Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 68

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

→

Archive 75

Article of finite length

An obvious point that many partisan editors seems to fail to understand (or selectively ignores anyway), is that some content that was biographically significant in an article about an IL State Senator is simply not notable for inclusion in the main biography of the POTUS. Of course, as well the article presumably has achieved better focus and writing quality over time also. This article is 23k words of readable prose (about 170k total bytes, including non-main content), which is pretty much the maximum proper length of a WP article, if not longer (see WP:SIZE, WP:SPLIT, and WP:SUMMARY). Moreover, it has been this same approximate length (of readable text, the footnotes have grown quite a lot) for at least 4 years.

Saying that some content is relevant (whether included years ago or brand new) needs to be framed as "is more important than some content currently in the article. If we add something on, say, Obama's childhood friendships, we need to take out, e.g. his Nobel Prize to make room for it. Today's polling numbers, or some minor point about an early campaign, are unlikely to reach that "more important" threshold (even if the facts are perfectly true, and perfectly well supported by WP:RS). If someone wants to make an argument to include dramatically new content (or equally, recirculated very old content), they need to show why this content is more important than something we have in the article now, and ideally also take out what they are replacing. That argument is not necessarily impossible, but to pretend it need not be made is dishonest and destructive. LotLE×talk 19:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Length concern

My above statement is actually far too generous to those proposing additions. In fact, looking more closely this article is really too long now. It is true that some a good chunk of the growth is in footnotes, which is not so much harmful. However, the article itself has also been growing, and growing too fast and recently. Looking over a couple years of edits, the article has usually always been below 140k bytes, and very often below 130k, until the last few months. Now it has grown quite excessively to 170k. This screams out to me that we desperately need another refactoring pass to get better WP:SUMMARY style... and we need it soon. LotLE×talk 19:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• While length does seem to be a concern, balance is a far greater concern, and outweighs issues of length. If length is to be dealt with, side-by-side attention needs to be given to NPOV concerns. If only one is to be dealt with, it needs to be NPOV. UnitAnode 19:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Length is only a concern if one is proposing things that would substantially increase length. Failing that it's not a concern so much as an adjustment. If you want one section to grow you would have to find something else to condense. I don't think it would be practical to split this article, but as Obama's life history gets longer this might involve reducing coverage and taking a more summary approach to the capsule versions in sections that then link to subjects that are treated by their own articles. Balance is not a content concern, as I have discussed many times. If you have a specific change we can address that, but adding negative stuff to try to reach a balance is not a legitimate way to go about improving the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I use "balance" and "NPOV" as synonyms. If that's not how you think of the word "balance", then simply substitute "NPOV" wherever I have typed "balance." With that said, do you not agree that a biographical article should present something of a balanced view of the subject? What I mean by this, is it should be neither hagiography nor hit piece. Right now, this article seems to be drifting dangerously close to the former while being in absolutely no danger of becoming the latter. UnitAnode 20:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Balance and WP:NPOV are definitely not synonyms, and I can't believe anyone could describe the Barack Obama article as a Hagiography, or anything close to it. To me, even the consideration of that(as it stands now) is absurd. A WP:BLP is supposed to read like an encyclopedia entry. Interesting fact and biographical information. If one tries to 'balance' a biography, they are trying to alter the biography for reasons that do not apply to an encyclopedia entry. This whole discussion is out of line. If people have specific proposals that they think should be added, then make the proposals. Otherwise this whole talk page is turning into a Obama forum with would-be editors drawing battle lines over whatever grievance that catches their fancy. Now we have a user who is digging through the archives and detailing edits and editors and applying his own opinions on what these editors want, and another editor that keeps insisting on the urgent need to 'balance' the article. Let's at least try to stick to the guidelines and stop turning the talk page into a 500,000 word giant want of text.DD2K (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

We're having a discussion about the article, on the talkpage. If you have a problem with that, no one is forcing you to participate. And for the record, this article isn't a hagiography. My point is this: if "hagiography" is at one end of the spectrum, and "hit piece" is at the other, it's much closer to the former than the latter. It should be neither, and it should be neutral, with appropriate criticisms woven into the text. Right now, it has almost no critical commentary woven into the text. That needs to be fixed. A couple of threads have been opened above to deal with particular areas of concern. UnitAnode 01:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Measuring articles on such a spectrum, as if lack of disparagement constitutes endorsement, is entirely unhelpful. No, the article should not be measured on whether it paints a positive or negative picture of its subject, and particularly not whether we need to add positive or negative things like salt or sugar to make it seem just right. If there is a specific part of the article, positive, negative, or indifferent, that you think needs to be improved, we're all ears. If you just want to add negative stuff or delete positive stuff so that the article reaches a predetermined level of endorsement or opposition, that is not what an encyclopedia is about. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree slightly in nuance, Wikidemon. I guess it depends on what "substantially" means here. But we've seen a lot of growth in small increments, in this article, where someone adds "just a sentence (with a footnote or two)" on some side point that interests them. That one sentence doesn't by itself make the article "too long", but enough of them added together does and has. What would be better--but more work--would be for an editor to look at the whole paragraph (or even section) in which the new sentence is added, and figure out a way to include the new wrinkle in a way integrated with the previously existing discussion, all in a way that was no more words (and ideally fewer) than were there before. Such a re-characterization will naturally be at a slightly higher-level of summary for the prior points; however, that is exactly what we should do, as more salient biographical facts occur over time with the article subject. Given that this article points to many child and sibling articles where details are better discussed, gradually and continually moving summaries to higher levels provides the best experience for readers. LotLE×talk 20:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You know what? This whole exercise is little more than banging my head against the wall. Nothing can be accomplished, and I'll only end up with a headache. I've tried multiple times to help those of you who currently serve as regular editors to see what I (and many others, for that matter) perceive as serious issues with the tone and scope of this article. Clearly that's not going to happen. I'm tired of trying to explain how a neutral observer (and I'm that, if nothing else) would look at this article and see a clear pro-Obama bias. No one seems to want to acknowledge that, no matter how I frame the concern. At this point, I'm considering just removing this article (I currently watch all presidential articles, just as a matter of course) from my watchlist and being done with it. It's not worth the stress and accusations that have come from trying to work on it. UnitAnode 17:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Controversies

proposer is topic banned for one month
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The editor proposing this appears to be acting alone, and is currently topic banned.[[1]] - Wikidemon (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC) My concern in closing the discussion is that without the participation of Jzyehoshua I don't think we'll have much support for a proposal made in this form to change content, and it would be unhelpful and unfair to pile on opposition without Jzyehoshua's participation. It's fine to open back up if Jzyehoshua feels he can return to this after the topic ban is over or if successfully appealed, or if someone wants to pick up and run with it, but as a personal observation I would repeat my advice given above that it's best not to make too many proposals at the same time, or to try to convince editors to change their minds by accusing them however politely of bias or of being on the wrong side of a long history of past contention on the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Key: Mention and Former Mention refer to the exact text that was included in the Barack Obama article in the past. Location refers to where on the page it was listed, and Time Frame refers to when the material was included in the article. Links are to pages near the beginning of when the material was included and near the time it was removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzyehoshua (talk • contribs) 20:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Currently Mentioned: Rezko Affiliation Mention: "The purchase of an adjacent lot and sale of part of it to Obama by the wife of developer, campaign donor and friend Tony Rezko attracted media attention because of Rezko's subsequent indictment and conviction on political corruption charges that were unrelated to Obama." Location: Below 85.9% of article text. Public Financing Mention: "On June 19, 2008, Obama became the first major-party presidential candidate to turn down public financing in the general election since the system was created in 1976." Location: Below 45.2% of article text. Nobel Peace Prize Mention: "The award was a surprise to many, including Obama himself.[250] The award drew a mixture of praise and criticism from world leaders and media figures.[251][252] Members of the selection committee defended their choice against criticism that the award was premature." Location: Below 100.0% of article text. Formerly Mentioned, Now Removed: Abortion Former Mention: "He was also criticized by a rival pro-choice candidate in the Democratic primary and by his Republican pro-life opponent in the general election for having voted either "present" or "no" on anti-abortion legislation." Time Frame: April 2007-April 2008[2][3] Former Mention: "After a campaign in which Keyes called Obama's position on abortion "the slave-holder's position" and also claimed that Jesus would not vote for Obama, Obama won handily in the general election." Time Frame: May 2005-April 2006[4][5] Former Mention: "Before the conference, 18 conservative and anti-abortion figures sent an open letter stating, in reference to Obama's support for legal abortion: "In the strongest possible terms, we oppose Rick Warren's decision to ignore Senator Obama's clear pro-death stance and invite him to Saddleback Church anyway." Time Frame: January 2007-April 2008[6][7] Reverend Wright: Former Mention: "In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning Obama's former pastor of twenty years, Jeremiah Wright,[94] after ABC News broadcast clips of his racially and politically charged sermons.[94][95] Initially, Obama responded by defending Wright's wider role in Chicago's African American community,[96] but condemned his remarks and ended Wright's relationship with the campaign.[97] Obama delivered a speech, during the controversy, entitled "A More Perfect Union"[98] that addressed issues of race. Obama subsequently resigned from Trinity United Church of Christ "to avoid the impression that he endorsed the entire range of opinions expressed at that church."" Time Frame: March 2008-October 2008[8][9] Former Mention: "A theme of Obama's keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, and the title of his 2006 book, The Audacity of Hope, was inspired by a sermon by Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the pastor of Trinity." Time Frame: February 2007-February 2008[10][11] Minor Issues: Bobby Rush Former Mention: "In 2000, Obama made an unsuccessful Democratic primary run for the U.S. House of Representatives seat held by four-term incumbent candidate Bobby Rush. Rush, a former Black Panther and community activist, said that Obama had not "been around the 1st Congressional District long enough to really see what's going on."[29] Rush received 61% of the vote to Obama's 30%." Time Frame: February 2006-March 2007[12][13] Summary: As seen here, a number of notable controversies that had been mentioned on the article for a year or more were, between April and October 2008, removed from the Barack Obama article, including: -Mention of controversial votes on abortion legislation. -Mention of noted anti-abortion figures protesting against his speech at Saddleback Church. -Mention of the Reverend Wright controversy, or even Wright in general. Furthermore, despite all the discussion on the talk page in the past over inclusion of such material, when such critical material is mentioned, it is often done so without reference of the prominent media coverage at the time. What is more, it appeared that negative scandals or mention of controversial events were being steadily pushed farther and farther down the page as 2008 wore on, regardless of the event's sourcing and prominence in the news. This seems a clear example of undue weight. For example, the current article mentions prominently at the top that Obama claimed his drug use was his greatest moral failure (possible leading) and mentions a 1993 occurrence where he was named to Crain's Small Busines "Forty Under 40". However, more words are spent on that one reference than the prominent 2004 senate campaign between Keyes and Obama, or the Public Financing scandal which wore on for months during the 2008 elections - both of which get mentioned much lower, and negligibly. The article also appeared to grow sizeably during the 2008 general election, even as the controversies were being removed from the article. Is it possible more info was being added at the top to hide what few mentions of controversy remained? (Seeing as they've been getting mentioned as minimally as possible). --Jzyehoshua (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I could see including the unsuccessful run against Bobby Rush with much more neutral language. Intelligent criticism of the Nobel Peace Prize (i.e., refraining from using any criticism calling it the "Nobel Not-Being-George-Bush Prize") may be warranted in "Public perception" section, and turning down funding—which is not a controversy in itself (and I don't see how it is; wouldn't his opponents be happy he's not using public taxes for his run?)—could be mentioned in the relevant place. However, I remain opposed to inclusion of the Jeremiah Wright scandal in this article, as it's classic guilt by association, or criticism for his position on abortion; his views on abortion are rather party-line, and we don't mention criticism about Bush's party-line views on gay rights. Sceptre (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Another thing I noticed about the current mention of Rush in the Obama article. It states that Rush beat Obama by a 2 to 1 margin, but doesn't mention that margin was 61 to 30%. On the other hand, a similar margin favorable to Obama is mentioned specifically, the 70 to 27% Obama beat Keyes by (which number is given). And it removed mention the article once had about how Keyes came into the election late. I am not sure how relevant the Rush quote is though, but the wording does not seem to be a problem. It merely provides further detail about a key campaign in his life. If anything, the article needs more quotes from outside sources and fewer from Obama himself. However, it would be nice to know whether this was a major talking point by Rush during the election, and whether another quote might be better suited. I only mentioned the Rush wording because it was a notable critical part of the article early on before getting removed in 2007. We do need more information though about the elections and his voting record when covered by the press to provide a measure of objectivity, however. It seems a higher proportion of quotes on this article are by Obama himself, as opposed to other individuals or media organizations. It has the effect of telling everything from Obama's point of view while excluding mention of outside commentary. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Again, there's no point in covering his voting record on abortion in any great length; it'd be like covering a Republican's voting record on gay rights. In fact, we don't cover McCain's record on same-sex marriage in the main article, and his view on same-sex marriages is actually away from the GOP party line (i.e., he wants SSM devolved to the states, rather than passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment), and all we mention about gay rights in Bush's biography is his support of the FMA on the 2004 campaign trail. Sceptre (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC) The fact that Obama resigned from Wright's church over his comments is already in the article and the controversy article is linked. What exactly are the proposed content edits here? --guyzero | talk 20:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Oh, I'll admit I hadn't seen that small mention of Wright in the current article. It says, "Obama resigned from Trinity during the Presidential campaign after controversial statements made by Rev. Jeremiah Wright became public.[221]" Given the depth of the controversy, which wore on for months, I don't think it would be excessive to mention some element of what this public controversy entailed, something to show it was a major event at the time, such as mention of a major press release or news outlet at the time, and it should also say something of what was controversial about those comments. Otherwise, it comes across as concealing what the actual controversy was. To assume that not mentioning such a key element of what the controversy involved on the basis that people can read it in the linked child article would be not only wrong but have the effect of positively covering up a negative circumstance surrounding Obama's life. In the archives, I noticed that it was mentioned by User:Wasted Time R that anything moved into a subarticle gets 1% of the views the main article does. here[14] This was demonstrated via page views. For that reason, I think it especially crucial to mention key details about a major controversy on the page so that it's recognized first that it was a controversy and secondly why it was a controversy, if only via a sentence or 2, to ensure that the fact the matter was a major public controversy isn't hidden away. I would recommend something similar to the former edit which existed for over a year. "In March 2008, a controversy broke out concerning Obama's former pastor of twenty years, Jeremiah Wright,[94] after ABC News broadcast clips of his racially and politically charged sermons.[94][95] Initially, Obama responded by defending Wright's wider role in Chicago's African American community,[96] but condemned his remarks and ended Wright's relationship with the campaign.[97] Obama delivered a speech, during the controversy, entitled "A More Perfect Union"[98] that addressed issues of race. Obama subsequently resigned from Trinity United Church of Christ "to avoid the impression that he endorsed the entire range of opinions expressed at that church." That way, it's evident the event was prominent in the press as controversial, and that the controversy stemmed from Wright's racially and politically charged sermons. The only thing the edit might be lacking is detail about the speech, "A More Perfect Union", because the sentence doesn't seem to quite fit. I mean, yes, he delivered a speech on race at the time, but why was that relevant? --Jzyehoshua (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Everything you have said above seems to be about trying to get a wider audience for what you perceive as "controversies". You want to see more about Jeremiah Wright, but that's already in the article about Jeremiah Wright (and even a special article dedicated to matter). You want to see more about the Bobby Rush victory, but that's already in the article about Obama's Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama. You want to see more about abortion even though Obama's views are consistent with both the party line, and the prevailing public opinion on the matter (and are thus of little consequence). This is a summary style article because there is an awful lot to cover, which means much of the "meat" of things must necessarily be explored in separate articles. That's the beauty of Wikipedia - it uses the World Wide Web paradigm of "click here if you want to know more" so that we don't have to have everything on one page. These things that you seek to promote are already covered with the appropriate weight, and the massive discussion archive is evidence that every single thing was debated and discussed vigorously in order to get us to the point that we are today. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request

