be used in the title would be if it is most often used when mentioning the person`s name (Bush, Truman etc). This is not the case for Obama.-- (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Category creep

Please think long and hard before adding new categories to the article. The latest addition (which I reverted) was "gun control advocates". Besides the standard BLP-related categories, I think this article should only go into categories for which Barack Obama is notable. For example, he is not notable for being an American of Irish descent and he is not notable for being an African-American Christian. I reverted recent additions to both of these as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the name in bold

Why does the bold name at the beginning of the article not have "President" in front of "Barack Hussein Obama II?" Titles, such as "Prince" or "Queen," are often found before the subject's name and included in the bold lettering. However, Queen Elizabeth II's page does not have any title before her bold name. I've also wondered what the reason for that was. Thanks. DrAndrewWinters (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Titles like "Prince" or "Queen" become a part of the persons legal name. "President" does not.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Inaccurcies in the wiki

Ye Olde Drivel Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Why doesn't this wiki have a disclaimer asking for further verification of information?

There is no disclaimer about his actual birth certificate being questionable, as the State of Hawaii has not released the actual document, and it's existance is still in question, as the 3 citations are (1). A scanned questionable document dated 2011 that is full of ghost images, mismatched fonts, and obvious corrections to letters and numbers. (2). 2 news articles dated 2008 and 2011 respectivly.

Why is there no disclaimer about the marriage between his mother and supposed father, Barack Obama Sr.? Why no cite of the certificate of marriage from the state of Hawaii? It's public record. The citations are 2 seperate citations, between 4 people, one of which is a book without any kind of proper vetting or documentation, and the other cite doesn't even cite a work, just random page numbers attributed to 3 different people.

Why is there no disclaimer about his adoption by his mother's second husband, and the name change to Barry Soetoro, to register him in a school in Indonesia?

Why is there no disclaimer of his college years at Occidental College, and his association with known Muslim agitators, and the apparent use of non-resident funds to pay for school?

Why is there no disclaimer about his lack of editorial work while at Harvard, and every cite noted is from various news articles, but not a single refrence from Harvard.

This page has too many questions to be called authoritative.

AnAmerican1776 (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Everything in the article is properly verified. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Encyclopedias are never called "authoritative". Secondary sources are authoritative. We summarize the work of the authoritative sources. —Designate (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Skeet shooting

Damn. I wish there was somewhere we could put this picture of Obama skeet shooting. How about the section on the death of bin Laden? LOL. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Stock is too high on the shoulder, for starters. And while I have only been skeet shooting myself a few times, and not for ~20 years, I don't recall many shots taken perpendicular to the ground. I hope it is just a bad shot at a weird angle, there must be more from that day to choose from. Tarc (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Agreed about the stock position. I've done clay pigeon shooting (although not in the US skeet fashion) and I imagine his shoulder would've hurt like hell the following day. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm. I live in Michigan and have been shooting/hunting since I've been 11 years old. For over 30 years I have went hunting and shooting almost every year. Seems to me his form is just about perfect, and he is making sure to hold the gun tightly against his shoulder. Also, when I have shot skeet(not clay), and I have many times, the targets are at a distance that your shot is definitely close to perpendicular. So I will have to disagree with the both of you. Dave Dial (talk) 03:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

This isn't even funny.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Adding a picture

What do you think about adding the picture of Barack holding a gun? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

No. See above.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
They didn't give any reasons why it should not be added. Can you give a reason for or against? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Can you give a reason why?  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I would argue that the image is not very significant from a biographical standpoint, so it would be silly to have it. I was only kidding in that earlier thread. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

That would be important information if Obama is an avid gun owner. Besides, the basketball photo, I don't see much about his hobbies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see any mention of him being an "avid gun owner" (whatever that means, anyway?) Besides the fact, even if for some reason such a picture would be included, there aren't any free ones available, so it really doesn't matter anyway.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 05:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Obama should be added to the category "American gun control advocate"

If that isn't enough, just google "Obama gun control", check out the new articles, and then try and tell me with a straight face he isnt a gun control advocate... IronKnuckle (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Presidents "advocate" all sorts of policies during their tenure because... that's what presidents do. There's no categorization needed for every issue they've tackled. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
However, he is pushing strongly on this issue, I think it should be noted. Or here's a compromise idea. How about a new category of "gun control supporters" or "American gun control supporters"? IronKnuckle (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
No. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Putting him into that category sounds like overcategorization to me. It's not a defining characteristic of his that he's a gun-control supporter; I would think that category is more for those who are notable primarily from their gun-control advocacy. Writ Keeper 17:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Well that's where we disagree Writ Keeper, me and many others know he is very notable for his gun control advocacy, and that he's a gun control supporter. These are facts. IronKnuckle (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
What? He's notable because he's the President (and former Senator), not because he's a gun-control advocate. You can say that he's a supporter of gun control, You can even say that gun control is an important issue for him (which can all be mentioned in the article) but he's not defined by his support of gun control. In other words: we don't have an article on him because he's a gun-control supporter, we have an article on him because he's the President (and former Senator, etc. etc.). If we did have an article on him because he's a gun-control supporter, then yeah, a category would make sense. But that's not the case. Writ Keeper 18:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
The article to which you draw our attention at the start of this thread says that Obama gave a speech at an event, and is of the opinion that such-and-such. He is now known for advocating some controls on the kinds of guns that are available and the kinds of people to whom they should be available. In the same way, he's known for advocating a host of things. (Which is a trait pandemic among presidents, even encompassing Calvin Coolidge.) Being known for something isn't the same as being notable for it. -- Hoary (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Clearly, no. He does not seem to be a gun control advocate, he's a politician who happens to fall on that side of the issue. Most of the American public and a majority of politicians do, and we're not going to tag half the political articles in the encyclopedia with that category, it would be meaningless. Even if he were, the article has quite a few categories as it is, a few of them more important than others. There's just no room to categorize him for every single thing he happens to be and do. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This is covered under WP:COP#N. We must try to limit the number of categories before it gets out of hand again. Pretty soon it will be Category: People who have met George Clooney or some other bollocks. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. He isn't known for being a supporter of gun control (it's quite recent), and to date, he hasn't done anything other than say he supports it.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Obama Calls on Boy Scouts to Welcome Homosexuals

See: .Please add for example: "President Obama called on the Boy Scouts to open their ranks to homosexuals."

And consider to open a new section about Obama's view on gays. So far we have lots of context about this but these are spread in the article:

  • "In May 2012, he became the first sitting U.S. president to publicly support allowing same-sex couples to legally marry."
  • "On December 22, 2010, Obama signed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010, fulfilling a key promise made in the 2008 presidential campaign[148][149] to end the Don't ask, don't tell policy of 1993 that had prevented gay and lesbian people from serving openly in the United States Armed Forces.[150]"
  • As a candidate for the Illinois state senate Obama had said in 1996 that he favored legalizing same-sex marriage;[153] but by the time of his run for the U.S. senate in 2004, he said that while he supported civil unions and domestic partnerships for same-sex partners, for strategic reasons he opposed same-sex marriages.[154] On May 9, 2012, shortly after the official launch of his campaign for re-election as president, Obama said his views had evolved, and he publicly affirmed his personal support for the legalization of same-sex marriage, becoming the first sitting U.S. president to do so.[155][156] During his second inaugural address on January 21, 2013, Obama called for full equality for gays: “Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law — for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.” This was a historic moment, being the first time that a president mentioned gay rights or the word "gay" in an inaugural address.[157][158]" (talk) 11:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Why does this merit a new section? There is already a section all about it, elsewhere. Indeed, I'd say that the material in this article errs on the wordy side even as it is. Specifically:
  • Obama seems to have bumbled and fudged until recently. Or perhaps he really was indecisive, or really changed his mind. Bumbling, fudging, being indecisive and changing one's mind is what politicians do. It's perfectly OK, even desirable, to provide Obama's history on this issue somewhere within this capacious encyclopedia, but I don't see why it belongs in this article.
  • Personal support for the legalization of this or that is pretty commonplace among prezzes. It's usually no big deal, and this personal support isn't obviously an exception -- particularly as it seems that Obama needed a lot of nudging (not least by Vice).
  • The first mention of this or that word within an inaugural address? Trivia!
-- Hoary (talk) 09:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
"The first mention of this or that word within an inaugural address? Trivia!" Not for me. But see this: "the first President to have been born in Hawaii" there have been 43 presidents but 50 US states, so it is very far from a surprising, amazing fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah well, if you think of the number of states, then this little fact about prezzes actually becomes (slightly) more interesting. Hawaii has only been a state since 1959. Only one prez has been born since it became a state. That's Obama, and goshdurnit, he was born in Hawaii of all states! ¶ Meanwhile, I hope that this is satisfactory. -- Hoary (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, but why is not that in the main article, why are you are hiding this? I would say this is more important than his dog's name and type. It is a little frustrating when you buy a newspaper, and you read only that G.W.Bush's dog died, no news about US economy etc. or more important issues. (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Your would-be simile makes no sense to me. The material isn't hidden; it's right here. The reason why most things that could be properly said about Obama in an encyclopedia aren't in this introductory/general article about him is space. (I'd agree that his dog is of no importance, but if it's there I suppose it's a sop for the dog-loving demographic.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Obama in Internet meme culture

Should be mentioned in the article : — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

No. It is not notable to the subject of Barack Obama himself or his biography. It is both WP:TRIVIA and likely not to matter in two weeks, let alone two decades. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


I disagree with the decision to incorporate the POTUS seal on this article and every former President; the seal is large and distracts from the office tab in the infobox. If this were to be incorporated, where would it stop, why not have the Senate seal with every Senator, House seal with every U.S. Rep, and Presidential seal with every President of every other nation. I feel the manual of style of simply having a number of order and office title is enough; I am interested in how others feel about this. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 03:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Definitely not. It's cute, but it's a complete waste of space. There's nothing informative about it. —Designate (talk) 03:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't say "cute" so much as graphically attractive. If its purpose is merely decorative, then it runs counter to The Established Way of Things, it's true. Rivertorch (talk) 06:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

more Information?

Weren't there somethings about him in internet memes? The user above me was talking about it and also about the "mah boi" meme, shouldn't we add those too? (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The reason is that this article is a biography of Obama, and so far this is too trivial to add to the biography.-- (talk) 05:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Drone policy is conspicuously missing from article

President Obama has overseen a massive expansion of the use of UAVs (primarily Predator Drones) in the "War on Terror." Drone strikes are frequent in the Pakistani border regions and are also used in Yemen, and to a lesser extent Somalia, against suspected militants. The drone war is a significant part of the administration's foreign/military policy and should be described in the foreign policy section of the article; in my opinion, they merit a brief mention in the opening summary, as this administration has been singular in expanding and promoting their use. If the assassination of bin Laden is worth mentioning in the summary, the assassinations of over 3000 people by drones certainly is.