Add "Politician" to the "Occupation" section.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew Ryan Lewis (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Politician is not usually listed as an occupation because well, that's obvious. Instead, we list previous occupations, such as lawyer. Grsz¹¹ 00:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

War on terrorism

Could you point out to me what is the reason that there is only one occurence of the word "terror" in the article? Just to remind you that there is an ongoing war on terrorism both in Iraq and in Afghanistan lead by Obama. For a comparison: G.W.Bush's article contains 24 times the terror word. For a foreign people, like me, reading the article one could have an idea, that there is no terror threat in US. TomasGerbs (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Because the quality of an article isn't directly proportional to the number of times "terror" is mentioned in it? Because if you ranked all the countries of the world in order of which was most under threat from a terrorist attack, the US wouldn't even be in the top 10? Because "terror" is a word to avoid? Because Bush's article isn't as good as this one? Because no wars were officially declared? Because the "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan were started by Bush, not Obama? Shall I continue? -- Scjessey (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought that "we" have to write the truth. If we would write 0 times the word of terror then there would not exist such articles for example: War on Terrorism. "Because the "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan were started by Bush, not Obama?" To assume the good faith, the truth is that these are started by Bush, and continued by Obama. TomasGerbs (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, it says on your userpage that you study math. Does that include multiplication, by any chance? -- Scjessey (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you want to ask, goto my userpage, this is not the right place, as I think. TomasGerbs (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thus far, Obama has been POTUS less than 1 year, and while he is the CinC in The War Against Terror (as rational as fighting a tactic/strategy might be), it doesn't seem to be that big a defining issue in his overall life. This is a biography, the sum of the person's life. Obama didn't start the war(s), and there are other, arguably larger or more significant, issues that are relevant. The failure of the Bush administration to prevent 9/11, the barking up the wrong tree (Iraq), "Bring 'em on!" and "Mission Accomplished" bravado, failure to pay for the actions (including such stupidity as tax cuts for the rich during time of war, underfunding protective armor, underfunding the VA, etc.) and so on are defining actions and positions of those 8 years. The Bush administration was all about The War Against Terror. Obama's defining actions and positions are yet to be determined, but terrorism isn't but merely one of many issues early in the story. Time will tell. Maybe that's why there's only (1 * terrorism) mention in this article compared to(24 * terrorism) mentions under the terrorism president. --averagejoe (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to satisfy the editor: terror terror terror terror terror terror terror terror terror terror terror terror terror terror terror terror terror terror terror terror terror terror terror terror. There are 24 occurrences just to give you a warm feeling. On a slightly more serious note, if you have an actual edit proposal, make it! Articles aren't some formal exercise in using some random word a certain number of times (shockingly, BTW, this article uses 'news' 68 times, and yet it is only mentioned twice in George W. Bush... clearly an attempt to cover up the fact Bush was often in the news). If you have an actual useful and relevant sentence that uses the word 'terror', suggest it for addition. Otherwise, perhaps we should close this thread. LotLE×talk 01:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Read more times what I've already written, for the first time you could edit to the wars sections that these are war(s) on terrorism. TomasGerbs (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You haven't made a single concrete edit suggestion. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so add: "Obama is leading two wars on terrorism both in Iraq and in Afghanistan." TomasGerbs (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That looks like a fairly bad edit suggestion, but I'm glad it is actually a suggestion. It suggests a WP:OR characterization of those wars that is unlikely to meet WP:NPOV. Maybe with a citation that uses the language... and if there's some reason it adds something the article doesn't already cover.LotLE×talk

If the grammar is bad then use a better English. Read War on terrorism or other pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomasGerbs (talk • contribs) 01:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, just because I am a geek, I decided to look at actual word counts:

% histogram GB.txt | grep 'terror' | egrep -v '(url)|(cite)|(ref)' 
terrorist         6
terrorists        4
terrorism         1
terror            1
counterterrorism  1
% histogram BO.txt | grep 'terror' | egrep -v '(url)|(cite)|(ref)' 
terrorism	   2

I don't want to explain the tools too deeply. The last bit is just to ignore somewhat non-relevant occurrences like 'weburlhttpwwwguardiancoukworldfebindiaterrorismtitleCIA', which isn't really a use of 'terror' in a real way. The actual ratio of this arbitrary morpheme is 13:2, not 24:1. LotLE×talk 01:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The War Against Terror is really one war being fought on several fronts, including but not limited to Iraq and Afghanistan...and Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, Europe, the US, etc. --averagejoe (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and the most soldier's death are us troops and iraq/afghan troops and civilians. TomasGerbs (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Correct. Your point being.....? What, exactly, does the number of casualties at any given location have to do with the Obama article? When I lived in Germany, there were US and other troops, US and European civilians that were casualties of terrorism there. All that is mentioned in the Ronald Reagan article regarding terrorism is Lybia. In the George H. W. Bush article, terrorism is only mentioned with regard to the Gulf War. They were the presidents when I wore the boots across the pond. --averagejoe (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The Afghan and Iraq wars both have there own titled sections of the article. How does adding a single sentence somewhere else give them better coverage here than they already have? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The first time in the article that happens we can read about the Iraq war is on the 8-th page (on a tft monitor), the same happens in the first page of Bush's article. But we can obtain more important informations while we read the Obama's article, like

• Obama's parents met in a Russian class,
• His parents separated when he was two years old and they divorced in 1964
• Suharto, a military leader in Soetoro's home country, came to power in 1967
• Obama's mother returned to Hawaii in 1972

We know every pointless idiotic datas Obama's family, but not know that he leads two wars. TomasGerbs (talk) 08:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the first mention is in the table of contents at the very start, since they have their own named sections. That makes it pretty obvious to a reader, at the get go, that they are a big deal. Obama's parents have greater importance to a BIOGRAPPHY of Obama's entire life, what this article is, than a war that didn't even start on Obama's watch, and one that he hasn't been in charge of for even a year of his life. That about 98% of his life, he wasn't in charge of the war, and its impact on his life is not yet known (unlike Bush). You want higher importance? How about going to the article on the Presidency of Barack Obama. That would make sense. As for declaring things pointless, I declare Bush's history in sports team ownerships and his school graduation dates pointless information compared to the enormity of 9/11, yet they all get mentioned before the event that robbed 3000 Americans of their lives. Hell, if anything, it could be argued that the wars are getting better coverage in THIS article than Bush's, after all, they have their own individual sections in this article, and don't in Bush's. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 08:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If you hide the content's block, then you won't see it. And probably the goal here is not that to write about the main issues in the content block, making the best content block on wikipedia. We should write the most important events and details in the first few paragraphs. TomasGerbs (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Very biographic bullet points. And....? Currently, he's leading a nation engaged in one war...The War Against Terror. It's being fought on several fronts, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and a bunch of other places. It is but one factoid in his comprehensive biography. The details of said war are best covered in articles specific to the war (or particular theaters of operation, perhaps). Bear in mind, he doesn't lead a war, he leads a nation (at least the executive branch) which is currently at war. Also bear in mind he didn't initiate said war, but inherited it at his inauguration.

"Bear in mind, he doesn't lead a war, he leads a nation (at least the executive branch) which is currently at war." What? The US president is the commander in chief of the United States armed forces. TomasGerbs (talk) 09:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

What, exactly, would you have the article say that isn't already covered? Pitch an idea, suggest some wording, propose an edit. Thus far you seem to just be complaining that the article doesn't mention terror enough, without any rationale. --averagejoe (talk) 08:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've made an edit proposal, probably read the whole discussion, and not only the last sentence from it. TomasGerbs (talk) 09:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Deadliest year for U.S. troops on Afghan duty: 311 killed in 2009, up from 155 in 2008"

Only this artcile's title should be also good for the article, for reference: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2009/12/29/2009-12-29_deadliest_year_for_us_troops_on_afghan_duty_311_killed_in_2009_up_from_155_in_20.html TomasGerbs (talk) 10:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

What does this, an article that does not even mention the president, have to do with this wikipedia article? Tarc (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Add the above sentence to the War in Afghanistan section to become the last sentence. You write in that Obama deployed additional 30,000 troops, it would be good for the article to see the result of this decision. Note that Bush's article contains correctly facts about number of lost troops. Without numbers I would say an article's value is pretty low. We can write about long sentences and paragraphs where were Obama's parents and where were they first met, but the value of these informations is pretty low. TomasGerbs (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This is Obama's biography. As such, biographically-relevant stuff that you regard as trivial is actually important. This is not an article about the so-called "war on terror". -- Scjessey (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If you write about he deployed more troops in the article, then I think that we should also write about what happened with them. Above some of you said that he is leading only one war, this is just playing with the words, attempts to decrease of number of wars what is actually two. I see double standard here. TomasGerbs (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Your logic is faulty, and the level of detail you are seeking would represent undue weight. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Record number of dead troops due to Obama's decision in your country is uninteresting fact? TomasGerbs (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The deaths are due to President Obama's decision? Come on now. For the record, the troop level increases were approved by both President George W. Bush and President Obama for FYI 2009. As you can see by this chart, the troop levels in Afghanistan increased from 9,700 in December of 2002 to 33,700 in July of 2008. So the progressive increase in troops during FYI 2009(a much larger increase ordered by Obama than Bush, but both had ordered increases) went from 36,000 in January of 2009 to around 68,000 in November of 2009. Which one cannot gain any real conclusion to until after the troop increase is complete and the strategies are implemented. In other words, you cannot attribute the increase in deaths due solely to the increase in troops. If you look at the deaths in Iraq, the amount has been cut in half for 2009(compared to the deaths in 2008), even as the deaths in Afghanistan have doubled. We are not going to play politics with these numbers and list them as blame, or credit, tokens. They are listed in the appropriate articles. As time goes on and the results of the newer actions become evident, then I suppose you will find a better reception in adding something about the troop level increases/decreases and the results of those actions. By the way, your suggestion did not mention the word 'terrorism'.DD2K (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand you, just to remind you and other editors, Obama is the potus, and not Bush. I see no option what can/could do Bush in such situation, Obama has the power to recall the troops, but instead of this he increases their numbers so the death of them also. Yes, it doesn't contain the word of terror but it has connection to the wars. TomasGerbs (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you cannot not understand me, nor the explanations and links I've given, I would suggest that you not edit the English Wikipedia and move to the Wiki version of your native language. That also is true if you just want to make broad generalizations and offer nothing constructive on talk pages of articles. I've given you a detailed explanation on troop levels in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the US deaths in those two theaters. The troop level increase did not begin in full until November of 2009, and a portion of the increase was approved by the previous administration. There is no way to gauge the result of a troop increase that was implemented, and is still not complete, less than 2 months ago. If you cannot understand that, then it's probably time for you to move on to another article.DD2K (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, DD2K. You've done a nice job of explaining the situation. Simple number of troops has little to do with casualty rates. It doesn't differentiate between types of troops (infantry, logistics, communications, special ops, etc), where and how they are deployed, what missions they are given, etc. Recently, several CIA (intelligence) civilians were killed by a suicide bomber during an intel operation....how would that factor in with troop deployments. Many civilians were killed on US soil on 9/11 when we had no troops deployed. The attempted attack by the underwear bomber on 12/25 invloved no troops, nor did it involve the countries TomasGerbs is concerned with....where does that factor in?

Again, we are currently fighting *ONE* war, on many different fronts in this current war....just as in WII we fought one world war against several participants (including Germany, Italy, Japan, etc) on many fronts in several theaters. Examples of different wars would be the US-Panamanian conflict (where we sought to depose a drug lord), Grenada, Desert Storm, etc....all fought not only in different locations but also for very different and unrelated underlying reasons, using different methods, strategies and tactics.

TomasGerbs doesn't seem to understand how the US conducts war, and I'm guessing there is little practical experience on warfare on his part. He seems like a typical civilian, with a lack of understanding compounded by a language barrier, further compounded by a desire to push a POV. Can we move on to something relevant now? --averagejoe (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Despite the unhelpful start by the editor who engaged in somewhat silly (and not even accurate) word counts as if that was content discussion, I think TomasGerbs actually has a fairly good suggestion at this point. It feels like much of the reaction now is a bit of knee-jerk defense of Obama, rather than really good for article content.

In particular, this rhetoric about "one war (on terrrorism)" certainly plays well among American voters who are nationalistic boosterist ("my country right or wrong", etc). However, as a matter of plain fact and international law, the claim is false. It is a false claim frequently stated by the previous administration, and stated somewhat less incessantly by this administration. But in both cases, it is a matter of political pandering, not encyclopedic neutrality, and we should generally not include it (certainly not outside of direct quotes).

Moreover, war casualties are clearly part of war (if not the whole of it). And Obama did make rather a big deal of long deliberations leading to an increase in US troops in Afghanistan (and a decrease of those in Iraq). A few words tying those policy decisions to their effects and the status of these wars feels needed. Something characterizing the trends of civilian and combatant deaths during the dates when Obama increased troop levels in one war, and decreased them in another would be relevant framing. LotLE×talk 19:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

In that case, hop on over to Franklin D. Roosevelt and make sure his article mentions the almost 500,000 US military personnel who died in WW2 because of decisions he made as the CinC. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

While I do support "My country, right or wrong" because it is MY country, I am quick to exercise my First Amendment rights to criticize my country when it does wrong. The fiasco that Bush got us into with Iraq had nothing to do with The War Against Terror. It was about regime change, and revenge (he was looking for the man who tried to shoot his pa). We're no longer seeking to oust Saddam (which, IMHO, could very well be considered war crimes committed by the Bush Cheney administration, and I would have no problem seeing the appropriate very high level nutters prosecuted) and take over the country. That war is over, and has been for some time. The current activities there are a part of the war against terrorism, just as WWII had been over for many years I was stationed in Germany, when I had to face terrorists....the Red Army Faction weren't part of WWII. The current war is one large war at this point, with several fronts/theaters. I don't say this as a US "nationalistic boosterist" or neo-con chickenhawk, but as someone who has spent much of his life involved with both tactics and strategy of war.

Do bear in mind, this is a biography, not an article on this (or any) war. Due weight should bee considered in the entirety of the person, not the hot-button issue of the day. --averagejoe (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I already have pointed out, the drastic troop increases began in November of 2009, that's less than 2 months ago. How can we gauge the 'results' of that action right now? Especially given the fact that the troop increases will keep up until 2011. But if you want the statistics, here they are. In Afghanistan the US deaths in November of 2009 were 18, down from 59 in October of 2009, and in December the US deaths were at 20. As you can see from the graph here, there were 210 US deaths in the 5 months prior to the November 2009(an average of 42 a month) troop increase, and 38 deaths in the 2 months preceding(for an average of 19). In Iraq, the total number of Coalition deaths in 2008 was 322, for an average of 27 per month. In 2009(after the troop decrease) the total for the year was 151, for an average of under 13 per month. In both cases the deaths per month decreased by over half. Frankly, I don't see how this belongs in the Barack Obama article and think it's absurd. But there you go. It's a far cry from a 'knee jerk defense of Obama', and more about reality and what does and does not belong in this article. And frankly, with the amount of cuts you have made from the article in recent weeks, it surprises me that you would suggest otherwise.DD2K (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Added to make clear that my last edit had an edit conflict with the removal a racist line. It looks like I added it, but did not.DD2K (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like for me that is an original research. I'm not a soldier, but from the graph it looks like for me that in winter there are less military actions because in every year in winter there are less deaths, so seeing the deaths/month rate in different time periods is pointless. The deaths/year corrects these effects. And from that we can see that in the first year of Obama's administration it is doubled. TomasGerbs (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• ""terror" is a word to avoid" (Scjessey)
• "you are seeking would represent undue weight" (Scjessey)
• "As time goes on and the results of the newer actions become evident.." (DD2K)
• "Due weight should bee considered in the entirety..." (averagejoe)
• "How can we gauge the 'results' of that action right now?" (DD2K)

I'm not surprised that the only super-light critics is the last last but one sentence from article. TomasGerbs (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Specific language

A couple notes: (1) Per several posters, including my own prior note, "terror(ism)" is a loaded term which we should generally avoid. Its use (including or especially in the phrase "War on Terror") generally indicates a rhetorical purpose rather than any factual one. (2) Per DD2K, I definitely do not want any big expansion of this article; the most I might propose is adding a clause (or at the outside, a short sentence) for this stuff.

We now have this sentence:

On December 1, Obama announced that he would deploy an additional 30,000 soldiers over a period of six months.

I think it could be framed a bit with something like:

Following a year in which US military deaths doubled([15]?) and Afghani civilian deaths increased dramatically([16]?), on December 1, Obama announced that he would deploy an additional 30,000 soldiers over a period of six months.

Those are somewhat hastily chosen possible citations, but those rough facts seem well supportable. We don't want to make a conclusion about whether the troop increase was the right or wrong response to the state of the war, but providing a clause indicating the general state is germane. LotLE×talk 21:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Btw. To counter the addition of a few words, I think we should lose the last sentence of that same paragraph:

The following day, Gen. McChrystal cautioned that the timeline was flexible and “is not an absolute”.

McChrystal's opinion/goal is politically interesting, no doubt, but it's not about Obama as such. LotLE×talk 21:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That is a good proposal. Just to see the numbers I've found an interesting data on that page: us troops deaths in 2008 is: 314 (in Iraq)+155 (in Afghanistan)=469, in 2009 this is: 150 (in Iraq)+319 (in Afghanistan)=469. Equal, it is also a good comparison of the two president's talent. TomasGerbs (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

What? You cannot use the deaths of military personnel as a metric for measuring the talent of a POTUS, or for comparing one with another. That's absolutely ridiculous. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I strongly object to the idea that this article should be discussing the increase or decrease of military deaths. Specifics like these are more suitable for the articles on the events in question, not this biography. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with the numbers in and of themselves, but this is certainly *not* a good comparison of these presidents or their talents. It's a Post hoc ergo propter hoc argument. Also, you're only considering deaths. How about wounded, civilian deaths and casualties, physical damage, political damage, and so on. You may be a math major, but I'd recommend you take some basic instruction in logic and rhetoric before presenting such....whatever it was. Certainly you weren't taught this in any credible university, gymnasium, or other credible educational institution. --averagejoe (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You are using again double standard by searching properties in which Obama is better than Bush. That's ridiculous. And we don't know those numbers for the last two months from the previous year, but probably they are very close, why would they different when the number of deaths is the same? Doctors are probably the same. TomasGerbs (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This isn't Bush vs. Obama Celebrity Deathmatch. This article is not about Bush, or what Bush did, or what Bush did that is different to what Obama has done. This is a biography about Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You're correct. The article is about Obama. And about his big family. TomasGerbs (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

His what? Would you care to explain what you mean by that? -- Scjessey (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm beginning to object to that editor working on this article at all. --averagejoe (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on it, but you are only attacking me. TomasGerbs (talk) 01:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm attacking your logical fallacies, your apparent persistence at pushing a POV, and your continuing failure to address the points raised in opposition to your silliness, and your failure to understand the difference between what is biographical about a person and what is more appropriately covered in other, relevant, articles. --averagejoe (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we come a bit back down to the ground here. The edit I suggest above isn't about Bush vs. Obama Celebrity Deathmatch (cute phrase though). I just think that the context of the escalation of the conflict in Afghanistan prior to Obama's troop increase is biographically relevant, as a matter of understanding the action itself. Numbers of deaths isn't the only possible context, but it is a pretty good marker for all the other context (in every war there are more injuries than deaths, on all sides, but there is a roughly scaling factor between them). In some wars, territorial control or access to resources driving the conflict are key context, but neither of those really apply to the US-Afghanistan war. If we present Obama's political decision on troop levels at all, the trends of the war leading to that action are relevant to the same degree as the decision itself. LotLE×talk 01:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The increase in troop levels is the result of a specific, goal-seeking strategy. It bears no relation whatsoever to the number of US military casualties (or indeed any casualties), so it makes no sense for that to be the context. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This particular war makes less sense to measure on a number-of-troops-killed basis, and the scaling between wounds-vs-kills changes significantly depending on the type of attack, offensive-vs-defensive actions, etc. It's not an adequate or appropriate measure of success or failure. Otherwise, we'd have to measure the Cold War by some very small numbers indeed....and the Underwear Bomber attack must be considered a failure as it resulted in ZERO deaths (but anyone aware of how terrorism's impact is really measured would know it was very successful). Bad metrics are worse than no metrics. --averagejoe (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm troubled that LotLE has gone ahead and stuck this language into the article despite clear objections here. Lulu, please explain what the troop increase has to do with the number of deaths. Your explanation can follow your self-revert. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Didn't know we'd achieved consensus on the edit to the article. Did I miss some hidden comments? --averagejoe (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have in mind some other context that you perceive as more relevant to the troop escalation? I have not seen anything suggested here, but if there is something, I might be very happy to use that instead. Is there some claim made by Obama about territory controlled by coalition versus Taliban? Or some stated policy goal that he said would be accomplished by the higher troop levels? Or anything else that provides context? As it read previously, it suggests that the increase was just randomly done, with no thought or motivation relating to any fact about the war, which reads badly, and does not even give any reason why the troop numbers should be included at all. LotLE×talk 02:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a source to hand, but I was under the impression that the increase was based on advice from his Cabinet and the military, with the specific goal of trying to bring the situation to a close, much like the Iraq "surge". -- Scjessey (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Not off the top of my head, but making it look like it was done solely because of body count is disingenuous, misleading, editorializing, etc. It could also have been written as "During a year in which corn yields in Iowa were at record levels...." and be just as accurate. Get the idea? Now, please revert until we find actual, real, no-shit reasons and consensus is reached. --averagejoe (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And, we haven't even reached consensus that the numbers are relevant to this BIOGRAPHY. Only seems to be one self-proclaimed math wonk that's really pushing that issue, and he continues to be unable to defend his own position (perhaps due to not understanding the language).--averagejoe (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, are you kidding here Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters? The association of the troop increase being in reaction to the deaths(military or civilian) in Afghanistan is only slightly less incorrect/absurd than the claims made by TomasGerbs that the deaths have a direct relation to the troop increase. First of all, President Obama made it abuntantly clear during both the Democratic Primaries and the Presidential election that he was going to focus the war effort in Afghanistan, calling it a 'war of necessity' and the focal point for the defeat 'terrorist al-Qaida network'. All this well before the rise in death toll in Afghanistan. In fact, President Obama met with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen before he even took office and Mullen described what he told Obama and what Obama told him. In fact, he declared that during Obama's first 12-18 months in office that "We’re going to add those forces over the next 12 to 18 months...we’re gonna go from a current 32,000 up to as many as 60,000,". So I would appreciate if you would remove the insinuation that you included in the article. It's not factual. DD2K (talk) 02:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I took care of the revert. Needed to be done. How impetuous of me....much like the edit itself. --averagejoe (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Obama: 'System failed' in a major way

Closed - Editor who started thread indef blocked for being yet another sock puppet of Multiplyperfect -- Scjessey (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/05/obama.terror.meeting/index.html This is a good critics from Obama. Edit it to the article. TomasGerbs (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Jeez. How long are we all going to pretend this isn't another sock of Multiplyperfect? -- Scjessey (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Iraq

In reviewing the Iraq section I noticed that it focuses on the pledge to end combat operations in 18 months. To the average reader I believe this gives the impression that all (or most) of U.S. troops will be withdrawn by that date, but I believe the plan is for 10s of thousands to remain in Iraq beyond that date (I believe the 50,000 figure was put out?). Is a clarification needed? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps if you want to mention that a "transitional force of 35,000 to 50,000" will remain but they "will change their mission from combat to training, equipping, and advising Iraqi security forces; counter-terrorism", and that all troops will be withdrawn by the end of 2011, it would be appropriate. DD2K (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