As far as the foreign policy section goes, should there be a subsection on the drone war itself? It doesn't fit into the already existing subsections. The other option could be a section on the Global War on Terror, summarizing the administration's actions in that regard and including the drone war. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaputa12 (talkcontribs) 18:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

While I agree that the expansion of drone use by the Obama administration is notable, I am not sure it is biographically notable. It certainly warrants coverage in Presidency of Barack Obama, but in this article is should be a small mention at best. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't the same logic apply to the assassination of bin Laden or the increase in troop levels in Afghanistan? It's a policy that Obama has a good deal of personal involvement with. And the article has a section on foreign policy, of which the Drone War is a noteworthy part. Explain the distinction between notable and "biographically" notable; I don't see any definition which would include much of the foreign policy related stuff on this article without mentioning the drone war. It's like having a page on Kennedy without mentioning the Bay of Pigs Invasion. --Kaputa12 —Preceding undated comment added 19:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
(Edit conflicts) I agree that it's worth mentioning. The distinction between "biographically notable" and, what, professionally notable? presidentially notable? seems like a bit of a stretch, since the subject's notability rests primarily on his presidency. Rivertorch (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
The Libya War is also mentioned in the opening paragraph. If we weren't going to discuss foreign policy and just talk about Obama's personal life, I could see leaving the drones out, but given what's already included in the article it seems inconsistent at best. Kaputa12 (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
The use of drones should be mentioned in the article. Other presidential acts by Obama have been included in this article. The only issue should be how the use of drones should be added to this article. SMP0328. (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
This article is written in summary style. That means it makes more sense to write and source the piece about drones for Presidency of Barack Obama first, and then summarize it here. Incidentally, there is no way you can compare the drone thing with the killing of Osama bin Laden. The latter is more notable by several orders of magnitude. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
By what metric? I think it's ridiculous to label one death as more significant than >3000 deaths. In human terms, the latter is *far* more significant, and in military/strategic terms, I'd bet the drone war has had a far more significant impact on the "War on Terror" than any one assassination, including bin Laden's. "The drone thing" is sustained warfare in multiple sovereign states- that is significant! I hate going for the ad hominem, but it really seems like you don't want drones to be in the article because you like Obama and don't want him to be associated with everyone's favorite flying death robots. SMP0328. is right- the question is not in whether or not the drone war should be included, but how we should include it. I suggest a brief, one clause mention in the opening summary where it briefly lists his foreign policy initiatives. In the "Foreign Policy" section of the article, there should either be a small subsection on the drone strikes or on Obama's approach to the "War on Terror" in general (I'm leaning toward the former). Kaputa12 (talk) 04:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
All three of you are right. (And I'm right too!) Yes, the lede should summarize the body of the article. Yes, the "drone thing" is highly notable. (How its notability compares with the "bin Laden thing" right now is hard to say—apples and oranges—but it's highly notable now and its notability is likely to increase markedly over time.) Yes, the issue is how it should be added. I'd say it rates a short, descriptive paragraph giving some reliably-sourced stats and noting the controversy it has engendered, plus a sentence in the lede based on that paragraph. Rivertorch (talk) 07:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
The notability of something is defined by reliable sources. You'll find more coverage of Osama bin Laden in reliable sources than you will over the use of drones. Also of importance is relevance to the subject. The use of drones began long before Obama was around. There's no doubt that there has been a marked increase in the use of drones; however, there's also no doubt that increase would've happened regardless of who was POTUS. I think it is fair to say a modest paragraph in the proper context will eventually be needed here, but it should summarize what's in Presidency of Barack Obama. I disagree with the notion that it needs to be in the lede of this article, however, because it isn't (at the moment) a defining aspect of Obama's biography. And let's not be guessing about how it might be more notable "over time", because that violates WP:CRYSTAL. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, Scjessey. First, it is NOT a given that the use of drones would have increased regardless of who was president. Another president could very well have decided on a different course of action for any number of reasons. It is no more a given than it is a given that any president would have authorized the operation that killed bin Laden. It is not a given that any president would have increased the use of drones by the some 700% that Obama has. I also disagree on the "defining" nature of the drones. They are getting a tremendous amount of coverage, they are defining things such as his nominations for cabinet and other executive branch posts. His use of drones, both in its massive increase and its use against US citizens without trial are getting a lot of trouble. This has become as defining a facet of his presidency as almost any other we have in this article, including the operation that took out bin Laden, his changed stance on gay marriage, the BP oil spill, gun control, etc. This coverage has not been only recent or ephemeral. We have recent things such as mention in the State of the Union, the revelation of bases in Saudi Arabia [4], UN inquiry [5], to stuff reaching farther back, such as analysis after killing US citizens [6], US university reports on their impacts on Pakistani civilians [7], references to the drone war as "Obama's drone doctrine" [8], large coverage in the NYT [9], and this is all just a smattering. One big thing they all have in common is that this drone war is defined as "Obama's," something he is doing, something about him. This is notable now. We do not have to predict anything. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree 100%. Just for the record, while I did engage in a tiny bit of prognostication above, I think I also made the point that the inclusion of the content does not depend on a violation of WP:CRYSTAL—the notability is there now. And notability involves not only quantity of coverage but quality of sources. The use of drones has led to discussion in a variety of fields, ranging from political science to constitutional law to ethics, and there should be academic sources as well as news sources to draw on. Rivertorch (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I maintain you are all making a bigger thing out of this than it is. This is something very significant to his presidency, but less significant to his biography. Sure, it should receive some coverage here, but only in the proper weight and only after it has been properly fleshed out in the presidency article. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Scjessey, our lede includes things such as the signing of the New START arms control treaty with Russia. Now, as far as I can tell, Obama has not made nuclear disarmament a life goal or career. How, then, is the single event signing of that treaty more biographically significant than a doctrine that he has followed over years of his presidency? The content of the drone is a defining characteristic of his presidency (we can certainly say that of his first term without CRYSTAL) and is, therefore, biographically significant as well. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to see some sources say how biographically significant it is, rather some editors who think they know best. There's been lots of arms waving around in the air and hair on fire over the last few weeks over the drone thing, but it has only recently been a major news item. Get it into Presidency of Barack Obama and then bring a proposed text here so we can debate it properly. There's no rush. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I think you may be asking the impossible. With the exception of stuff from his childhood or something, unless someone is currently writing an biography, I doubt anyone is going to use the sentence "the drone war is biographically significant to the life of Barack Obama." I doubt anyone has for New START. That standard for notability essentially means nothing even mildly contemporary, even if it is something that has gone on for an entire presidential term, can be added to this article. I believe that we have passed that notability test of significance to Obama (yes, things highly significant a job are notable to the person in cases when they are can defined by that job) by the sources that have been presented. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I am not asking for the impossible at all. What I am saying is this: this is a matter that specifically concerns the presidency, so it belongs in the presidency article. Only after that has happened should we consider how it is summarized here by cherry-picking notable aspects and anything that seems biographically significant. For example, George W. Bush did much to help reduce the spread of AIDS in Africa. It was biographically significant because it helped define his image during his second term. And what "drone war" are you talking about? That's just a sensationalist headline for the expansion of the drone program. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Clearly, we've reached something of an impasse, and I'm not confident that further discussion of this sort is going to resolve matters. I'd suggest that a carefully written, impeccably sourced passage relating to President Obama's role in drone use be crafted. At that point, we'll have something concrete to consider, and if necessary we can do a RfC to determine where consensus lies. I'm overextended in RL at present or I'd begin the process myself. Rivertorch (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

agreed well sourced, notable, executive ordered, and relevant. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Presidency of Barack Obama first. Then we can talk about what works here. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be in the minority on this one; everyone else seems to agree that it should be included in this article. I agree that it needs to be in the other one as well, but it's pretty irrelevant what order we do it in. If you think it belongs in the Presidency article, feel free to add it, but don't immediately delete it from this page if someone includes it in an acceptable manner. Kaputa12 (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
If it is acceptable to me, I won't delete it. Otherwise, I shall do as I please. And if you think this issue is so important, you should be adding it to the other article. I'm not doing your work for you. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Why do you exercise veto power over edits to this page? If your opinion is clearly not shared by the majority of people involved in the discussion, why do you think you have the right to override the views of others in favor of your own? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaputa12 (talkcontribs) 19:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
He doesn't have "veto power". At least no more than any other editor on Wikipedia that are familiar with guidelines. I think Scjessey has the process correct, even if presented in a somewhat gruff manner. It should be proposed in the Presidency of Barack Obama article, consensus formed on that Talk page to add it to that article, and summarized here. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
That's BS and you know it. What is or is not on another article has no bearing whatsoever on the content we include here. That said, A short mention should be added to the body of this article before it is included in the intro.TMCk (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Uhh...No. If I thought it was bullshit, I wouldn't have made the comment. The fact that you seem to disagree doesn't alter the fact that if a Presidential action or policy is significant enough to be proposed in that particular person's biography, it should have already been in the Presidency article. Also, I haven't even seen it proposed to be included in the lede. I think that is way too much WP:WEIGHT for the lede. So I too would have a problem with that. If you have a proposed edit to include a section in the Presidency article, it would be a benefit for any inclusion here is you put it together over there. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 01:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Utter nonsense!TMCk (talk) 02:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I remember when we decided the original Barack Obama article was getting too big and we broke it up to take advantage of WP:SS. You write the fuller version at Presidency of Barack Obama first and then summarize it here. It makes no sense to do it the other way around. Bear in mind that the drone stuff concerns administration policy. Any coverage here would be more about the political consequences to Obama himself, rather than the bigger picture stuff that people seem to be demanding we mention. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Obviously this should be included on this article. Let's start drafting the section right here. It is extremely easy to find reliable sources on the subject and it is clearly an extremely notable facet of his biography. While we are at it, there's an "update" tag on the War in Afghanistan section; now that he has won his election, I think we could safely update this section. It's been seven months since I placed that tag, and this is supposed to be a featured article. --John (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