What DD2K said and: Some update is warranted after 18 month have past although it could be mentioned that he left himself a "back door" by considering change to the pace if needed [not making final decisions as with time, things over there can change].The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be fine DD2K. To the casual reader I believe the content as written is misleading, or at least incomplete, as it conveys the message that the U.S. will be out of Iraq, essentially, in 18 months. Having 50,000 troops there is still a very substantial committment. If you could add on the bit you mention I think that would be very helpful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Then clarify it in the article or even better, propose a change in wording here on the talkpage. I'm with you when it comes to the spirit of your proposal.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done I used the source and stuck pretty close to the wording suggested above by DD2K. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I took out "expected" since it's the plan. Otherwise it looks fine to me.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 07:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It would also be nice if editors avoid unnecessary provocations in edit summaries. Tarc (talk) 12:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the help MC-k. I think it's much more encyclopedic and informative now. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Looks good to me, but I added the starting drawdown number. DD2K (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Health care reform

Is it possible to make the section on health care reform more encyclopedic? It doesn't seem to say anything specific about the reform plan or what it actually entails (although it notes his support for a public option, which I don't think is in the legislation any more?). This is a fairly substantial issue in his presidency and it think would be helpful to get beyond the rather hollow "reform" language that isn't particularly informative. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe when a Bill is passed and signed something more can be added. As for the public option, the House passed a Bill with that included, the Senate did not. They are currently meeting and discussing how to reconcile the two Bills. Also, the section doesn't seem 'hollow' to me, especially since there has been no final passage. DD2K (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Details are [or should be, didn't check the sub] covered in the main articles. Going into details would only double or even triple the size of Obama's bio and undue comes into mind (for his bio). Unless you have one or two major points that can be addressed here with one or two short sentences it's moot. Do you have a specific proposal to add?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Obama's health care proposals are his signature legislative endeavor so far and something he campaigned on. Including only the meaningless platitude about "reform" isn't helpful. An encyclopedia article needs to say the key elements of what his reform proposal entails. There's lots of minor legislation noted throughout the article, so it's kind of amazing that this signature legislation isn't spelled out more. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You strongly disagree to what exactly? I made it clear in my post that one or two short sentences which of course should be about the "key elements of what his reform proposal entails" could and should be included. And I said "one or two short sentences" (additional to what we have know) are warranted in my opinion till the "final draft" of a bill is passed.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic. We see eye to eye as usual. I'd just like have some substance and specifics included since it's such an important and notable issue. If someone else wants to come up with proposed wording and a couple sources that would be great, otherwise I'm happy to take a stab at it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Then take a "stab" at it, preferable here on the talk page but that's your decision.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 06:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, making suggestions on the talk page is part of the process, so have at it. Personally, I don't know why we have a play-by-play of what has been happening in the Congress, and not a description of what they are working on. If someone wants to add the description(making it illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, putting caps on health care payments, etc), along with the plan to reduce costs by including a 'public option' and modernizing how health care providers/insurers conduct business, then we should get rid of the play-by-play until a final Bill is passed and signed. DD2K (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so I tried to find a good source with the key components (I thought Obama layed out 10 or so criteria that he said needed to be met?), but I couldn't find a good one. Using this source from the New York Times [17], I think something along the lines of:

Obama has called for reforms to expand health insurance coverage to the uninsured in a $900 billion over 10 years plan that includes a government insurance plan (option) to compete with the private sector, makes it illegal for insurers to drop sick people or deny them coverage for pre-existing conditions, and requires every American carry health coverage. The plan also includes medical spending cuts and taxes on insurance companies that offer expensive plans. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

...in regards to this edit, (and I'm just commenting on what caught my eye at first glance and out of my own possible flawed memory which are located in my guts): His "key campaign promise..." did include mandatory health coverage for children, not for every American as Clinton proposed. Although this was later changed at some point after he was elected. Also the "public option", I think, was his wish but not a clear promise back then. Besides the above it needs some ce but if the edit should get consensus in general there sure will be some and the only open question is if this should be worked out at the talk page first or edited as needed in the article itself. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Image

BHO is very articulate and good looking, many have said so, though some people saying so said it in a gaffe-ish way (Reid, Biden, Berluscone). Valid to add a short part there. Per another user's instructions, I'm following them and mentioning it here. JB50000 (talk) 04:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

He's also taller than me. What's your point? --averagejoe (talk) 05:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Barack Obama is half white and the definition does not mention this. I do not look at him as a black president, he had a black father and white mother. He is also not African-American, he is black and white mix. The term African-American applies to people that lived in Africa and then came to America either by force during slavery or by choice after slavery was abolished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ItTakesACarter2GetaReagan (talk • contribs) 03:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No, African American refers to citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa. Grsz¹¹ 04:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sure everyone is relieved to hear your personal opinion on how you 'look at' President Obama, as well as your own personal definition of what the term African American exactly means, but you are incorrect about the exact definition. Here is what Wikipedia defines African American as: --citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa.^[2] In the United States, the terms are generally used for Americans with at least partial Sub-Saharan African ancestry--. Here is the definition from Websters. In addition to that, the article definitely mentions who Barack Obama's parents were and lists their ethnicities. DD2K (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that Obama considers himself Black or African American. If so, that's his description. If he considers himself biracial and prefers that over African American, we listen to him. Only if he considers himself a British Sikh will we not listen to him and put down the facts. Some Eskimos do not like to be called that and prefer the term Inuit so their feelings should be respected. The same should go for this article. JB50000 (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe if he thought he was a leprechaun that wouldn't make it fact. He's not black. He's white/black which the dictionary defines as mulatto. This is not a dirty word and should be used more often. There's nothing wrong with being half white and black. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.2.165 (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to Q2 of the FAQ section at the top of this page. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Spoken version way out of date

The spoken version of the article is far out of date (Sept. 3, 2008) . The link should be disabled until an up-to-date version is available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanturvey (talk) 12:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with how to treat spoken versions of an article but IMO the existing one should be taken out as it is really way out of date. Any suggestions out there?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any specific advice about what to do with dated material at WP:SPOKEN (other than a warning that spoken versions can be out of date). -- Scjessey (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Reading to the "problems" section there I think we should purge the existing link for now while pointing out this "dilemma" (to commons?). I'm basically clueless on how to proceed.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I looked around too and didn't know how to fix it, or what to do until it can be fixed. Then I saw that this is done on Wikimedia and who made the last file. Davumaya made the last audio version, so I put in a request for him to make an update. I think we should put any action on hold until we get a response. DD2K (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I commented-out the code for the existing version before I saw this note. Feel free to revert if you think it is best. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I did undo the change. If only to make it easier for those at Wikimedia to update the version. I put a request template at the top of the talk page(per their instructions), so hopefully we hear one way or the other from someone. DD2K (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• After ec: :::Meanwhile, I left a note at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia page here.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that's another good step. And if they say that it's better to disable until it can be fixed, my revert can be re-reverted. In any case, it should be resolved sooner or latter now. DD2K (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be better to leave it out for now and try to work out a decision within the next few days on how to handle this. So I reversed you for now.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, if that's what you both want, it's ok with me. I was just thinking that it would be better to have an old version for the handicapped and visually impaired, than no version. DD2K (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That was my first thought about this [keeping an old version till an updated one is available]. But thinking further down the issue I changed my mind since there is a major change since the last speaking version was done [from Senator to President]. There is already one response to this at WP:SPOKEN which is in favor to leave it out for now. I, of course, prefer a long term solution with a new updated audio clip.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Looks like we'll get an updated version soon thanks to DD2K's inquire here.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Your wish is fulfilled, the recording of Intro + Part 1 is done. Part 2 is coming up. davumaya 11:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, davumaya, the article is very large and your work is much appreciated. DD2K (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Citation #2

Citation #2 needs revision or update, Birth certificate is no longer located at this address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.154.248.73 (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

So, uh, where's the birth certificate? /me flees Sceptre ^(talk) 20:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The link has been updated to new static address of the Politifact scan. DD2K (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Poorly sourced bit removed pending further discussion

I removed this bit:

Early in his presidency, Obama moved to alter U.S. war strategy in Iraq by planning to decrease troop levels.

It is sourced to an interview of Obama.

ref name="autogenerated1"Obama Calls for U.S. Military to Renew Focus on Afghanistan /ref

This isn't adequate for a statement of fact of this type. I'm also concerned about the accuracy, since I think the drawdown of troops was already planned (and underway?) before Obama took office. Can someone find a better source(s) and propose an accurate description of events based on them? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need to replace it. It doesn't contribute anything the next two sentences don't. Grsz¹¹ 04:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it is a minor bit of information that does not really help the rest of the paragraph. Brothejr (talk) 09:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Awaiting archiving of the long sockpuppet thread above before changing the Miszabot back to 14 days, but in the meantime I see a flaw in this edit that I don't have the time to elaborate on so am posting to prevent this particular thread from archival until I can get to this, at which point I'll remove this post. Abrazame (talk) 07:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

How's this?[18] I manually archived it to archive #68, the current one. I considered putting it in archive #66, which houses a lot of the discussions started by multiplyperfect, but I am not 100% convinced this is a sock of the same editor. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

== Why is this page censored? ==

Collapsing DD2K (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Im want add this iformation about president"s controvery, but page it semi-protectet. Cant im add this content, or americans peoples can not tolerate the truth, but "inconvenient" information about their politicians? Wikipedia tries to act as nezávyslý source infromací, and instead gives you only the word 'comfortable' articles and the "most appropriate" information. What is the objectivity? "Barack Obama was forced to face the accusations, maintaining long-term friendship with prominent American terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrnovou, former leader of the terrorist group Weatherman, which currently is one of the prominent leaders of the extreme left Chicago. [16] However, it showed that he had with Ayers close relationship [17]. Obama previously appointed her husband for green jobs, Van Jones. He previously led the San Francisco Center for Human Rights, focusing on social injustice and collective rights. When the 1992 fires in the Los Angeles race riots, revolutionary essay he wrote: "We are fighting for justice, our goal is to change the system! Yes, a great revolutionary moment finally arrived. This is our hour, "[18] Mentor young Barry Obama in Hawaii was the Negro communist activist and writer, Frank Marshall Davis, who was in the fifties (Mccarthysmus) investigated by the U.S. Chamber of Deputies Committee on un-American activities. Now Davis persuaded the young Obama, which raised his white grandparents from mother's side, the more stressed his black identity and his first name used but not Barry, but Barack. Obama's wife Michelle during her studies at Princeton is famous works, which described two possible position on the Negro in American society: integrationist and segregacionistický. Integrationist means of the values of American (ie white, capitalist) society and may be a way to success. One can, however, it also in its look as a betrayal černošskosti. His friends also include the radical pastor Jeremiah Wright. Among his ideas is the claim that HIV was deliberately invented by the U.S. government and used as a weapon against blacks and accused the U.S. government of plotting the attacks of September 11. [19] Wright is one of Obama's close friends, Obama met with him in the eighties .. Obama, Wright and his wife Michelle gave himself, as well as baptized their two daughters. Relations between him and the reverend married Obama's been warm. Barack Obama in 2008, however, distanced himself from Reverend Wright. In the past, there were also some doubts about the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate [20]. Target of sharp criticism was his effort with the help of subsidies to promote both the industry and ecology, especially the production of cars with electric drive. The Wall Street Journal Europe declared that part of his policy for disaster. [21]" --Fredy.00(talk) 16:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Any use of th ephrase "Negro" is problematic. This quote in and of itself is objectionable. And why was this comment put at the top of the page? Woogee (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Where's the skepticism? Too much subjectivity and guessing

This article reads like it was written by supporters trying to seem neutral. There is almost no skeptisism of anything in his life, record, deeds or other. I can find several examples in almost every paragraph. Here's just one:

"In June, Obama, unsatisfied with the pace of economic stimulus investment, called on his cabinet to accelerate the spending over the next week. In March, Obama's Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, took further steps to manage the financial crisis, including introducing the Public-Private Investment Program, which contains provisions for buying up to $2 trillion in depreciated real estate assets that were deemed to be weighing down stock valuations, freezing the credit market and delaying economic recovery."

So first, saying what his motivation was to increase spending is very subjective. The administration claims he was unsatisfied with the levels of spending, but for all we know he was unsatisfied with the poll numbers relating to the levels of spending. Also, to say that the assets were "depreciated" is not accurate. They were "toxic", but "depreciated" is what happens to disposable assets like trucks... a truck is say $10,000 when you buy it. The first year, you use $2,000 worth of it, so it has depreciated 20% annually. These mortgage assets were bad investments. They didn't depreciate, they collapsed because they had no valuable use, like a truck does. Next, the weren't "deemed to be weighing down the stock valuations". They were "claimed by Treasury, the Federal Reserve and Wall Street to be weighing down bank balance sheets." These toxic securities weren't stocks, they were derivatives. The stock valuations of FINANCIAL FIRMS ONLY were weighed down by TOXIC ASSETS on their BALANCE SHEETS because the ASSETS they held in reserve (their capitalization) had a much higher book value than market value. Next, Geithner is not "Obama's Treasury Secretary". He is the Secretary of the Treasury for the United States of America, not Obama. Last, to say that all this was "delaying economic recovery" is a guess, not a fact. Actually, nothing in the world says there MUST be an economic recovery at all, and this article assumes there will be and that it was delayed somehow by toxic assets. As a matter of fact, these assets did not "delay recovery", they created the need for a recovery by creating an economic crash.