...tumbleweed blows across stage from right to left... --John (talk) 17:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not "obvious" at all, John. As Dave Dial and Scjessey have quite clearly pointed out, this article uses summary style, as you know, and as such if you feel this is important to his presidency, then this material should be proposed for the Presidency article. If it gets in there, perhaps - not "obviously" - it should be summarized here if editors agree that it has particular significance to his whole life and career. Not the other way around. And TMCk, I'm sure you know that summary style by definition means that what is in other articles - specific other articles - has direct relevance to what appears in the one using the ss. Come on. Tvoz/talk 23:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
So it's best we don't mention drones at all on this article? Or update the Afghanistan section? Unless it is updated on a summary article first? Which of the foundations is that upholding? --John (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Did I say that they should not be mentioned? If updates on Afghanistan and drones are significant to Obama's presidency, which I might well agree either or both are, then the article on the presidency should cover them. Regarding policies of his presidency, this article is the summary, not the Presidency article - so yes, the detailed article is where this should be discussed, and then after that, we look to see if it should be summarized here. If the policies have had an effect on him politically or personally on his image, say, then a summary might go here in his biography. What problem is there with following that well-established formula for not overloading already long articles? I actually have not taken a position here on whether, ultimately, I think those matters will belong here, because it is the cart leading the horse. Tvoz/talk 01:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
No Tvoz. This article is just as independent as the presidency one. We decide HERE what to include in the body and then summarize it in the lead. You saying otherwise doesn't change anything and is simply the continuation of the bull-shitting that is going on in this thread for some time now. It's nice that the regulars here (on this article) try to keep the lot of BS proposed on a regular bases out but trying to block legit content with nothing more than a bogus pointer to another article is ludicrous and insulting in a way.TMCk (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
What does WP:OTHERSTUFF have to do with this? That would apply if what was being said was "we didn't included xyz in George W. Bush, so we shouldn't include it here" or the like. That has zero to do with summary style which is what I was clearly talking about - one of the salient points there being: Sometimes editors will add details to a summary section without adding those facts to the more detailed article. To keep articles synchronized, editors should first add any new material to the appropriate places in the detailed article, and, if appropriate, summarize the material in the summary section. "If appropriate", "first add". Summary style doesn't refer only to the intro summarizing the body, it also refers to sections summarizing detailed articles, as is totally necessary in an article like this one which could easily go 3, 4 5, more times longer than the current 52K readable prose size. That is how I read Dave Dial and Scjessey's comments above, and that is what I meant. Maybe I am missing your point, and I'm sorry you feel insulted, but frankly I see no insult here other than referring to editors' work as bull-shitting. Why are you resisting putting material into the Presidency article first, and then discussing whether any of it belongs here? Tvoz/talk 01:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
It's called filibustering, isn't it? It's succeeded in preventing one section being updated since last July, if that fills your heart with joy, but has it led to a good article? Is it even close to being of FA standard? --John (talk) 11:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Filling my heart with joy is not really why I am here, John - I hope the same is true for you. You still have not given any reason for not being willing to propose additions to the Presidency article, where details of policies obviously should go, and then discuss summarizing here those that are relevant to the biography. It's starting to sound as though you'd just rather complain about the process rather than do what's needed, but that is your choice. This is getting repetitive. Tvoz/talk 23:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
(cough) I sort of hate to interrupt, but I don't believe anyone has suggested adding "details of policies" to this article. It was suggested that the drone policy be mentioned in this article, not in detail. While I can see there's a valid argument for writing something for the other article first, I am unaware of any requirement that it happen in that order. Rivertorch (talk) 07:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
It could only be a requirement if you were trying to slow things down to deter people from adding well-sourced material that is not gushingly positive to the article. It's an effective tactic; it's worked pretty well now for a good while. Unfortunately the article is garbage, but, hey, you can't have everything, can you? --John (talk) 12:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
John, no one is trying to delay material, they are simply trying to follow what are essentially the bylaws governing editing. You can refer to the above quote by Tvoz of summary style if you want to understand the order (it clearly says that the detailed article should first have the information added). The essential reasoning behind this is the idea that Wikipedia should be accurate within itself i.e. that a short summary of a topic on one page be true to a more detailed discussion of that topic on the other. Rivertorch, this is why the information should first be added to the article pertaining to Barack Obama's policy and then summarized here- to retain accuracy within Wikipedia. Partisanship has clearly clouded people's judgement on this issue.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2013‎ (UTC)
I agree with your last sentence, though with nothing else that you say. --John (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
@ IP I already acknowledged there's a valid argument to that effect. What I said is that it's not required, and in fact no one has come up with any relevant "bylaw" to the contrary. Accusations of partisanship are an oversimplification, at best, and are unhelpful in any case. Now, would someone who has a little time please draft some proposed text so that we can have something specific to consider? I couldn't care less whether it goes in the other article first, but it does need to go in this article and I'm sure it eventually will. Rivertorch (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I changed title of this discussion to "Drone Policy" as opposed to the previous "Drone War" because there seem to be no wars of that name. While "Drone War" is occasionally used in the media it does not appear to be the most accurate, neutral, or academically accepted term for drone use under this Administration. The wars involved in this discussion are the Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libyan Revolutionary wars. An agreement on the name of the issue under discussion might help should a draft section ever be formed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 08:00, March 9, 2013 (UTC)

Pay for access scandal

I recently came across and I think it should be added to this article: "Giving or raising $500,000 or more puts donors on a national advisory board for Mr. Obama’s group and the privilege of attending quarterly meetings with the president, along with other meetings at the White House."

Whatever the details, the plain facts seem to be that half a million dollars buys a meeting with the president.

EllenCT (talk) 05:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The link you provided doesn't appear to be working, so it's impossible to evaluate the source. The url suggests it's a blog, which is likely to be problematic. For any such content to be added, in addition to being reliably sourced it should be noteworthy in terms of what is described being a new phenomenon or one that is unique to President Obama. If that's true, it should have received attention from multiple reliable sources. Otherwise, it's either business as usual and not noteworthy or else it's unverifiable. What is "Mr. Obama's group", anyway? Rivertorch (talk) 07:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
That link works for me. But there is also for the original report, and with the press conference reply. As for whether it is business as usual, I think usually politicians get in a lot of trouble when they do things like this. Generally I think it's okay when it's part of a contest and the winner is chosen randomly from a lot of low-dollar donors, but this is different. EllenCT (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
On reflection, I don't think there is really a place for this in the article. Although there are dozens of news stories on it, unless it grows bigger I think it probably fits better in Presidency of Barack Obama#Ethics so I will propose it on that article's talk page and see what happens. EllenCT (talk) 07:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The Obama family

Wikipedia is missing a page on the Obama family. Many famous people have an article giving a family tree and family history. Here is a note I read yesterday: "President Barack Obama’s half-brother, Abong’o Malik Obama, won’t be the second member of his family to launch a political career. Mr. Obama was defeated in his bid to be governor of Kenya’s Siaya County this week by what seems to have been a very large margin.

Mr. Obama is the eldest child of President Obama’s father. They have different mothers. Mr. Obama served as the best man at the president’s wedding to Michelle Obama in 1992."

[10] — Hope this helps, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

See Family of Barack Obama, which has a section on Malik that mentions his unsuccessful run for office. szyslak (t) 15:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I updated it yesterday to reflect the outcome of the election which had been mentioned previously in the article, and that was the source I cited. Tvoz/talk 22:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Well done! I had overlooked the link at the top of this Article. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Update on some of Barack Obamas latest efforts.

President Obamas achievements in his second term should have its own section on the page. As one of the featured articles, we must make sure the page is as accurate and up to date as possible.

His Domestic Policy should include and expand on the re authorization of the Violence Against Womens act, Dodd Frank Wall Street reform and his various proposals for clean energy, immigration reform and gun control.

Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayoajb (talkcontribs) 23:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Not on this page. That might be appropriate for the Presidency of Barack Obama page. RNealK (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Obama II or Jr.?

The article notes Obama as Barack Hussein Obama II. I would think it would be Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. Can I have an opinion on this? Mfribbs (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

For whatever reason, Barack Hussein Obama, II is what his parents named him, according to his birth certificate. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

No 'criticism' section?

No shady land deals? No drug use? No terrorist pals? No gaffs? Nothing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Too bad that you can't read. Move on please. (And we don't do "criticism" sections -would you want to see a "praise" section? Please see the FAQs.) Tvoz/talk 09:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
we're not putting in any of that negative stuff. if it appears, we'll just delete it. go back to listening to rush limbaugh. you'll get plenty of such material there. cheers. Cramyourspam (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Criticism sections are usually avoided since they have a tendency to become POV magnets.-- (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
That is right about POV magnets - and it is not that we don't put in negative material, it is that we don't set up a separate section for it. If it is notable for the subject's bio, we incorporate it into the appropriate part of the text or footnotes. Or it might go into a sub-article if it is more notable for that - like, say, Presidency of Barack Obama. But my point was also that some of the material the OP listed is in fact already clearly in this article, so instead of the snarky note, my suggestion is a more careful reading of the article. Tvoz/talk 17:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
actually we do do criticism sections see Wikipedia:Criticism as well including any prominent controversies in the lede Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Several RS have mentioned controversies involving Obama such as droning US citizens, etc. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
You missed a clearly worded bolded statement on that page that states Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies. You may want to take a closer look.-- (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

North Korea crisis

A little surprised that we can read no word about it. Please open a new part in Foreign policy section with North Korea crisis title and add: "The United States has in turn made a show of its military strength in the annual drills, flying B-2 stealth bombers capable of carrying conventional or nuclear weapons. The U.S. military is sending a land-based missile defense system to Guam to defend against possible North Korean ballistic missile launches." ref: (talk) 01:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Too early for that to be in this article, which is generally more biographical in nature. Presidency of Barack Obama would be a better place to propose this. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

[After Edit conflict] We must be careful to not give this more attention than it really deserves. NK would like to see massive attention on this from its "enemies", but there's not all that much evidence that there's really a crisis at all. Wikipedia is not a news service, and much better coverage will be able to be written about these events in, say, six months time. HiLo48 (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
"According to Article II, Section 2, Clause I of the Constitution, the President of the United States is commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces." So my wild guess is that the decision to drop practice bombs near to North Korea came from Obama. Moreover what are we waiting? According to nor Afghanistan, nor Iraq, nor Libya has warheads, but North Korea has got! So are waiting to the start of a nuclear war? I accept that in the article it doesn't look like so nice that Obama lead(ed) so many wars, but tell me what is the point of an online encyclopedia? Isn't that to improve it and make it the best and not to color out/white wash it? It is raising many red flags that for every bad thing you say wait six months, and you immediately write about the positive moments like the Osama's death. In that case have you waited 6 months? No. (talk) 02:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
OK, wow, way too scatter shot a response there. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Agree with OuroborosCobra. But I think a good reading of WP:NOTNEWS would be helpful. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Obama not an "activist"

After the "community organizers" category was renamed to "community activists", I removed the category from this article. Obama was not an "activist" and there are no references that support the idea that he was. In my opinion, the renaming of the category significantly changed its meaning, so it is no longer pertinent. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I was just forced to remove this again after it was added by Billybob2002 (talk · contribs). I'd appreciate it if other editors could weigh in on this matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Community organizers don't organize people to be passive. I don't think there's a significant difference between the category names "Community organizers" and "Community activists". In practice, the terms seem to be pretty much interchangable. In any case, there is no shortage of sources in which Barack Obama is called an activist or "community activist"; one need only Google the phrase with his name and choose which of the hits is most reliable (perhaps Joann F. Price, Barack Obama: The Voice of an American Leader, p. 27 on Obama's "decision to become a community activist', or her quotation of the Chicago Times ("In 1996, this page endorsed a Chicago attorney, law school instructor and community activist named Barack Obama")? ). Our own article Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Obama says that Obama said that he saw a degree in law as a vehicle to facilitate better community organization and activism. It hardly seems to be a remarkable claim, nor one from which Obama himself would demur. - Nunh-huh 04:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC) (Actually, the best place to look for quotes would be Google Books, where a search on "community activist" "barack obama" returns "2004 Barack Obama, a Chicago community activist, becomes the first African American man elected to the U.S. Senate from Illinois"; "[Barack Obama] reports...that the work of the church complemented and supplemented his work as a community activist."; "President Barack Obama is himself a former community activist/organizer"; "Obama was in Chicago by choice, working as a community activist by choice, living an ascetic life by choice"; "Barack Obama played his part as a young lawyer and community activist"; "his discovery of Christianity at the controversial Trinity United Church of Christ, while he was a community activist in Chicago" all on the first page.) - Nunh-huh 04:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Israel section due weight?

Out of curiosity, why is Israel the only country that has its own subsection under Barack_Obama#Foreign_policy? Seems to raise somewhat glaring WP:DUE/WP:BALANCE issues. Has this topic been previously discussed? NickCT (talk) 07:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

American-Israeli relations are like a proverbial third rail of politics and media here; everyone scrutinizes everything that people say regarding it, and pounce on any politician who doesn't profess 100% eternal fealty to the relationship. Hence the disproportional coverage that Israel receives in American media, which we're just a reflection of. Tarc (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps, but it looks disproportionately disproportionate. If you closed your browser and wrote down the top 5-10 foreign policy issues of the administration would you choose the same 5 categories: Iraq War, War in Afghanistan, Israel, War in Libya, and Osama bin Laden? I think you'd probably consolidate them into Asia, Europe, Middle East, trade policy, and one or two others. Perhaps terrorism. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Concur with Wikidemon. I just find it really difficult to believe that Obama's foreign policy stance towards, say, China is less notable than his stance towards Israel. If you search engine test Obama Israel and Obama China the latter would seem more notable. NickCT (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
This conversation seems to have trailed off. Can I just ask, would anyone object if I simply deleted the foreign policy/israel subsection? NickCT (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Why would you want to do that? Rivertorch (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
@Rivertorch - Have you read the comments directly above? There are due weight concerns related to this section. NickCT (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
@NickCT: Don't mind me. I somehow thought you were talking about something on the talk page. Sorry! Rivertorch (talk) 05:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
That suggests restructuring the entire section for due weight, not simply deleting the information about Israel. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok Wikidemon - Can you suggest a route to restructure? I'm thinking we change the heading "Israel" -> "Middle East", remove some of the Israel material, then throw in information about Saudi Arabia, Syria etc. How does that sound? NickCT (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Bias is bias no matter what.

It sounds like when Wikipedia talks about something negative about a liberal, it's called gossip. when they talk about something negative about a conservative, it's called being neutral. Wikipedia should show the positive's and negative's about both. - Billybob2002 (talk) 05:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. HiLo48 (talk) 05:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
@HiLo48: TLDR. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
@Billybob2002 - Do you have a specific complaint about some part of this article or is your comment just intended to be the tired old "everyone is biased against my point-of-view" rhetoric? NickCT (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Mass shooting

I see that Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting is in the gun control issue, but that is still very few, when only today happened (at least) 2 shootings in both of them by a 4(!) years old boy and a college stabbing. reference:

And not forget about James Eagan Holmes, who left the most victims of any mass shooting in United States history. (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

None of these have any relevance to an Obama biography. Tarc (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
He is the president, and somehow responsible for the fact that the 300m US citizens hold 300m guns. Moreover we have a gun control part of the article, these are quite good examples to show the efficiency of his gun control. (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Before asserting the responsibility of the U.S. President for every criminal incident in the U.S., some minimal understanding of the U.S. Constitution, U.S. politics, and the U.S. federal system would probably be useful. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
It is also Obama's responsibility that there is no serious background check, and in fact even a mentally ill person could keep any gun, or even 6 guns, including a Bushmaster. You can win a war with these. (talk) 02:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
No President can unilaterally enact a law. If there is to be more federal gun control, it must come from the Congress. How is Obama responsible for the Congress not enacting such legislation? SMP0328. (talk) 03:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Gun control should certainly be in the article, and what do you know, it is![11] Unfortunately, the section reads like an Obama press release, but I'm not sure how to fix it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it reads like a press release. It simply documents Obama's activities after Newtown per the sources. I can't actually think of another way you could write it. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, we could include some criticism of Obama's gun control efforts from a reliable source. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
The article is about what Obama has done, not what his political opponents think. HiLo48 (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Try reading WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV sometime. Notable criticism and controversy should be included, in both the lede and the body of the article. Even if it's from political opponents. The only remaining question is WP:WEIGHT. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
WP:WEIGHT, as you correctly draw attention to, stands in the way of what you are demanding. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 April 2013

Please add middle initial to Sasha Obama's full name. It should read "Natasha M. Obama" This is based on the recent Obama tax return available at Jamccull (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Far too trivial to care about. Tarc (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Btw, it is amazing how looks like a tax return form in the US, they assume that everybody is retarded. (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Boston terrorist attack

Should be included: "The blasts threw people to the ground, killing two and injuring dozens. Hospitals reported at least 110 people being treated, at least eight of them in critical condition and 14 in serious condition. At least eight of the patients are children. "Any responsible individuals, any responsible groups, will feel the full weight of justice," President Barack Obama vowed."

and probably my own trivial comment: This is the first terrorist attack in US territory since 911.

ref. I hope that Obama fans won't hide/color out this main news. (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the attack is yet relevant enough to Obama himself to warrant inclusion in this article. --Philpill691 (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Obama didn't agree with you, as he has given a news conference about this. But I'm not surprised, this is the general route, first you have said, that war in Libya or the Newtown massacre is not releted to Obama, and see the current article! Both of them are included. Please write the history and not a formal press release from White House. (talk) 23:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Presidents always speak to the public following tragedies, that doesn't make the event automatically relevant to the president's biography. Calm down, this thing only happened a few hours ago. This is one area where crowd-sourcing is as its piss-poor worst; dealing with current events and breaking news. Tarc (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
"tragedy" no, this is a terrorist attack, as even FBI is treating the bombings as a terrorist attack. Tragedy is when you can't buy your favourite milk in shop. (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
So was the 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt, but that isn't mentioned in this article either. We'll see how it unfolds over the next few days, if it rises to a Sandy Hook-like level of importance then it'd be a candidate for inclusion. For right now, it shouldn't go in. Tarc (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
It is interesting how you are trying to lower the significance of a major terrorist attack. What you are refering to was a failed attack, with 0 deaths, 0 injuries. In the current case multiple bombs exploded, we have 3 deads (cnn reported), and 138+ injuries, two different category. (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not actually doing anything of the sort; what I am doing is utilizing some editorial discretion regarding recent events, something that an obviously logged-out and/or banned user (as a fluent English speaker editing from a Hungarian ISP at 3:15am local time is a bit of an imagination-stretcher) knows little about. Are we done here? Tarc (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Please stop the personal attack! (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
We're done. WP:Recentism is clearly the relevant concept here. NickCT (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I think that enough time spent to declare that this terrorist attack was significant, so it should be included in the main article. (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no one agrees with you. Tarc (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
You are right, but so far this is not a large pool, only one opinion. (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Please explain how it is biographically significant to Barack Obama? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Too soon to know whether this should be included or how it should be included. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't be included which has already been explained with good reasons. And I'm pretty sure most of you know this IP from Hungary is a a long term and persistent "contributor" here, and seems hell-bent on trying to blame Obama for everything with these "nominations". Troll much? -- (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
There was a larger pool requested so I say. No, it should not be included in the article. For several reasons stated above. NathanWubs (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't see why it is relevant my nationality, my main goal is to improve the wikipedia as history progress, and not to white wash the article. Furthermore on this article several of my minor/major suggestions has been accepted, and modified by registered user. But look at the userpage of Tarc, he/she is a registered user but you can know nowthing about him/her if you read his/her userpage. (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Please make an account instead of switching ips. After all you will be looked upon as a sockpuppet, which you already know is not allowed on wikipedia. NathanWubs (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Could you give a reference that Wikipedia blocks the unregistered users to suggest edit(s) ? "instead of switching ips" you are totally wrong, I'm not switching manually the IP addresses, I have dynamic IP (like 99% of the users where I live), and only the internet provider's router decide when to request a new IP. BTW today is the 5th day that cnn is roughly continuously on breaking news, just proving that it is not a minor local event, Obama visited Boston. (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

None of the side discussion really matters. I think we've got consensus that it's premature to add anything to the article because it's a developing story and we don't know how significant this will turn out to be to the President's biography. We can revisit this several days or weeks, by which time we'll know how much if at all this is relevant. Although I cannot speak for editors of other articles, there must be an article about Obama's second term and there's certainly an article about the bombing. Obama's visit to Boston and statements made there are probably worth a brief mention in those articles, long before we think about that here. Why don't we just mark this discussion as concluded for now, but left open to re-start as new information emerges. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Agree. Right now, it's better to add that kind of info into the Boston Marathon bombing article. It will probably end up being mentioned here, and/or more likely the Presidency article. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Wikidemon's position on this, per WP:RECENT. Let's give it some time and see how the rest of the story unfolds before we start rewriting the biographies of people not even directly related to the incident. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 20:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
What would you rewrite? Boston bombings not mentioned in the current article. This type of modification called addition of a new topic, probably in domestic policy. (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Looks like you're not getting the point. The proposed addition is a glowing example of recentism. It is not appropriate to this article at this time. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 22:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Calling into question the neutrality of this article.