I rewrite this whole page, and start with this paragraph. Here's how it should read:

"In June, Obama called on his cabinet to accelerate the spending of stimulus money over the next week, claiming that he was unsatisfied with the pace of spending to date. In March, Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, introduced the Public-Private Investment Program, which contains provisions for buying up to $2 trillion in toxic real estate derivatives that were deemed to be weighing down the balance sheets of banks, freezing the Inter-Bank credit markets where banks lend to each other for fear of unknown exposure to these toxic assets." Zodiacww (talk) 08:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The language in place at the moment reflects what has been said in reliable sources, not the views of the article authors (who are many). Please assume good faith. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

True, the introductory paragraph is a little speculative as to the reasons... but the comment has merit regarding the tone of the article. Reliable sources are just that, sources. We're an encyclopedia and they are not, so it does make some sense to be more precise than they are, e.g. the comment that an official is the US Secretary of the Treasury, not "Obama's". - Wikidemon (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry for presuming motive. All I meant is that, that is how it seems. I'm new to editing, long, long, long time wiki reader though. Zodiacww (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Good, welcome aboard and don't let anyone scare you. You've just jumped into a slightly anxious editing environment on this particular article. There's an editing guideline called WP:BITE that might apply here. Cheers, - Wikidemon (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I tend to have a preference for duck myself, especially with a nice Chianti. Tarc (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought you were misquoting Hannable Lector but look what I found on your duct link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_drink_the_consensus_Kool-Aid Zodiacww (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's not pat ourselves on the back - make this the best

Another editor said that this article was one of the best in Wikipedia. This kind of attitude risks patting ourselves on the back. This article is in great need of fixing.

Here's one thing that should be deleted. Mention of the Ledbetter Goodyear law. It is a mere technicality, something that is of interest to lawyers practicing employment law. It is a mere technical matter on statute of limitations. This should be removed so that other areas can be expanded. Using the lingo as others use, it is undue weight to give such a technicality coverage in this article of Obama's life.JB50000 (talk) 06:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Ask the working women of the USA if they think it's a "mere technicality". -- Scjessey (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Domestic policy as president
The article lists 6 things, Goodyear Ledbetter (a highly technical law about statute of limitations), Sotomayer, Climate gases, children's health, stem cell research, and hate crimes. This is a poor choice of 6 things. I've replaced the weakest one (statute of limitations law) with the estate tax debate. Obama wants to keep the 2009 level. He couldn't get it passed in time so the tax was discontinued but will be increased to a much higher rate in 2011. Obama is still working on it so that it won't be as high as the 2011 rate. The climate gasses and Sotomayer are two of the strongest of the 6 and should remain. JB50000 (talk) 06:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's get some people to improve the 6 or so items that we pick. For example, the climate control wording is poor. We just say that he proposed. What about Copenhagen when he told the world what he wanted. Not mentioning Copenhagen weakens the climate part and makes it look like a list of dates...on Jan 1 he did this. On Feb 2, he did that.

We can do it if we stop patting ourselves on the back.JB50000 (talk) 06:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The way to improve a Featured Article is not to add things first and then slap a cite tag on your own edit. You read what sources have to say about it first, and then you add the data point, referencing the source(s). If the subject interests you and you find it important enough to add it to an encyclopedia, what is it that's preventing you from reading up on it in a couple of reliable sources first? An article is not going to get improved by you compulsively thrusting your best recollection or personal take on a pet subject into article space without any reference, link or context — much less removing consensus material to do it. Ideally each edit would improve the article, and not degrade it pending further work.

Furthermore, one doesn't make a post complaining about something in an empty room in the middle of the night and then moments later make an edit with the summary "as discussed on the talk page". That's not a discussion, it's a declaration. Discussion, as it's hard to imagine you have failed to notice, is something that happens here between colleagues over anywhere from a few days to a couple of weeks. While the rest of us learn the risks of patting ourselves on the back, let's nobody kid themselves yours is the way of a responsible editor out to make the article the best it can be, either.

If, as you say here, nobody even knows what the estate tax rate would be in 2011, after the year suspension, then you're not going to crystal-ball a figure into the article. The most troubling facet of your work is that this edit of yours that I reverted adds to his biography a high rate figure that on this page you tell us Obama doesn't even want. You may or may not be aware of the alarm such a comment is likely to provoke. If it's your intention to provoke (readers and editors), that's one kind of problem. If you don't, it's another kind of problem (that you would do so inadvertently) but one that I'm sure someone in this latter category would understand could be prevented by their giving their intended edits a bit more thought and then submitting for discussion at this page to hone anything that is ultimately appropriate for the article. Again, I'm assuming good faith that you're in this latter camp and if you're willing to bite only what the rest of us can chew at once, I know there are some editors here who would be willing to help you. Abrazame (talk) 09:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I am willing to help. I don't know anything about estate tax, except that it is a notable domestic issue. But I have to agree that the Goodyear law is only a footnote, even the review articles of President Obama's first year (for example http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1955150,00.html?iid=sphere-inline-sidebar ) often don't mention it but mention other things not listed. So that should be replaced. Judith Merrick (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 is an important law to many people and it overruled a controversial Supreme Court decision. The reference to that law is sourced and deserves mention. So I restored it to the article. SMP0328. (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

SMP, you are a lawyer so, of course, you think it is important. But Time magazine feels it is so minor as to not even mention. Other review articles about Obama agree. To car fans, they think it is vital to mention the cars that Obama drove but to the general public, we don't care. Judith Merrick (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(1)Speak for yourself (who are "we"?), (2)that law is important to anyone claiming discrimination regarding a company's pay structure and (3)since when did Time magazine become the sole reliable source for this part of the article? SMP0328. (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You are a lawyer so you should know English well. We means the general public who are not car fans. time Magazine gives us a hint to what is important. Otherwise, we are making stuff up ourselves.Judith Merrick (talk) 01:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It's also notable because it was the first substantial law Obama signed. While we're at it, the bit about Obama asking Congress to not act hastily on the health care bill is too fine a detail for this article. It doesn't matter who is a lawyer. PhGustaf (talk) 01:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

PhGustaf and SMP0328 and Judith Merrick, you are all wrong. The Ledbetter is a technical matter and a fine point, but PhGustave may have a point right now. However, if Obama slows down the healthcare bill then the Scott Brown election and Obama's warning not to "jam" the bill through does become a needed detail. It will take a little time to tell. JB50000 (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Error corrected

The reference does not agree with what someone put in wikipedia.

Wikipedia: After a prolonged effort to find a church to attend regularly in Washington, complicated by security concerns among other issues, Obama announced in June 2009 that his primary place of worship would be the Evergreen Chapel at Camp David.[209]

What Time Magazine actually said: A number of factors drove the decision — financial, political, personal — but chief among them was the desire to worship without being on display

The Secret Service are not idiots. They know how to protect a President in a dangerous foreign country so a little church is a piece of cake.

Fixed. Any disagreement, find a reference better than Time.JB50000 (talk) 08:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed it by removing all the superfluous stuff. The use of "prolonged effort" neatly summarizes what was said in the article, and spelling it all out is not necessary. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Conflicting information in Wikipedia

I do not understand all the details of American politics but coming to Wikipedia and this article does not help.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_reform_in_the_United_States#Health_reform_and_the_2008_presidential_election says

Barack Obama called for universal health care. His health care plan called for the creation of a National Health Insurance Exchange that would include both private insurance plans and a Medicare-like government run option. Coverage would be guaranteed regardless of health status, and premiums would not vary based on health status either. It would have required parents to cover their children, but did not require adults to buy insurance.[76][77][78]

Yet, some time later, President Obama did want to require that all adults buy insurance.

When did the change occur? Sounds like a major expense to me and would be a major change. Could it be in his health care section or politicial parties section. I cannot do it myself because I do not understand all the details of American politics but can see that there is a major shift that is not described. Maybe it was after he became President??? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems that you should bring that up at the talk page for that article, rather than here. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The point is brought over here because the summary of President Obama's position is unclear in this article and because this is a featured article (supposed to be Wikipedia's best work). The other link just gave me an idea of the problems of THIS article. But if the topic of healthcare is too controversial, then I can see why some people don't want to address the controversy. I cannot address the controversy because I would want to be more familiar with American politics before I did so.

Another reason why the other article is not the place is because that article is about healthcare in the U.S., not just a chronology of one politician's opinion. This article is about President Obama, his bio, his history, etc. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that it is the responsibility of Obama to set the agenda and indicate a policy direction; however, it is the responsibility of Congress to actually create the legislation. The "Obamacare" moniker is inappropriate, because Obama has had very little to do with the details. Sadly, opponents of Obama are keen to label the proposed legislation as "Obamacare" in the hope that anything bad about it will reflect directly on the President. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This is why I don't write in this article because I lack a detailed understanding of American politics. However, I thought that the President meets with Congressional leaders and tells one of them to introduce a proposed law that the Presidential staff wrote. It is then sent to a committee where it is then modified and amended. If this is the case, then the President is doing more than setting the agenda, he is actually writing the initial version. Scjessey writing "Obama has had very little to do with the details" is probably wrong since news reports shows congress people repeatedly going to the White House for meetings.Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not wrong (not even "probably"). White House meetings involve mediation between parties, negotiation with corporations, and indicating what direction the executive branch would like to see Congress going. But ultimately, it is Congress that makes the legislation - that's why it has taken us months to get virtually nowhere. The President hasn't "written" anything. The only writing he does is when he applies his signature to make the legislation become law. My advice would be to watch The West Wing to get an idea about how the Executive Branch works. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

While admitting that I didn't check the healthcare section for this for way too long, extending mandatory health insurance for children only to every American which was the difference between Clinton's and Obama's views at the election "circus" is a major change that should be reflected in the article in one way or another. --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The Nobel Prize is not an image

He won the Nobel Peace Prize. The prestige should not be diminished by Obama-haters and put in the image section. His image is that he is tall and articulate. A Nobel Prize is an honor. Where else can it be? Under Presidency? JB50000 (talk) 08:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You should start an honors section or even just a Nobel Prize section. It's the Nobel Prize. They don't happen everyday to everybody. And mention that other sitting presidents won, etc. It's huge. Let it be huge. Also, the going to church thing. Seems like you're making too much of it. Over explaining it makes it seem like there's something wrong with it. All the presidents have ended up at the Camp David chapel. Plus, he was at the same church for 20 years and had to give up on it because of the controversy. Obviously not easy to just go off and find a substitute. And having a president standing in the pews with a couple hundred random citizens all around him doesn't sound safe to me. I don't care how good the Secret Service is.Malke2010 09:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't need a special section for honors, or for the prize. And winning the Nobel Peace Prize does speak about Obama's image, since it was awarded for aspirational reasons, rather than achievement. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Somebody wins the Nobel every year, and, applying the 10 year rule, who can even remember the ones from 10 years ago? If Obama's award is remembered, it won't be because it is such a great honor, but because of the near universal "WTF?" reaction when he got it. Kauffner (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

And how much you think is your personal opinion worth here? For sure pretty fucking misplaced. Anything to say to enhance the article?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

So which part is an opinion? I thought it was an objective application of the 10-year rule to determine notability. Kauffner (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What part of your comment is meant to enhance the article. If there is one please explain what change should be made according to your posting.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Obama Administration Misses Deadline To Close Guantánamo

Please read the following article: http://www.aclu.org/national-security/obama-administration-misses-deadline-close-guantanamo

And from the main article of Obama: "and ordered the closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp "as soon as practicable and no later than" January 2010"

Obviously we need to expand this text, regarding that the deadline missed. PeterXaver (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

If I recall correctly there should be a discussion on this issue somewhere in the archives. Something simple on it is probably appropriate, more detailed at Presidency of Barack Obama perhaps. I've studied the Guantanamo issue, it was pretty foolish of him to set that date, he obviously wasn't filled in about the logistics involved. Grsz¹¹ 02:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The change could be put in political positions. Obama was for closure on January 1, 2010 but now his position is to move the people to Illinois and probably close Gitmo some time in the future. JB50000 (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Another account whose first edit is here, looking to insert criticisms? Hrmmm.... Tarc (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Such comment could be interpreted as Tarc does not want any criticism of the article so he attacks the user (PeterXaver). Unlike Tarc, Graz11 addresses the issue. Please, Tarc, just address the discussion. PeterXaver quotes the ACLU so he may be a critic of the President as being too conservative.