Discussion has run its course and devolved; any specific proposals may be presented in a new thread
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have read a few of the pages on current politicians here, and all of them include a section of questionable actions, criticism, and other information not on the positive side. I noticed more on the Republican pages than Independent or Democrat. Wikipedia has been very good at keeping things neutral, but this page is not neutral bias. From what I read I am under the impression that someone is actively editing this page on a near daily basis, removing items that cast any shadow of controversy on him.

I must call the neutrality of this article into question. There is no mention of his questioned birth status recently heard in the US Supreme Court, what SS numbers are assigned, names he has used in the past, nor his controversial terms in the Illinois legislature or at the federal level.

The validity of the controversy, whether factual or not should be included here for a non-biased and neutral article. As in the old saying "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly" are needed for a neutral bias. This article reads like a puff news item, not up to the standards of Wikipedia. Milspecsim (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware Wikipedia was a gossip blog. We report on facts, not fiction.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 02:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
We don't include nonsense such as his political opponents' claims about "his questioned birth status" just to create balance. Don't stress. He can't stand again. If I was you I'd put effort into finding a great Republican candidate for next time around, rather than tilting at windmills here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
  • "03:31, 6 February 2013 User account Milspecsim (talk | contribs) was created". Yea. If this isn't yet another BryanFromPalatine or Gaydenver sock, I'll eat my hat. Tarc (talk) 04:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Notice how quickly and desperately the effort comes, to delegitimize anyone who accurately identifies the powerful pro-Obama bias in this article. Compare this article, and the amount of criticism from notable, reliable sources across the political spectrum that's being carefully excluded, with such articles as George W. Bush and Tony Blair. And go ahead and bite that newbie again, Tarc. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed nothing except valid criticism of the now completely discredited claims that the wasn't born in the US, plus some comments suggesting that those peddling such garbage take their energies elsewhere. Perhaps Bush's and Blair's article have more criticism because they deserve it for lying about WMDs and the like. And I don't care how long a person writing garbage has been here, or not. It's still garbage. HiLo48 (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Fringe topics often have separate spinoff articles: To avoid wp:UNDUE weight in the "smaller" main article, then rare or fringe topics are covered in spinoff articles, with little or no mention in the main article. In that manner, popular myths or imagined scandals can be explained, but have almost no coverage within a main article. For example, with article "Moon" there is a spinoff article as "Moon is made of green cheese" to adequately explain that topic, without wp:Grandstanding of the cheese-Moon concept in the main article. Otherwise, an article would become excessively cluttered with "101 disproven myths about topic". Does that make more sense now? -Wikid77 11:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
There's legitimate, notable, non-birther, non-fringe criticism of Obama from left, right and center on many, many topics — from the undeclared war against Libya, to continued extraordinary rendition and warrantless wiretaps, to continued indefinite detentions at Guantanamo Bay despite an executive order on January 21, 2009 stating that it would be closed within a year, to the way that Obamacare (a tax bill) originated in the Senate despite a constitutional requirement that any tax bill must originate in the House, to the remarkable shucking and jiving about the origins of the September 11, 2012 attack on the Benghazi consulate (with news media bootlickers providing ample cover, even in the middle of a televised presidential debate). Somehow, it always gets chopped down to a few words here or deleted entirely. And I haven't even mentioned the multitude of lies and broken promises from this president regarding the budget, the deficit, and the national debt. I say again, compare this article with the George W. Bush and Tony Blair biographies. Please explain. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I guess you don't like him. Not sure why. Maybe you always vote Republican. Seriously, opponents will always find fault with incumbent politicians. We cannot include everything they say. If you believe a particular, well-sourced story should be included in the article, feel free to present your case. HiLo48 (talk) 03:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
To the contrary, I voted for him three times (2004, 2008, 2012) out of party loyalty. Unlike many in my party, and on the left worldwide, I recognize a whitewash whenever and wherever I see one, and I'm not shy about calling it that. We could start with some of the topic areas I've mentioned:
  • undeclared war against Libya, without even any oversight from Congress;
  • continued extraordinary rendition and warrantless wiretaps, and let's discuss Bradley Manning's deplorable treatment and the extrajudicial execution of American civilians with drone aircraft while we're at it;
  • continued indefinite detentions at Guantanamo Bay — if Obama can find $250 million to give away to the Egyptians despite a sequester, he could find enough money to transfer those detainees out of there if he really wanted to;
  • Obamacare, a tax bill, originated in the Senate (or at least the version that was passed did) — but the Constitution requires tax bills to originate in the House;
  • The constantly changing official White House story about how the Benghazi consulate attack originated, with cover and concealment from an amazingly cooperative and incurious news media during the two months before an election — so that after the election Hillary could say to Congress, "At this point, what difference does it make?";
  • A campaign promise to cut the deficit in half during his first four years in office — just one of many budget and deficit-related campaign promises that weren't just broken, but shattered.
We could completely ignore any conservative source, no matter how reliable (i.e. National Review, Wall Street Journal). We could dismiss all of those reliable sources as scurrilous attacks motivated by partisanship, and focus entirely on criticism published in reliable sources from the left (Talking Points Memo, The Nation, Rolling Stone, The Village Voice, Mother Jones, etc.), and still pack this biography with criticism the way that the George W. Bush and Tony Blair bios are packed with criticism. But like Hillary said: at this point, what difference does it make? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
As I said above, if you believe a particular, well-sourced story should be included in the article, feel free to present your case. Propose the wording you think is appropriate, and list the sources that support it. That's much easier to support than general, sweeping criticism of the article. Don't try to tackle all the ills at once either. One at a time is safer. (And steer clear of birther nonsense like we see above. That kind of association will never help your case.) HiLo48 (talk) 06:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Did I even mention the birther nonsense except to say that the criticism in this article should be "non-birther"?
questioned birth status recently heard in the US Supreme Court - really?, care to cite that there was a Supreme Court hearing on the subject? RNealK (talk) 23:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, I was waiting for when this would get to the "I voted for him" line. If I had a nickel for every time in the seven years I've been editing this article that someone came on here to tell us how unbalanced, censored, whitewashed, pro-Obama this article is - and then rushed to assure us that they voted for him - I would retire. Tvoz/talk 07:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I became a little puzzled myself when User:Phoenix and Winslow told us he voted for Obama not just once, not twice, but three times, including 2004, but I let it pass and gave a good faith answer. Others can either explain that or draw their own conclusions. HiLo48 (talk) 07:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Presumably he was referring to Obama's (successful) candidacy for the senate in '04. Theoretically, he also could have voted for him for president then as well (see write-in vote). Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 08:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm. Maybe. HiLo48 (talk) 09:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I voted for him for the Senate in 2004. I'm an Illinois resident. And Tvoz, I supported Hillary in the 2008 primaries. She would have made a far better president. Does the internal disagreement within the Democratic Party ever occur to you? I voted for him, as I said, out of a sense of party loyalty. Compare this article to George W. Bush and try to tell me, Tvoz, that this isn't a whitewash. Not even one word of anything remotely resembling criticism until we get to the "Personal life" section at the very end of a lengthy article, when virtually no one is reading any more. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Also note how he/she believes that the constitution says all tax increases/bills must originate from the house. Following that false logic, because the Republicans control the house and they are anti-tax, then such a "tax bill" like Obamacare could never be constitutional because the Republican controlled house would have never agreed to it. You got to love "false neutral" people who claim they are neutral, or even liberal, then turn around and spout Tea Party BS. (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't just "believe" it. Read Article I, Section Seven of the United States Constitution. All bills that raise revenue must originate in the House of Representatives. And at the time Obamacare was passed, the Democrats held a huge majority in the House, so alleged Republican control of the House is no excuse. Party loyalty doesn't enable me to ignore the Constitution. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This thread needs to end, please. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article. It is not for discussing the subject matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

  • agree, not neutral, reads like a Wikipedia:Peacock#Puffery, prove me wrong and point out the critic in the current article? Darkstar1st (talk) 13:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • damn straight, not neutral reads like a press release from Organizing for America. A direct comparison with the George W. Bush biography is all that's necessary here for any Wikipedia editor with even the slightest degree of objectivity. For the benefit of Scjessey, we are discussing how to improve the article. Currently the article pretends that there is no criticism of Obama's actions as president. Including some criticism would be an enormous improvement of the article. Let's continue to discuss it. All agree that creating a "criticism" section would be a POV magnet. Interweaving criticism into the fabric of the entire article is best practice. Furthermore, I only said that we "could" ignore conservative criticism. Best practice would be to provide a sampling from across the political spectrum, from highly notable and reliable sources both conservative and liberal. Agreed? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Question: when did this turn into some kind of voting thing where people who have a substantial and very obvious POV issues against the subject of this article can come in and make no specific points, but just spout Tea Part BS? I think it would be more constructive that if they chose not to be specific and instead say: "this article is not neutral," "I voted for him multiple times but I don't think this article is neutral," "I'm a democrat and feel that this article is a puff piece," "here are so and so Tea Part talking points that prove my points," etc, etc, that they need to walk away. The election is over, he's not going to be in office in less the four years. Pushing Tea Party talking points into this article will not achieve anything. (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, here's the problem with your analysis. I'm wearing my Wikipedia editor hat today, and I never was a Tea Party member. I disagree with nearly everything on their list of talking points, but that doesn't matter. Wikipedia editors don't care whether the subject of the biography is barred by a constitutional amendment from ever running for office again, or whether he will be out of office in three years and nine months. Wikipedia editors care about the quality of the biography TODAY, and specifically in this case, the neutrality of the article TODAY. And Wikipedia editors don't care whether you, Mr. IP Editor, are the return of a long-banned disruptive editor. We are only interested in one thing: identifying a very serious NPOV problem that has been residing on this biography for five years, and at last resolving the problem. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
an example of how the lede should read can be found in the article of the last president: After his re-election, Bush received increasingly heated criticism from across the political spectrum[8][9][10] for his handling of the Iraq War, Hurricane Katrina,[11][12][13] and numerous other controversies. as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, a similar line should be added to this article including one or more of the above mentioned notable controversies. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
The criticism of Bush was a notable part of his presidency, and went beyond the usual partisan politics. Nothing approaches that in the Obama presidency. In any event, that is a matter for the Bush article. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
The criticism of Bush was a notable part of his presidency, and went beyond the usual partisan politics. How is that different from Obama? For example, the House resolution to withdraw from Obama's undeclared war in Libya was sponsored by Dennis Kucinich, a liberal Democrat. Criticism of Obama is a very notable part of his presidency, and also goes beyond the usual partisan politics. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
actually all presidents articles here mention controversy, it would be absurd to suggest Obama's presidency is void of such. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
This discussion is not going anywhere, and seems to be a violation on several sides of article probation. If there's a specific suggestion for improving the article let's discuss that without talking about birthers, tea party, or supposed whitewashing. Those are the exact issues that got hundreds of (mostly sock) editors blocked and banned, and article probation in the first place. I believe the editors here and elsewhere have consistently rejected adding criticism or criticism sections strictly for its own sake. On a case by case basis we include various noteworthy matters in the article. If those happen to be interpreted as positive or negative by people, that's their interpretation. Mentioning the existence of criticism or controversy is only appropriate if the criticism or controversy itself is germane to the article using whatever inclusion standards. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

establishing significance of criticism in the lede

as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section we are directed to mention of consequential or significant criticism or controversies. Significance is established by the notability in RS. Several RS established notability of several separate issues, we now must select the most notable one or more and include it. My specific suggestion would be the Disposition Matrix and the collateral damage resulting from the use of drones. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