Back to the issue, the issue of closing Guantanamo was a major issue of Obama's campaign and was one of the very first actions done. So this issue isn't trivia. If the issue is discussed, then a brief mention that the plan was changed to delay closure makes sense to include. So that's 3-4 sentences, what's the big deal? JB50000 (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. It would be appropriate to include this. Obama has delayed closing the base in what appears to be the realities of a new president now having access to all the information that a candidate is not privy to. So long as the entry does not suggest a POV, and it stays within the requirements for a featured article, then it would make a good addition. I always try to think of the students using wikipedia to learn about a subject. Understanding what the president has done and why is helpful for them, and seems reasonable for inclusion in his article.Malke2010 07:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll address what I please, JB50000, especially regarding an article that has seen such a rampant and disgusting sock-puppet attack for the past year. Several banned users have an unhealthy obsession with Obama, unfortunately. As for "the issue", I'm not against a brief mention if it is deemed worthy by other reputable editors. Tarc (talk) 12:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's already pretty well covered in the Presidency_of_Barack_Obama#cite_ref-124. As it's not like he flies down to Cuba in a rented C-5 Galaxy and loads the prisoners and stuff onto pallets by himself it's not really that related to him. Ttiotsw (talk) 14:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It is directly related to him. He made it an issue to differentiate himself from McCain and to show he was a change. He can order that prisoners be moved to several federal prisons but it would create an uproar (or release them as has Israel when they really wanted a dead soldier's body back). The problem with this article is that there are supporters who want to sanitize the article and opponents who want to smear the man (of course, not everyone belongs in one of these 2 camps). So, each one of us has to show that they are reasonable by accepting that the Guantanamo closure was a major issue created by Obama and that something happened after that. That something can be discussed here (he postponed closure, he was told that it wasn't possible (without creating an uproar), or something else. As far as what Tarc said, the problem is that even reasonable changes require so much fighting that only those with a strong stomach will stay and every one else will get chased away. In fact, I've had enough of this talk page. Goodbye. JB50000 (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Dreams from My Father

I assume there was a big discussion on this but I can't find it in the archives. Why is there no mention of Obama's memoir in his BLP? It was clearly a literary achievement.--Jarhed (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It is noted a couple of times, and it is used as a reference. Also, being a summary style article, it gets more coverage in its very own article: Dreams from My Father. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I somehow missed it.Jarhed (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Collapsing-Trolling does't need 'translation'. WP:NOTAFORUM DD2K (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
translating into Wikipedia lingo There was some comments by another user, since removed, which is translated below. I'm not sure about the first one but the next two may have some merit depending on sources found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JB50000 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC) If there are reliable sources about Obama not cooperating with other leaders about Afghanistan, then this is a discussion matter. If there are reliable sources about failure to close Guantanamo Bay, this is a discussion matter. This subject, you'll find lots of reliable sources. If there are reliable sources about change, this is a discussion matter. On TV, there was discussion that independents cringed when hope was mentioned. Is there such discussion in written form? In short, the removed post is crudely written but may have some merit for some topics. JB50000 (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC) You haven't translated it. I understood very well what the original editor User:Fruit.Smoothie said. You took out all the nuances of their invective. That's not a translation !. We've already discussed GITMO closure and you were not able to highlight why something that belongs in the Presidency of Barack Obama (or a suitable administration) article should be also added here. I'm guessing the other stuff is equally poorly weighted against here and should be in the Presidency article too. If we don't allow them to say it in their own words then why should use act as meat-by-proxy ? Say what you want to say in your own words. Ttiotsw (talk) 08:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Lead section

Why is the WP:LEAD section so darn short? In absolutely no way "able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article". For such an extremely long article/subarticles, I would sure expect more than this. A significant portion of the article is not summarized in the lead. In no way is it even vaguely adequate to stand alone. Reywas92^Talk 19:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that the article itself is already 160KB long, and takes a very long time to load because of that, the length seems appropriate to me. This is an unusual article in its size, popularity, and overall visibility. Perhaps you could list the additional points you feel belong in the lede?  Frank  |  talk  20:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that the article is that long, the lead should reflect that to adequately summarize the article. With its size, popularity, and visibility, I would sure expect the lead to be rather long to summarize such a large topic. I see nothing in the lead about his presidency at all, other that he has one! It lacks info about political positions or family life, his image or two Senate careers. Any article of comparable prominence, especially an FA, would have a much better lead than that. Reywas92^Talk 20:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Frank is confusing the file size listed when you edit the page and the actual prose size of the article. The file size you see when you edit the page is incredibly inaccurate as it includes references, pictures, wikitext, prose, templates, etc, etc. All of this results in a number that is so inaccurate that it isn't even worth mentioning. However, there are several tools that are available that can measure the actual prose size of the article, the most popular one of these being Dr pda's page size tool. According to this tool, there is only 35k of prose in this article. Of course, this has nothing to do with whether or not the lead is a good enough summary, but it should be noted that WP:LEAD says the lead should not be over four paragraphs, which is what this article currently has. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not confusing anything. 160KB combined with all the revisions on this article mean that it takes a long time to load, period. Adding more to it isn't going to help that, whether it's prose, refs, templates, whatever...  Frank  |  talk  23:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I will make a few comments. I was about to post the just about same thing as Frank, but he relayed it better. I'm sure if someone wants to make an constructive addition that would enhance the article, editors would have no problem with that. Now, on the page size. I don't have the tools for the Dr pda script, but the page size calculator gives the size of the page at over 736 KB and states it would take a 56K modem over 107 seconds to load the page. We have to remember that page size includes pictures too. In any case, I do believe the leade fits right in with Wiki standards, but there is always room for improvement. DD2K (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have missed that each of those four paragraphs has only two to four short sentences!! The lead is simply too short! Maybe the article wouldn't be so big if there weren't three references to every sentence in the rest of the article, taking up more than half the page. I bet something somewhere discourages against that ridiculous density and that many of those refs could be merged. And just a little more text is not going to have any more effect on loading time. I will see what I can add to the lead to actually make it a complete summary and combine refs to make up for it. Reywas92^Talk 23:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

So what is your proposed change to the lede?  Frank  |  talk  23:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The lede urgently needs a summary of year 1 by an expert: so here's a way to go:

According to Washington Post columnist Dan Balz, Obama, "has emerged as the most polarizing first-year president in history. In that year, unemployment hit 10 percent, his health-care initiative failed to pass the Congress, his poll numbers eroded, independents deserted the Democrats in major statewide elections and some members of his party hit the panic button after Republican Scott Brown won the special Senate election in Massachusetts." [ref: Dan Balz, "The stuff of riveting political theater," Washington Post, Jan. 30, 2010. Rjensen (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest everyone read that article, look back here at the quote used here, and ask themselves if that fits the gist of the article. It's obviously cherry-picked and was already attempted to add to the lead. There may be something there to add to the Presidency of Barack Obama, but adding that to the lead here is absurd. It's not even the purpose of the article cited, as Balz was setting up the fact that Obama seemed to put the hit on the Republicans in his meeting with them in Baltimore. What criteria is he the 'most polarizing first-year President in history'? What are the caveats concerned with poll numbers, elections and unemployment? Many. DD2K (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) I'm not sure I agree with the "urgent" need, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't help the article. I do think the quote you've listed isn't really a summary but rather a talking point. That seems like the kind of wording which ought to have balancing wording that speaks more objectively about his presidency, and by the time we get through discussing how to achieve that in the context of this article...another year of his presidency will have gone by. Perhaps that particular bit would be more appropriate in presidency of Barack Obama? I suspect some will ask what I mean by this. Here's some expansion: unemployment is a tricky situation and it will be hard to achieve consensus that Obama is responsible or even directly related to that. "Independents deserting" is the stuff of political hyperbole and not directly related to Obama (although of course a case can be made that it is), and the "panic button" regarding Brown is also of questionable importance to a biographical article about Obama. His presidency? Yes. His overall biography? Not so much. Again - some mention might be appropriate, but I'm not convinced this proposal is it.  Frank  |  talk  00:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Antichrist/Messiah Theories

Personally, I DO NOT support either of these theories, but should they be mentioned here? Why do so many people think these weird things? I mean, we should try to add a little note about this. I'm neutral about Obama, but I think it is essential to add current social perceptions about any issue. If you think we shouldn't, though, just delete everything I wrote...I'm not the argument kinda person...Have a nice day, guys (whatever you do)! ^_^ Celestialwarden11 (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Only fringe crazy types off their meds subscribe to this sort of thing, so mentioning this in the article (or indeed any article on Wikipedia) would really be a gross violation of WP:WEIGHT. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Come on, Scjessey, that's kinda...POV, to me, but as I said, I really, really don't want to make a big deal out of this. By the way, I haven't edited the article. But it is an interesting point...false, perhaps, but maybe not completely non-notable. But I doubt that's for me to decide. Anyway, ^_^! Have a fantastic day (or evening)! Celestialwarden11 (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not "kinda ...POV", it's exactly right. Adding anything about this lunatic fringe BS would be more than "kinda...POV". It's like adding a note on the page of someone saying that "some people believe he's a vampire", or "some believe he/she's a flying goat disguised as a unicorn". The suggestion you are making is completely off base and doesn't pass any reasonable test for any serious discussion. DD2K (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It'd be awesome to actually see a flying goat disguised as a unicorn, though. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay...don't really get how this has to do with this whole issue, but again, you really shouldn't call the opinions of others "BS"...even if it is, come on, it does seem somewhat biased to just say that outright. Please, please, don't get mad at me, it was just something I noticed while surfing the web... Celestialwarden11 (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You're surfing the wrong web then! -- Scjessey (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I am not mad at anyone, and didn't mean to offend anyone. I just think people should know that accusing a person of being the Anti-Christ or the Messiah is absurd. Especially by Wikipedia standards and WP:BLP to boot. DD2K (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately we have Conservapedia to serve as a repository for such POVs... -- ChrisO (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That's true. Different standards produce different quality. DD2K (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that if you look you'll find either Hitler comparisons or anti-Christ comparisons to many past presidents. And I am talking about claims made while they were president. Nixon was one of the unique individuals who got both (so did Kissinger for that matter). Every Pope for god knows how long as well as many prime ministers of England, France, Germany and Italy have all gotten "potential anti-Christ" write ups from someone or another. My point is that calling a president a potential anti-Christ is actually not unique or noteworthy. Chalk it up to the amount of power America has post WWII and the fact that the book of Revelations is heavily cryptic, often vague and uses very esoteric references. Many Christians don't even attempt to decipher the book and there are many who think they know what is in there but don't. Take the Left Behind books, most of that stuff is blatantly just made up and pretty bizarre interpretations of what is there but people take it at face value because almost no one is willing to unpack such a complex work. Throw in how vague and cryptic it can be and the book can be spun into arguing that almost any powerful person fits "the signs." So no I don't think it should be added to Obama any more than it should be added to various Popes over the years or Bush or Clinton or Reagan or Nixon, etc.Jdlund (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, every President has fervent detractors. Obama probably has more than most on account of issues of race, and also a changing of the guards. All kinds of things spill out when people feel threatened. That's been extensively written about, but I'll bet it would be hard to sort through all the opinion pieces to find a core of reliable sources like academic works. As far as I know the messiah thing is more of a cultural meme than an actual belief, people refer to Obama being people's messiah as a way of belittling him and his early popularity by poking fun of his supporters and their supposed blind devotion. There's a harsh edge to that because it comes dangerously close to bigotry to put people down in that way. Also, I've noticed of late that some democrats / liberals use the messiah thing in a similar way. The antichrist thing is probably more real - there are in fact a few people who actually believe Obama is somehow in league with Satan, and an even smaller set who get into the whole false messiah myth. That would be the fringe of the fringe. I think that's worth covering if there are good sources for it, but not here. We could fill up entire articles with all the kooky beliefs that people have about every President, and as a WP:WEIGHT matter that would overwhelm the primary subject of those articles, which is telling their life story. This would belong in the family articles about Obama's public reception. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, we only mention in passing the possibility of the Pope being the Anti-Christ, which is way more likely than Obama; Obama being the anti-Christ is based on his political views, whereas the Pope can somewhat reasonably be hypothesised as the anti-Christ. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Ironically, to many people the concept of a "messiah" or an "antichrist" is ridiculous enough without applying such labels to well-known figures. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, y'all. You just reminded me to make a very important edit.[19]

OMG, I so did NOT want to offend any1 with this, AT ALL. (why do ppl, like this random japanese guy (or gal) I've never talked to ask me rlly random questions on my talk page, i dont know, maybe its because of this). plz, though, I'm really srry for posting this...wait, dude, scepter, why is the pope the antichrist? (just wondering...) GUYS, have a fantastic and smashing day! Celestialwarden11 (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This article needs to be renamed!

This article needs to be renamed "Barack Obama and American history since 2009". Instead of renaming it, we must focus on the man, not U.S. history. If he is involved, mention it. If he is just peripherally involved, do not mention it. Judith Merrick (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

By that logic, we should chop out any mention of Abe Lincoln signing the Emancipation Proclamation from his article. After all, it's just "history" and not a "focus on the man", right? Tarc (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

These two comments are weird. Merrick needs to take into account that the President and recent U.S. history are intertwined. Tarc needs to not be so sarcastic. The middle ground is probably the best, be aware of the focus of the article but have a little leeway. JB50000 (talk) 06:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Not that Tarc needs defending, but it was Judith who introduced sarcasm in the title of this section and her opening sentence. Tarc's response was in kind ... and he's right to boot. Tvoz/talk 06:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with you Judith, but the History must be written at a later date. My College History books (1492-1785 and 1786-Present) will have a third companion. "9-11-2001 to Present". The 1786 to present book will need to be completed and ended. The most current book will not be able to be written for many years, and in my opinion and therefore not credited, will begin at 9-11 and not BHO. We are living in variable times in which the balance could be shifted to one side or the other. The balance was lowered in 2008, and we (freedom and liberty loving Americans) are on an upswing now (as of 2-5-2010), but the "History" is still unwritten and YOU will have the ability to contribute to the cause of Freedom in America in the future. Those persons in control of what gets written right here on Wikipedia, just like yourself, will have a voice in the account of these days. I ask of you to stay vigilant and keep those who alter without citation to be held accountable. This also includes yourself and myself. Keep up the good work and refresh yourself, as I will, on the rules of proper content and editing. As long as we both hold the TRUTH as a torch, those who would wish to extinguish it, will not have the breathe.Bikeric (talk) 06:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment Judith's banter is perhaps on the spot. I think we've spent many years weighing how BLPs should read and at the end of the day we all realize Wikipedians are not biographers by any stretch. It seems the best BLPs are ones of people who have been dead--for a long time (Soren Kierkegaard comes to mind). For those still living, it seems we can only do the best and that means adhering to presenting verified sources in linear progression. Where a true biography would sensationalize to capture the true essence of a person's life, WP must instead make points with facts and allow the reader to make the final judgment. As for focusing "on the man" well unfortunately WP suffers from notoriety ballooning. What people stand for in "real time" is often more important than simply the person. This is why we have better BLPs on celebrities than officials. For example for my illustrious Governor Tim Pawlenty, his biography is 90% about decisions he has made during his term but in 50 years most people will probably say he was a husband and governor and nothing more (fingers crossed). Judith's point is well taken but perhaps discussion should be relegated to the village pump. davumaya 08:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Once the subject has died, their article is no longer a "BLP" (biography of a living person). Any edits to biographies should respect the need to document things from an historic perspective, and be mindful of recentism. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree, Davumaya - I can't count how many times I've said here and on other BLPs that "this is a biography of a person's whole life and career, not a news article". I think it's a legitimate discussion (better off held somewhere else), but I was just mentioning that chastising someone for sarcasm in response to sarcasm wasn't really necessary. And indeed when we're talking about the President it is inevitable that the article is going to focus more than it ought to on events that happen day-to-day, but my experience on this particular BLP since 2006 has been that we manage to sort it out over time. Tvoz/talk 05:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Health Care

This section has been rewritten with the above comments in mind. Most information has been kept but now the emphasis is on health care as it related to Obama, not just a general U.S. current events lesson. Here it is: JB50000 (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Changes in health care was one of Obama's key campaign promises and a top legislative goal.[156] He has proposed an expansion of health insurance coverage to cover the uninsured. As a candidate for President, he distinguished his proposals from that of his Democratic rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, by not requiring Americans to purchase health insurance.[157][158] By June, 2009, he began to advocate a requirement that Americans purchase health insurance.[159][160] As President, his proposal would spend $900 billion over 10 years and include a government insurance plan (option) to compete with the private sector. It would also make it illegal for insurers to drop sick people or deny them coverage for pre-existing conditions, and require every American carry health coverage. The plan also includes Medicare spending cuts and taxes on insurance companies that offer expensive plans and a tax on implanted medical devices, such as artificial knees and heart valves.[161] Obama originally set deadlines for Congress to pass health care legislation by August, 2009.[162] On September 9, 2009, during the Congressional summer, Obama delivered a speech to a joint session of Congress where he addressed concerns over his administration's proposals.[163]

President Barack Obama's signature on the memorandum expanding funding for health clinics across the country. December 9, 2009.A health care bill, after the inclusion of the Stupak–Pitts Amendment, allowed passage in the House.[164][165] On December 24, 2009, a version of the bill was passed in the Senate[166] after concessions were offered the Senator Ben Nelson, the remaining Democratic holdout.[167][168] However, the January 19, 2010 election of Republican Scott Brown from a heavily Democratic state, Massachusetts, was reported in the press as a sign of voter dissatisfaction with health care legislation.[169][170] After the election of Brown, Obama called on Congress not to "jam" legislation before Brown was seated in the Senate and suggested he open to scaled back health care legislation.[171] Obama then focused on the economy amid speculation that he would announce a scaled down health plan during his State of the Union address in late January, 2010.[172]

Your edits made the article almost unreadable and were incorrect wording on the sourcing. There was nothing wrong with the article as it was written. I reverted it back and think that there is not a consensus for your edits or the wording you are trying to use. DD2K (talk) 06:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the above proposal but there is something wrong with the current wording. Obama has shifted strategy to get his plan passed and that is really important for the article. An article on health care in general would not need the Obama emphasis because it would be a health care article, not an Obama article.

For example, Obama's change to a requirement in having people buy insurance. We aren't saying if it is good or bad or if Congress forced him to or if it was a change in political strategy. But he did change and pushed for it. Another example is the old/current version makes a big deal about the Stupak amendment but that has nothing to do with Obama. It has everything to do with the Stupak amendment article.

The old/current/bad version makes no mention about Obama calling on Congress not to pass legislation before Brown is seated. This is a major omission in an article about Obama. There are tons of sources saying this and none refuting it. It is a change in the health care situation. The new wording doesn't say Obama is bad, it just states his actions after that election.

If you look at the issue of healthcare and Obama, you will see that the new/proposed version is much better than the incomplete old version which omits lots of Obama details. After all, this article is about Obama first, health care second, not vice versa. JB50000 (talk) 06:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I would definitely say that you are incorrect in most of your claims. You inserted wording that was not supported by the sources cited, you inserted text that read like a beat writer typing shorthand for a heavyweight fight in 1965, and included your own WP:OR on the reasonings of Legislative minutia. We don't even need to know the Legislative minutia, much less try to give an opinion on what the reasonings are of the many people involved is. I wouldn't oppose an edition of text that included the Brown win in Massachusetts, with Obama's call to not push the Bill through. But we don't need a play-by-play of the Legislative process, or to make judgments of a Bill that has not yet made it's way to the President's desk. DD2K (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This section badly needs updating since it says the Senate and House passed health care legislation. That is not accurate since Reid and Pelosi are trying to figure out what to do now that Scott Brown won in what was suppose to be a safe Democratic state. A really neutral wording, focusing on Obama and what Obama himself is saying can be:

After the January 19, 2010 election of Republican Scott Brown from a heavily Democratic state, Massachusetts, Obama called on Congress not to "jam" legislation before Brown was seated in the Senate and suggested he was open to scaled back health care legislation.[171](reference 171 is an article that has the word "jam" in the title and is about scaled back legislation) Obama then focused on the economy amid reports that he would announce a scaled down health plan during his State of the Union address in late January, 2010.[172] (Reference 172 specifically is a CNN article entitled something like "Obama refocuses on the economy")

JB50000 (talk) 07:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This stuff all suffers from recentism. Frankly, this is political minutiae that needn't receive the urgent coverage you wish to give it. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, WP:RECENT. It seems like some of this argument is about reacting to every bit in the news. Obama's position has not changed. He's still for health care reform. It doesn't matter if he has to compromise to get it done. Politics is compromise.Malke2010 06:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

By that logic, you should remove the sentence that the Senate passed the bill on December 24, 2009. That is recentism. Also take out the Stupak amendment because that is a minor detail that has nothing to do with Obama and will be a forgotten bit of trivia in 2011. Some people will oppose mention of the Brown election because they think it is anti-Obama or makes Obama look bad. But if you read what's going on, somehow there's been a major shift in the health care agenda that somehow suddenly happend the day after Brown won the election. You can claim it is a coincidence but something is going on now that wasn't before. JB50000 (talk) 04:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Need for first rate references:One reference omits author and constitutional law professor (info in the infobox) from that reference's infobox

A Miller Center reference, which is just a summary without references, not a primary source, is used to justify Christianity as Obama's religion. That same reference lists his occupation as community organizer and public official. They do not list him as lawyer, author, or constitutional law scholar. If they are that sloppy or inaccurate, they are an unreliable source. If they are deemed reliable, then that source advocates occupation: community organizer and public official.

My opinion: Let's use only reliable sources. If our arguments or edits use unreliable sources, those edits are no good for this article. I think the Miller Center reference is unreliable unless others can convince me otherwise. JB50000 (talk) 05:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Er... are you complaining about this? It's perfectly reliable. The Miller Center of Public Affairs is affiliated with the University of Virginia. And they're not claiming that Obama wasn't an author, or didn't teach constitutional law; they just chose to emphasize different aspects of his career. This is pretty simple: Reliable source A notes that he was a community organizer and public official. Reliable source B notes that he was also a lawyer and taught constitutional law. Reliable source C notes that he was an author. They're not contradicting each other; they're describing different aspects of the man's career.

That said, I do think that the Time article about his decision to worship at Camp David is a relevant source to this discussion, and should be included among the sources listed at the footnote for Obama's religion. (Incidentally, we should use the original source, not the reprint of the article at BlackChristian.com.) I suggest that it would be appropriate to leave "Christianity" in the infobox, but add this source and a note saying that Obama attends nondenominational Christian services at Camp David in the footnote. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Now that's a more polite comment than some we've been seeing. The A, B, C analogy is good to a point. However, if it is so sloppy as to miss stuff and it gives no references itself, it is a bad source. Missing that he's a lawyer is a big ommission that is unexcusable for a place like the Miller Center. JB50000 (talk) 05:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

We do not require that sources which are, in themselves, judged to be reliable cite their sources. If the New York Times or the Washington Post say that something happened, we don't need to know the reporter's source for the incident; we just cite the newspaper. The omission of Obama's law career is an editorial decision they made; that doesn't make the Miller Center unreliable.

Furthermore, there are now two other sources in the footnote to "Christianity", both of which support the use of the term. Crusading against the Miller Center's reliability isn't going to help you. If you want the infobox to say something more specific than "Christianity", you'll have to find a reliable source which describes Obama in more specific terms, since his resignation from Trinity UCC. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok Josiah Rowe, that sounds good to me too. I added the link to the Time Magazine article from June and the quote:

Obama has told White House aides that instead of joining a congregation in Washington, D.C., he will follow in George W. Bush's footsteps and make his primary place of worship Evergreen Chapel, the nondenominational church at Camp David

But I also cited the Washington Post article from February 4th, 2010 that stated:

Obama prays privately...when he takes his family to Camp David on the weekends, a Navy chaplain ministers to them.

I hope this is satisfactory, although the footnotes for that section is getting pretty long. We are going to have to trim it down when the situation is more clear. DD2K (talk) 06:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me; others may tidy up the reference format later. I don't know whether we really need to cite the Newsweek article; if we're looking for something to trim in that footnote, I'd start there. But in a case like this, where there's been (unfounded) controversy and edit warring, an excess of sources is preferable to a dearth of them. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's focus the discussion on the original topic, judging the references. When a major newspaper reports something, they are usually considered reliable even though errors do happen from time to time. This Miller Center thing looks like these factcheck.org or other think tank summaries. Does Miller have errors? This section is not about religion, it's about references. We should always strive for the best references. JB50000 (talk) 06:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You want us to use only YOUR references, which support your clear anti-Obama agenda. This is becoming wiki-lawyering. ThuranX (talk) 06:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop personal attacks. Please do not try to insult me and please do not try to call me a Republican. Obama is a complex and fascinating person of whom America has never before seen in a President (at least since JFK).JB50000 (talk) 06:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Is Politico considered reliable? How about Huffington Post? JB50000 (talk) 06:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No, there is no consensus to remove sourced and valid information from the infobox. While Obama may be fascinating, I do not think that is a good reason to post several messages here each day. Johnuniq (talk) 10:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is consensus to remove conclusions based on unreliable sources. I'm with JB50000. Don't say that he has an anti-Obama agenda simply because he calling facts to your attention.ExitW3Must (talk) 02:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Two users do not a consensus make, especially when one of them only created their account less than a week ago. Things that make you go hmm... indeed. Tarc (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Or you could say that two accounts, even if old, have been created by the Obama campaign or the Nixon campaign because a champaign knows how to manipulate Wikipedia and plans years in advance. Besides, it is an insult to compare me with ExitW3Must because that person supports impeachment, which is a very nasty and political maneuver. Furthermore, my opinion on this subject sharply differs from ExitW3Must.

My position is that the Miller Center is a summary type source and is not a suitable reference. However, there are probably (or should be) references to say that Obama is Christian. I have no doubt that he is Christian. He is also the President of a North American country. It is better to be more specific, namely that he is President of the U.S. and that he is Protestant or non-denominational. He is certainly not Egyptain Coptic Christian, which is a Christian denomination. But this thread is NOT about religion, it is about the quality of sources. We should use only top quality sources, not second rate ones, like the Miller Center reference in this case about religion. In other areas, we should also demand top quality sources. If there is opposition to top quality references, then this article is completely broken. JB50000 (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, if you can find a reliable source explicitly identifying Obama's religion — since his split from the UCC — more specifically than "Christianity", the article can be changed. However, the Time article just says that he has chosen to attend "non-denominational Christian services" at Camp David. Identifying Obama's religion as "non-denominational Christianity" could be construed as an act of original synthesis, and it doesn't really tell the reader anything. The fact is that the picture is complex, and not easily reduced to a single label. The footnote (and the relevant passages in the article) give more details, so it's fine that the infobox says "Christianity".