That's not a bad choice. Personally, I'm kind of torn between the weeks and weeks of shucking and jiving about the origins of the 9/11/2012 attack on the Benghazi consulate, and the $6 trillion increase (so far) in the national debt, which will probably be Obama's most long-lasting legacy. Regarding the debt and the annual deficits that build it, there's a broad assortment of false statements, broken promises, and reversals of position from Obama. These have been picked apart and criticized in detail among several reliable sources. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I suppose we could mention all three. And interwoven into the fabric of the entire article, we should provide the most notable examples of criticism on several different topics. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
No, that's ridiculous. Partisan talking points have no place in the lede of a WP:BLP. As to whether history would consider any of these significant, well, that's up to history. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
They're not "partisan talking points," Loonymonkey. For example, a lot of the criticism regarding the extrajudicial execution of American citizens using drones has come from the progressive left. The criticism regarding many of these issues comes from all points on the political spectrum and cannot be dismissed so easily. But I can see that if it doesn't appear in a left-wing publication, with a citation to that left-wing publication, it will be dismissed as a "partisan talking point" and immediately reverted by the Obama fanboys here, right? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
tangential discussion of appropriateness of phrase Shuckin' and jivin'
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Also, "shucking and jiving?" Really?--Loonymonkey (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, that caught my eye as well. Most Obama criticisms do tend to have a basis in racism, don't they. Tarc (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure Phoenix and Winslow was referring to the 1971 Osmonds song, because we all know that there are no criticisms of Obama that are racist in their roots, and it is the most notable point in the article Shuckin' and jivin'...right? --averagejoe (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Oh, that? I'd say the same thing if Obama was white. He was shucking and jiving about the origins of the Benghazi consulate attack for weeks. This is just another attempt to delegitimize anyone seeking to introduce criticism into this article. Plan "A": He's a sockpuppet. Plan "B": He's a Tea Party member, reading a list of Tea Party talking points. Plan "C": He's a racist. What's Plan "D"? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Sure, you would. Perhaps you're not racist. Perhaps you're just ignorant of acceptable societal norms which view the phrase Shuckin' and jivin' as being on par with Jungle bunny and coon. Way to keep digging the hole. Not sure about the other seem to have just drove us straight to Plan "C" with your choice or words. Miss-spoke? Fix it. Simple mea culpa should do the trick. Go ahead, we'll wait...right here at Plan "C" where you parked us. --averagejoe (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it's probably right and proper that the word "drone" does not appear in this article. It's not like he will be known for that in the future, is it? On the other hand, I think keeping : "December 1, 2009, Obama ... proposed to begin troop withdrawals 18 months from that date.[240][needs update]" since July 2012 is not a sign of normal editing at work. --John (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Phoenix and Winslow is desperate to see Obama cop a similar amount of criticism to Dubya. I'm not American. On the international stage, Dubya lied about WMDs, taking much of the western world, including my country, into a pointless war. His overall performance damaged America's image massively on the world stage. He is generally seen as a dishonest fool in most of the world. Obama has done nothing in that league. Maybe he will. He's got over three years to go. But so far, no. Demanding that Obama's article contain the same amount of criticism as one of America's worst ever Presidents is just stupid. HiLo48 (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. Clearly you have a pro-Obama and anti-Bush POV, and I suspect that it pervades your editing on political topics. Fortunately, most of us here at Wikipedia are both able and willing to check our POVs at the door when editing, and we edit articles with a genuinely neutral POV. Give it a try sometime. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
During the recent presidential election campaign I closely watched both Obama's and Romney's pages. I was accused by supporters of both major parties of being a supporter of the other. I'm proud of that. You may not like what I wrote about Dubya's and Obama's international images, but it's completely true. I'm describing an unarguable reality, not my opinion. HiLo48 (talk) 05:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
perhaps we exist in different realities as it is absurd to suggest Obama is free of any consequential or significant criticism. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Not as absurd as maintaining that this article meets Featured Article standards. --John (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Darkstar1st - What's absurd is you accusing me of saying that Obama is free of any consequential or significant criticism. Misrepresenting what others say will never win an argument. What I am saying is that no more belongs in the article at this time. Comparisons with Dubya's article will never help either. HiLo48 (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
What I am saying is that no more [criticism] belongs in the article at this time. Currently there is zero criticism in the article. So what you're saying is that zero criticism belongs in this article — even though very notable people on the left like Dennis Kucinich, who could never be accused of reciting Tea Party talking points, have sharply criticized Obama's actions as president. Is that correct? You believe that zero criticism belongs in this article? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 08:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
No. HiLo48 (talk) 00:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
ok, so what should we add, or is there some criticism in there already, if so where? Darkstar1st (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────If no negative information is allowed into the article, how about as a compromise, we add a POV tag to the article to warn readers that this article doesn't follow WP:NPOV? Does that sound fair enough? If not, can someone suggest another way to deal with the NPOV issues with this article? All options should be open for consideration. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, if you believe a particular, well-sourced story should be included in the article, feel free to present your case. Propose the wording you think is appropriate, and list the sources that support it. That's much easier to support than general, sweeping criticism of the article. Don't try to tackle all the perceived ills at once either. One at a time is safer. HiLo48 (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Gosh, that's a very high hoop to jump through. I think the administration's drone (extrajudicial killing, whatever you call it) policy and the debate surrounding it is of of significant weight and historical significance to be included here, not necessarily positive or negative even if people portray it so. Another note. The legal challenges to Obamacare are covered in depth here, barely at all in the "presidency of…" article (I removed some material there as undue) - Wikidemon (talk) 05:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Are you serious in your complaint that "that's a very high hoop to jump through"? I hope not. It's Wikipedia's normal standards for any article. HiLo48 (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, the "high hoop" for adding material to the article is typing what you want to add to the article? The alternative would be everyone just complains on the talk page and nothing gets written? —Designate (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
If you can put the words together to make a complaint, you can try to put words together for the article. And note again that this is not just an ordinary article. To start with it's a biography of a living person. Our standards have to be the highest of all for BLPs. And it's about a politician, someone who some people will be predestined to look for faults with from birth, rather than discussing rationally. That again means greater scrutiny of proposed changes than normal. You can't just moan and groan about the article. You have to address your concerns properly. HiLo48 (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Individual editors such as you claim that you would allow criticism in the article. But my experience over several years has been that the moment it's introduced, it is reverted. And we are directed to put it into some other article. We are accused of being sockpuppets of some long-gone editor, or being racists for the innocent use of a regional colloquialism, or reciting Tea Party talking points. The result is that the lede, and the sections dealing with Obama's academic and political careers (in other words, the first 90% of the article) have been kept absolutely pristine and unsoiled by anything remotely resembling criticism. Another result is that editors like me, who have tried several times to introduce very well-sourced criticism into the article, have grown weary of beating our heads against that wall. We've given up. And Wikipedia's reputation[12][13] as an unreliable, biased source has been preserved. I repeat, this article reads like a press release from Organizing for America. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Like many inexperienced editors, you fail to understand what WP:NPOV actually means. It does not mean that all points of view are represented, it means that all significant points of view are represented. It may simply time to face the fact that your point-of-view lies on the fringe and isn't worthy of mention in a serious encyclopedia project. That you try to cite a fringe right-wing rag like "" to support your argument is indicative of a complete failure to understand the neutral point of view. Tarc (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Tarc, my viewpoint does not "lie on the fringe." Significant points of view, such as the anti-Obama dissenters within the Democratic Party, the peace movement, Amnesty International, and the entire Republican Party are being ignored. The fact that 47% of American voters wanted to get rid of Obama — in addition to people like me, who didn't much care for him but only voted for him out of party loyalty — doesn't register with editors like you. According to you, 47% of American voters aren't significant enough. You carefully ignore my citation of an excellent, peer-reviewed article published by the National Bureau of Economic Research,[14] and pretend that the only article that I cited was NewsRealBlog. Such cherry-picking reveals your own bias. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Is there a point to any of this? Ambiguously demanding criticism isn't going to achieve anything. Make a specific proposal with specific text and then we can all weigh in on its merits. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Specific proposal: (A) Mention criticism in the lede, regarding (1) extrajudicial killings of American citizens with drone aircraft, (2) failure to close Guantanamo Bay, (3) US$6 trillion increase in the national debt, (4) crony capitalism and the $500 million failure at Solyndra plus other, similar green energy projects that failed spectacularly, (5) failure to end most of the worst excesses of the Bush Administration with regard to warrantless wiretapping, extraordinary rendition, and other elements of Dick Cheney style national security, and (6) the changing story regarding the origin of the 9/11/12 Benghazi attack, as well as Obama's failure to respond to that attack. (B) Follow through with one or two sentences on each of these six areas of criticism, carefully avoiding partisan attacks from the usual suspects and citing renowned, highly respected sources. Interweave these sentences into the text in the sections that already deal with all these topics in such a hagiographic way. And make this article genuinely NPOV for the first time in its history, Scjessey. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
No, they are not specific proposals. They are (for the most part) talking points. Besides, the list you have presented doesn't include anything biographically significant at all. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for confirming all my criticisms of this article, Scjessey, and the clique of Obama fanboys who WP:OWN it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for religiously conforming to Wikipedia's policies of assuming good faith and not making personal attacks. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Your results over these past five years speak for themselves, Scjessey. They speak for themselves loud and clear. No criticism has been allowed into the article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Certainly, doubts/questions/conspiracy theories/whatever you want to call it over his birth are significant enough to warrant inclusion in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

No fucking way, there is no place for birther gibberish in this article, any more than Apollo 11 should devote a section to moon landing conspiracy theories, which is listed only in the See Also section. Tarc (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Whether birtherism (is that a word?) is gibberish is irrelevant. The fact is that it was a notable controversy through most of his presidency. And actually, Apollo 11 shouldn't even have a See Also link moon landing conspiracy theories as it's not notable enough to even include as a link. I'd delete it myself, but the looners (I think I just coined a word!) would probably complain. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Please stop trying to steer this discussion into questions about Obama's citizenship. "Birther" and "birtherism" have become neologisms in the same way that "9/11 Truther" became a neologism: to describe a conspiracy theory that should not be given any credibility by repeating it here. AQFK, when you raise questions about Obama's citizenship, you hand fresh ammunition to the clique of Obama fanboys who WP:OWN this article. They are trying desperately to delegitimize any criticism at all.
At all.
Including criticism that has nothing to do with his citizenship, and everything to do with his many notable failures as a president. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
You need to stop with the accusations and personal attacks. You've now made the same ones multiple times. Stop it. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Sigh......It wasn't a "notable controversy". There are no reliable sources that have stated "doubts/questions/conspiracy theories/whatever you want to call it over his birth"(we call it what the vast majority of RS call it, conspiracy theories/Birthers). We have an article on the conspiracy theories. We don't need to add them to this article, even this discussion is attracting the POV flies that thrive on this **it. There is strong consensus to exclude the birther silliness, I suggest reading the Talk page archives if you question that consensus. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
@DD2K: I don't understand your second sentence. There are tons of reliable sources which have covered this. It was even front page news when Trump got involved and Obama produced his birth certificate. I don't doubt that there is strong consensus against inclusion. That's not my point.
I work on our September 11 attacks and we face a similar problem to what your facing at Barrack Obama: we are constantly beset by 9/11 truthers who want to use Wikipedia to promote their conspiracy theories. In fact, the situation at the 9/11 article was probably worse than here. Not only was 9/11 conspiracy theories mentioned in the article, we had an entire section devoted to it. I spent 2(!) years building consensus to have the section removed. It was a lot of hard work, but eventually it paid off. It's still mentioned in the article, but it's done in a respectful, encyclopedic fashion. I'm just saying it can be done, and I would argue that Birtherism is far more notable than 9/11 conspiracy theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Has the media covered birtherism? Sure. Stated there is one ounce of credibility to the conspiracy theories? No. Just the opposite. And your comparisons(Truthers/Birthers) are off. You're comparing the wrong articles. Does the George W Bush article make the claims that 9-11 was 'an inside job'? No? Could that be because it's a living persons article? So is this one. We have several other articles that mention the birther conspiracies(Birther, Obama eligibility litigation, Obama birther legislation, Religious conspiracy theories, etc). So Wikipedia has articles on the conspiracies and the related silliness. It just hasn't effected Obama or his Presidency. Similar to the way the Truthers and all of their efforts have not effected Dubya or his. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
yet W contains a reasonable amount of critique, O does not. either you believe he is above such, or you are unable/willing to add it here. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Dubya took much of the world into a despicable war in Iraq based on lies about WMDs. He is globally despised. He deserves the criticism in his article. When Obama does something equivalent to that, add it to the article, HiLo48 (talk) 03:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section & Biographies of living persons which specific criteria are you referring? i did not see deserve in either rather the phrase consequential or significant criticism or controversies, Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, When writing about controversies in the lead of the biography of a living person, notable material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm. You think the the '''kill list''' used to eliminate a 16 year-old US citizen by drone[15] is not controversial, i disagree and suggest the amount of RS confirm the notability. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Dubya's negative impact was (and still is) globally recognised. This is a global encyclopaedia. You Americans can argue the point over internal politics elsewhere. Just don't use Wikipedia for it please. HiLo48 (talk) 04:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
global recognized is not a criteria, if you meant significant, as the guide reads, perhaps you would accept the NYT as a source? [16], his Dad also a US citizen was droned a few weeks later. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
By referring us to the NYT, you have supported my point. In which country is New York? HiLo48 (talk) 05:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
global recognized is not a criteria, your point is moot. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Significance matters. If an "issue" is only an issue because of local politics, that's playing non-neutral point of view game. SO far you haven't demonstrated otherwise. HiLo48 (talk) 08:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
significance is determined by the amount of coverage in RS. describing the drone bombing of a foreign country as "local politics" is absurd. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
You've just lost all credibility on the consistency front. You've realised that your concern about US citizens being the target is a truly parochial one, so now you're concerned about US interference in a foreign country. All the citizens of the 110 countries where US troops are stationed (and have been for decades) will be delighted with your new found concern for their independence. HiLo48 (talk) 09:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to cite a policy. Any time. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 10:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I must have missed the bit in WP:BLP about mention of criticism only being permissible if the person deserves it. Silly me! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 08:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I also must have missed the policy that says we need to include every Republican/Tea Party talking point about President Obama. I also must have missed the policy that says we have to give them more weight then they deserve. Also can anyone tell me the policy that says that we need to have an equal amount of criticism between two different presidential articles? Maybe there is a rule that says that if so and so American president is elected after another president, that their two articles must have equal amounts of good to bad? I sure must have missed all those rules? (talk) 11:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not talking about Tea Party criticism or Republican criticism (I suspect you already knew that), and I'm certainly not talking about conspiracy theory nonsense. I'm talking about criticism that has received sizable coverage not only from American news outlets but from sources throughout the world. The drone issue has been commented upon by multiple British publications, including The Guardian, The Independent, andThe Telegraph, in addition to Der Spiegel and The Times of India. The application above of "Bush deserves his criticism" (which I'm not disagreeing with) is nothing more than an attempt to justify double-standard with WP:ILIKEIT. The manual of style states that the lead "should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." We don't get to overrule the MoS without a very good reason. Not liking Bush is, unfortunately, not a good enough reason. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


i suggest we add the Kill List controversy which resulted in the death of two US citizens by drone. NYT[17] and this source NBC[18] which uses the term controversy in the story title. please respond with support or oppose then explain, comments will be moved to a different section. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Why are we talking about a British horror film? HiLo48 (talk) 10:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
because the virtually unknown film is currently squatting where the common name for Disposition Matrix should be and editors have resisted the rename to kill List (film) for some reason. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Is it the common name in the UK? HiLo48 (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
yes [19] Obama has not only asserted, but aggressively exercised, the power to target for execution anyone he wants, including US citizens, anywhere in the world. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I cannot see how the deaths of terrorists on foreign soil are biographically notable enough to include here. The debate about these deaths is way too complex to be squished into a digestable bite small enough for inclusion. You would have to violate WP:WEIGHT in order to put in a segment that would do the subject justice. Perhaps Presidency of Barack Obama would be a better place? -- Scjessey (talk) 11:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
there appears to be more than enough RS describing the 1st POTUS to target for assassination of US citizens to create a section. [20] and since he is the first it is considered outside the scope of the previous presidentcy articles the same way W illegal war was. The NYT quoted a Bush intelligence official as saying "he did not know of any American who was approved for targeted killing under the former president" Darkstar1st (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
and the ensuing coverup, According to Becker and Shane, President Obama has also been involved in the use of a fraudulent method of counting drone kills, one that unrealistically deemphasizes civilian deaths. [21] Darkstar1st (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Motherjones is the worldnetdaily of the left, not a reliable source. Conspiracy theories do not belong in a biographical article. Tarc (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
really, MJ is considered a rs elsewhere on wp, would truth-out suffice? [22] Pakistan have been civilian noncombatants - not "militants," as the Obama administration has claimed. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
or the Gaurdian? [23] Most of the evidence suggests the White House's assertion is inaccurate – but hard data on drones is difficult to come by Darkstar1st (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
The drone program and surrounding dispute over its appropriateness are noteworthy issue (a series of issues, really) but I don't believe nearly noteworthy enough or biographically relevant at this time to include in the article. That could change. There are a series of articles on these subjects so the question is whether to link and/or refer to them. The Presidency article devotes a paragraph and hints but does not directly say that there's a controversy and opposition. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongly support Obviously notable, with criticism coming from across the political spectrum. It isn't just a Tea Party talking point. Evidently the criticism must come from the left or it can't appear in this article, and any lame excuse to keep it out will do. But The Guardian is on board so there you go. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It would seem undue. NickCT (talk) 07:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - One could argue that this should have received more coverage in the news media, but it didn't. Our job as Wikipedia editors is to hold a mirror up to the world and accurately reflect what the world says about a subject. This is WP:UNDUE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
actually did/still does. perhaps we are not viewing the same news media? the story continues to get coverages years later, using the exact term required for inclusion, controversy. the most controversial drone strike took place on Oct. 14, 2011, when 16-year-old Abdulrahman was killed by U.S. forces. [24]Democrats demanded that President Obama be more transparent about drones, secret legal memos, and kill lists. He declined.[25]. No Americans are currently marked for death on the U.S. government’s terrorist strike list [26] the US drone dead is now at 4. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
You're missing the point. It is a serious issue, but it is not biographically significant. Can you honestly say that drone strikes are one of the defining features of Obama's life story? This stuff is for Presidency of Barack Obama, not here. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
any blp of a person who keeps a list of people they decide should die, then makes them dead, would be a significant part of their life. how could such a heavy topic not be? Darkstar1st (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Please tell me you are joking. You are making it sound as if Obama personally carries a kill list with him. The United States, as a nation, has a list of terrorists to be killed or captured, just like many other countries around the world. I know it sounds like a big deal, but it really isn't. Not biographically significant, okay? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
i wish it were a joke, Barack Obama has insisted on personally approving a 'kill list' of Al Qaeda...[27] Darkstar1st (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
But that is a good thing. Unlike previous presidents, we now have one who takes responsibility for targeted killing instead of handing it off to Defense of Intelligence chiefs. Regardless, it is still not biographically significant. Time for you to let it go. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Are you saying that the kill list doesn't have enough coverage in reliable sources to be included here, or are you saying that it would never be included in this article regardless of its coverage? —Designate (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
No, I am saying this is the wrong article to put this in because it isn't biographically significant. This article is about Obama's life as a whole, and this stuff hasn't had any measurable effect on that (yet). It should be in Presidency of Barack Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
How do you gauge whether something has had a "measureable effect" on his "life as a whole"? What would need to happen for you to decide "Okay, now it's biographically significant"? Can you pick a random sentence from the existing Presidency section and demonstrate how it's biographically significant? —Designate (talk) 14:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
An example of "biographically significant" would be winning election to office. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
and keeping a list of people you plan to kill is not? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
No, it's not. As Scjessey has already pointed out to you, the USA, and many other countries, will have had lists of people they want dead for as long as countries have existed. That's it's in the hands of the elected leader won't be unique either. Given that such lists exist, it's probably the best place for it. The existence of this list is simply not a notable biographical aspect of Obama's life. HiLo48 (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
no, you just made that up. name one other country with a kill list. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
If you put your mind to it, I'm sure you can think of one. Tarc (talk) 03:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
LOL. Yes, I was going to suggest North Korea, but that will do. Maybe the difference here is the public awareness. That gives me an idea. We can add "President Obama gained considerable kudos for being the first world leader to publicly acknowledge that his country has a kill list". OK by you Darkstar? HiLo48 (talk) 03:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
wp:blp, Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources do you consider the following a secondary source? do you consider it criticism of Obama? Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will. ...Several were Americans. Two were teenagers, including a girl who looked even younger than her 17 years. [28] Darkstar1st (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
What's secret about the list? Not much of a source if it claims the list is a secret. Oh, and do realise that being well sourced is a minimum requirement for including something, but we don't include everything that's well sourced. HiLo48 (talk) 07:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
true, however we do include criticism in blp, so unless you are claiming this is not, i do not understand your continued objection to this material? Darkstar1st (talk) 09:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Again, Scjessey, can you pick a sentence from the Presidency section and demonstrate how it's "biographically significant"? Unless you define "biographically significant" in an actionable manner this is a circular argument: it should not be included because it's not worthy of inclusion. (Darkstar, please do not respond to any comments in this chain. I can't have a conversation if you respond to every single post.) —Designate (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't have to. The fact that he was (twice) elected POTUS is biographically significant, so (of course) it is necessary to précis his presidency in the article. Besides, the issue here is whether or not this "kill list" bullshit is suitable for the lede of the article. I think there is likely to be broad agreement that it belongs in Presidency of Barack Obama, after which a consensus may be found for including it in the "presidency" section as part of the précis. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
For one thing, Scjessey, the Kill List controversy isn't "bullshit" if it's on the front freakin page of The New York Times. It's far more notable than many other facts which have found their way into this article. It's the gold standard of reliable sources at Wikipedia. And its presence in some other article is not a prerequisite to adding it to this one, unless you're the designated spokesman on behalf of a clique. Is that the case? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
The quality of the source is academic if it is not relevant to the article. Right now, the "kill list" is not biographically significant. It has not (to date) had any impact on Obama's "life story" whatsoever. And I am not saying the kill list itself is bullshit, just all the arm waving that has come with it. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
have the objecting editors been satisfied?

5 or so editors have made their objections known, all have now been addressed and satisfied correct? one editor has suggested it is undue, however that cannot be the case as the article would be undue without the edit, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. being featured in a 12 page article in the nyt and mentioned in several other widely read rs over years would certainly qualify as significant, and there is certainly a lack of criticism in the article, therefore all sides are not currently represented. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

No, this editor is not satisfied. HiLo48 (talk) 11:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
in what way? you have acknowledged the nyt is a rs and significant, and yet to agree the article is criticism. do you have any other objection, if so what? Darkstar1st (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
That you write expressions such as "...and yet to agree the article is criticism", thinking it makes some sense, demonstrates a major gap between our levels of thinking here. I have made my objections. You clearly do not understand them. I cannot fix that. HiLo48 (talk) 11:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
so you do agree the source is reliable and the article contains criticism which is what is required for inclusion, and specifically should be according to blp. your last objection was the list is a secret, you can take that up at the rs noticeboard, we do not interpret the rs, simply cite them as is. unless you articulate your specific policy based objection, i cannot address your concerns and worry you may accidentally be obstructing the article by not clarifying your objection. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
No. You appear to be simply not understanding what I have written, and you are misrepresenting much of it. You have not addressed my concerns in any way at all. At this point I have nothing more to say. HiLo48 (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
No. And add an Oppose to the above section. I agree with several other editors here. This issue isn't weighted for inclusion. Thanks Dave Dial (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm`with Dave Dial. No, and oppose. Tvoz/talk 05:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
And the clique of Obama fanboys that WP:OWNs the article wins another round. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
No. It's undue for the reasons I've already explained. Look, I don't deny that this article suffers from POV issues, but this not the way to go about solving it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
OK Phoenix and Winslow, you want your abuse to stay here? Then have the courage to name the members of "the clique of Obama fanboys that WP:OWNs the article". Your post would then immediately become a personal attack. In it's present form it's just a pointless, destructive post. HiLo48 (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
And inaccurate to boot. Tvoz/talk 04:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I urge that we close this discussion, as the tone is completely inappropriate. If anyone wishes to make any proposals or discuss the article constructively, please do that in a new section minus any insults or infighting. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 04:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Satisfied? No. The article is a joke. No mention of drones in the article whatsoever? An update needed tag from July 2012? Come on! It certainly doesn't meet FA standards, and hasn't done for a good while, if ever. --John (talk) 05:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Well John, that's the story of this article. Anything that makes Obama look good goes into the article quickly. No questions asked. Anything that remotely resembles criticism runs into a brick wall of objections. It's hard to tell whether some of these editors are on the payroll of Organizing for Action, or just volunteering. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Which editors? Come on. Name them. If you do, you will be guilty of personal attack. If you won't, you're just creating unnecessary and unhelpful conflict here. Please just discuss the words and arguments people use. HiLo48 (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Frankly, I'm getting really fucking tired of people making unsubstantiated comments that call into question the integrity of other editors. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a pain, but it can be a compliment too. During the last Presidential campaign I closely watched both this and Romney's article, working hard to keep crap out of both of them. Obsessive supporters of both sides accused me of being a supporter of the other. That made me kinda proud. HiLo48 (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
you are proud of leaving Romney became involved in several pranks while attending Cranbrook. He has since apologized, stating that some of the pranks may have gone too far. in Mitt's article and keeping out the part about Obama's practice of daily perusing a list personally approving names of people to be killed, seriously? Darkstar1st (talk) 11:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
No, I argued very strongly against that ancient mud throwing at Romney. I might go back there and try again to get rid of it. HiLo48 (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
This isn't the place to discuss the Romney article but I've shortened the mention and cut out all the details that got stuffed into a footnote.[29] We'll see how long that lasts. Now, anybody want me to go clean up the John McCain article? Hillary Clinton? Vladimir Putin? Kim Jong-un? - Wikidemon (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
These accusations of bad faith are all not an appropriate subject of discussion here, and they're distracting from any sincere attempts to improve the article. Now please cut it out. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Every government has a kill list. Be thankful Obama prefers to personally scrutinize it, rather than leaving such decisions entirely in the hands of unelected DoD/CIA types. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
perhaps, but there are only RS describing one specific leader who is currently using a kill list and how that is not relevant here is bizarre. any blp would contain info about a kill list, president or not. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
You are wrong. The "kill list" (which is a gross oversimplification, by the way) is not remarkable at all. It is slightly unusual that POTUS should personally review it, but that is a good thing. Clearly, a significant majority of editors do not agree with your position, so if you keep banging on about this it will be seen as pointy. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
"kill list" has appeared far more times in print than Romney's prank. your opinion that someone who decides who will be on a list of people to be killed is absurd and immaterial as we MUST include ALL significant CRITICISM and praise. according to policy. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
The fact doesn't appear to be of due significance and relevance. The criticism is considerably less significant at this point, but that could change. There's no particular requirement to include criticism or praise, and a preference to avoid it because that's not an encyclopedic way to construct a biography. On the other hand a national politician's approval ratings do have some slight biographical relevance, although I suspect that fades and the opinions of experts and legacy become more important down the road once someone is out of office. Wikidemon (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
less significant how? kill list is the subject of a 12 page article in the NYT AND several other sources with multiple instances over the last year+. yesterday's Herald:[30] Mounting more drone strikes across a greater expanse of the globe than Bush, Obama personally presides over who lives and who dies.. requirement no, rather a suggestion. wp:blp, Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources Darkstar1st (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid Darkstar1st is right. Scjessey, your attempt to threaten another user with a justified suggestion for improving the article is not ok. I really strongly suggest folks here take a good look at themselves and at the article and reappraise (at least) the drones thing. It's a truly stunning omission and inclusion has been stonewalled here for a long time. No wonder people get frustrated. --John (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
    Please explain where this "threat" is? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
    • This Hagiography has been WP:OWNED for a long time and I don't see that neding anytime soon. Arzel (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
      Just because an article doesn't reflect your ideology, it doesn't make it a hagiography. Consider playing a different tune for a change, Arzel. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Guys, please disengage. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
        • I have to agree, WD, this thread has gone way off-topic (remember, article talk pages are used for discussing specific improvements to the article) and has become a WP:BATTLEGROUND. I urge closing this thread. If anyone would like to propose a specific improvement to this article, please open a new thread to do so. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 22:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I haven't checked much of the archives, but if after nearly 5 years in office his Wikipedia article has no criticism or controversy, I'm guessing that's been done many times before and it's been blocked every time. I think the problem of ownership needs to be addressed rather than just having a continuation of the perpetual dismissal of anything negative making it into the article. Keted6 (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
If you have NPOV and Ownership concerns, then please seek RfC or report to NPOV/N. But, everyone, EVERYONE, please refrain from using the article talk page as a battleground. If you have specific suggestions, please make them (in a new thread), but also, Keted, please try to build consensus before making controversial edits. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 22:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
We don't need to start a new thread. Just stop stonewalling this one. --John (talk) 05:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  1. ^ "Obama Cabinet Flunks Disclosure Test With 19 in 20 Ignoring Law". 
  2. ^ "Obama transparency takes turn under the microscope after attacks on Romney".  Text "" ignored (help);
  3. ^ Wikipedia article on Barack Obama Sr.