As for the quality of the Miller Center — they're a politics research facility associated with a major American university. That's sufficient for WP:RS to be met. I don't think there's anything in WP:RS against "summary sources". There is no "opposition to top quality references" here; people are simply disagreeing with your assessment of the Miller Center as a source. (And I'll remind you that the consensus at RS/N was that the Miller Center was a reliable source.) Trying to besmirch the reliability of this source (or, for that matter, the other two sources currently in the footnote which describe Obama as "Christian") is not a productive path forward. Your only hope is to find other sources that label Obama's religion more specifically, if they exist. I hope this is helpful. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Attempts on life?

Nothing is said on the attempts on his life of which there were allegedly four. Kind of useful information considering 99.236.221.124 (talk) 05:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is opposed to censorship but we also don't want to give cranks ideas that they can shoot the man. People say "other crap exists" but we should often compare other presidential articles to this one and vice versa. Other presidential articles don't mention attempts unless it was major (usually involving killing of others or if the plot was very advanced). JB50000 (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This user has asked the same question before, and there were 2 responses. It's archived at Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 65#Attempts on life?. - BilCat (talk) 05:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright, my bad. Who deleted it then? I never got a chance to read it 99.236.221.124 (talk) 10:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

On this talk page, it's automatically archived by a bot (a computer program). It usually takes several months before a talk page is long enough to need to be archived, but this page is very popular. There are already 68 pagoes of archives from this talk page. -BilCat (talk)

Got it, thanks. However did you remember the comment from so long ago? 99.236.221.124 (talk) 10:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't. I looked in the archives, and found it. the discussion is here, just click on this link. - BilCat (talk) 11:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ethnicity

THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ETHNICITY OF PRESIDENT OBAMA. HE SHOULD BE LISTED AS THE FIRST BIRACIAL PRESIDENT. THAT IS SIMPLY FACT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.224.98 (talk) 07:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

See Question 2 (Q2) in the FAQ section at the top of this talk page. It's a cultural thing more than genetics as to why he is identified the way he is. - BilCat (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think modern Africans in America refer to themselves as "African American" even if they are more than half white. I seem to remember a hip hop star with a similar case. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Obama's Re-take of the Inaugural Oath

Because of a mix-up with the words during Obama's actual inauguration, he decided to be sworn in a second time the next day "out of an abundance of caution". There is a reasonably in-depth mention in the Presidency of Barack Obama page, but what is the consensus on whether it belongs on this page or not? Here is my source: [20].--Mister Zoo (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

At one time shortly after the event I think this was considered and rejected as a trivial matter. It was actually Justice Roberts who flubbed it and Obama repeated Roberts' mistaken wording. This became the subject of some rather zany conspiracy theories, particularly among the conservative press, as well as wider speculation on whether or not Obama was truly the president or his actions valid during the period before the redo, or whether the redo was effective. This was mostly just a curiosity and nothing seems to have come of it. It's certainly a notable event and has gotten serious coverage a lot of places, it's just a question of whether it's notable enough to mention here.- Wikidemon (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It isn't notable enough to mention here, and it shouldn't really be at Presidency of Barack Obama either. The proper place (from a notability standpoint) is Inauguration of Barack Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned on his user talk page that this fact is a very minor point. However, I also see that Bo the dog is mentioned a few sections higher. If we are prioritizing to how important a fact has to be, then either both facts should be included, only the oath twice fact included, or none of them included. This is because Bo the dog is not even Barack Obama's. Barack Obama said on the campaign that he would give his daughters a dog, not that he was going to give it jointly to himself and his daughters or that the family (of which he is a member) would get a dog. Even the White House website says Bo belongs to the daughters. The oath is different. It involved Barack's own mouth.

The way the article is now, I am slightly leaning towards putting the oath first fact in but can be easily convinced that neither that nor Bo the dog is to be in the article.

I've noticed that some editors (the worst offenders haven't edited this section yet so rest easy, Wikidemon. You aren't one of them) take the position on issues that correspond with a hyper-cheerleading Obama behavior. In this issue, it may make Obama look like a verbal klutz (actually it's easy to do if you're being thrown a curve by the Chief Justice) so the hyper-cheerleading style response would be to oppose it. The Bo the dog issue is a positive issue, so the hyper-cheerleading style would be to support it. Guantanamo is a very tough question but Obama made it an issue and now has been told that the place couldn't be closed by 1/22/2010. Since it is potentially bad news, the hyper-cheerleading style would be to oppose inclusion. We should try to be neutral and not be a hyper-cheerleader nor a hyper-critic. My analysis of how to treat the oath twice fact and the Bo the dog fact shows that I put neutrality and article improvement as the only criteria for this article.JB50000 (talk) 03:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

In a biography concerning the life of Obama, why should a foul-up by Justice Roberts (which Obama politely repeated as he was supposed to do) be mentioned? The mistake by Roberts was immediately noted and rectified. The only people who think it is interesting are those who regard it as anti-Obama ammunition (but there is no reliable source of that opinion). I do agree that the Bo stuff is trivia, but it is only nine words, and I see that interest in the dog is well documented. Johnuniq (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Some "trivia" is desirable because of the human interest factor, although I don't think the dog is important. I fully expect suggestions to incorporate the "second oath" nonsense to be vigorously opposed, however. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems as though the general consensus is against putting this into the main biographical article. Given that it is covered well in some of the other "Obama Group" articles, I will leave things as they are unless someone else comes in with a strong support for its inclusion. However, I think that any mention of it in other Obama-related articles should remain there. Thanks for all the comments.--Mister Zoo (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Space program cancellation, need for sticky to keep attract of what is notable a year or so later

A few things are definitely historical when that happen. 11th September 2001 is one of them. Others, not so certain.

Obama is going to cancel plans for American human exploration of the moon and Mars. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8489097.stm This is possibly historic but it would be useful to have a sticky so that a year from now we can see what is historic and was is not.

I am very much involved in the notability discussion among different editors (for example, is Balloon Boy notable, how about the murder of ____). While the notability discussion involves if an article is notable, to some extent, inclusion of information in article should be notable, though the criteria is a bit less strict. By having a sticky, we then can decide after a year or so, what is notable enough for this article.

Cheers, Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That raises an interesting philosophical question; since Balloon Boy never actually went up in the balloon, is Balloon Boy still Balloon Boy? Tarc (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Richard Heene = George W. Bush. Balloon Boy = Mars program. Larry King Show = this Wikipedia thread. Abrazame (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

List of possibly historic events. Consider at a later date if truly historic.

1. Obama's plan to maybe end NASA manned moon and Mars exploration, contract out astronaut missions to the private sector. February 2010.

   If I remember correctly, this is a Bush carryover. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup - the BBC calls it as it is when they say that Obama "Terminates George Bush's Constellation Moon programme" [21] because it was "over budget, behind schedule, and lacking in innovation". Obama also "Adds an extra $6bn to Nasa's budget over five years". Go figure - "The decision was immediately condemned by Congressional figures who represent workforces dependent on Constellation" - who would have thought ?. Ttiotsw (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Can't say this doesn't disappoint me. Hopefully NASA comes back with a better plan that will get funded. Humans better be thinking about finding habitats elsewhere. Nothing lasts forever. DD2K (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

o/~ Even cold November rain o/~ Ikilled007 (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Until it happens it's probably too speculative to be considered biographically important. Right now it's just an intention or a position. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

We haven't had a man on the Moon since 1972. In fact, the entirety of America's adventures on the moon, spurred on by John F. Kennedy, span three and a half years in the first term of Richard Nixon, from July 16, 1969, to December 14, 1972. (Of course in Nixon's two terms there were two recessions, record postwar unemployment, horrible stagflation, a stock market crash, an oil crisis and two wars [counting Vietnam and the Cold War] before Nixon left office, all of which had something to do with that.)

Not that it's intended that way, but "List of possibly historic events..." is a coatrack waiting to happen. Anything that is not now notable but in the future turns out to be evidently historic should be discussed at the point of that historical hindsight, and not strung along here with all its bastard cousins in tow, growing fringier and more populated until then. Abrazame (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, even if we were to stick to the legitimate cousins. :-)  Frank  |  talk  21:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

1. We should consider Obama's reaction to the Scott Brown election in Massachusetts. The event is probably a turning point in Obama's health care policy. Obama did order Congress not to jam legislation through until Brown was seated. Obama's chief of staff stopped more liberal Democrats from running TV ads against other Democrats, calling the plan "fucking retarded" (which Palin, in a fucking retarded fashion, criticized the fucking phrase. (of course, we're not going to fucking put the last phrase in). Seriously, Obama has reacted to the Brown election in a big way in the past 2 weeks in a policy way.

In contrast, this article mentions that the bill was passed by the Senate 60-39. This is related to history but is not really an Obama event and less critical to the biography of Obama than the Brown election. If we write about the Brown election, we should focus on the Obama reaction and, as history progresses, changes in policy resulting from the Brown election.

This is a very relevant point of Obama, that there has been policy shifts since his election, not trying to ram health care through. But writing this would be very difficult since there's some opinion there, even though the opinion is well sourced (reliable sources and several of them). So as long as we follow a facts only with few exceptions policy, we can leave this out for now. JB50000 (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

1. We should consider that the recession ended in 2009 as there were two consecutive quarters of GDP growth. http://www.jhcohn.com/About/News-Archive/Economic-Notes-Recession-Ended-In-November.aspx So the recession started on January 1, 2009 (when there were 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth) and ended on December 31, 2009. (Incidentally, during the presidential campaign, there was a debate whether the country was in recession. It wasn't but it began less than 2 months after. However, it has ended according to the economic definition of recession). JB50000 (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Correction: The recession was declared in December 2008 but backdated to December 2007.

Let's hope it ended.... if it's a "double dip" recession, then pronouncements of its end could be premature. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Obama Spent Part of Third Grade in Hawaii, not only in Jakarta

This article inaccurately states that "from ages six to ten, Obama attended local schools in Jakarta" and that he first returned to Hawaii in 1971. In fact, it has been confirmed by the President, and with photographic evidence, that Obama spent at least part of third grade back at Noelani Elementary School. In December 2009, the Honolulu Star Bulletin published a story with a picture of Obama with former third grade Noelani classmate Scott Inoue, who confirmed that Obama was there for at least part of 1969. The article also notes that Obama signed the photograph and sent Inoue a thank you note:

http://www.starbulletin.com/news/20091228_third_grade_photo_captures_obamas_grin.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthfulPerson (talk • contribs) 17:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it would need more evidence and some verification before we could change the article. Just because one person claims this doesn't make it fact. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a sweet story, but I think, given that we already note Obama lived and went to school there, that the fact that he went back for a few months' visit is far too greatly magnified a detail. The text from the Star Bulletin reads "perhaps during a visit back to Hawaii".

To correct your comment about this bio's inaccuracy, the article does not state that Obama did not visit Hawaii prior to moving back to live with his grandparents in 1971, nor does it state that Obama "first returned" to Hawaii in 1971; it states that Obama's father only visited Barack in Hawaii once after he moved to Kenya, and that this first and only visit by the elder Obama was in 1971. Abrazame (talk) 03:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it needs no more evidence: (1) The Star Bulletin is a reliable source, (2) Obama acknowledged and signed the picture, (3) Mr. Inoue supplied plenty of corroborating information as to his claim that Obama spent at least part of third grade at Noelani, and left after Christmas (despite YOUR speculation as to a one-day visit). And here's another article with more information:

http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091201/A_LIFE1201/912010313/-1/a_life

The picture was also published in Hawaii Business Magazine, the same source you use to substantiate his attendance at Noelani for Kindergarten.

But if you don't include this information, I'd like a little clarification on Wikipedia's policy. You state rather unambiguously that Obama was born in Kapiolani Medical center, even though no one -- not Obama, not the hospital, not a person like Scott Inoue -- has ever asserted that fact. It's just an UNSOURCED claim in a number of newspapers. Why is this SOURCED claim in several Hawaiian newspapers insufficient? Why are you suddenly looking behind the reporting and weighing the credibility of sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthfulPerson (talk • contribs) 00:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not see any "Kapiolani" in this article; perhaps you are referring to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories where "Kapiolani" is used in a quotation which is supported by a reliable source. Regarding where Obama spent third grade: while the source you mentioned is of some sentimental interest, there is no reason to think that the precise details of Obama's schooling are in any way important, and the article correctly does not attempt to identify exactly which schools Obama attended and when. Johnuniq (talk) 06:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you're quite wrong about where I saw the Kapiolani reference. I saw it at the page on Obama's early years and career. That page does - indeed! - purport to identify each school Obama attended and when. Notably, the page even contains a separate chart listing the schools and dates. Yet, when I added this fully, reliably sourced, acknowledged-by-the-President-with-photographic-proof information regarding Obama's attendance at Noelani, some editor deleted (vandalized ) the page on grounds that Mr. Inoue was not credible. In contrast, Kapiolani remains in the article even though no reliable source attributes that information to any person or document at all (if you can identity the person or document claiming that Kapiolani is Obama's birth hospital, please do so now.

As to your discounting of Obama's third grade attendance as mere "sentimental" interest, the same can be said of any of the information regarding Obama's elementary (and secondary) school education. But the question is factuality and sourcing. The information regarding his third grade education is at least (if not better) sourced than the information you have chosen to include regarding any other years of his education. So your only choice is either to delete all the educational information or include the new information regarding his third grade attendance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthfulPerson (talk • contribs) 18:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

IF it's not on this page, then you shouldn't be bitching about it on this talk page, but at that article, where you had added the information before coming here. The question is one of notability and relevance. That he spent a few months back in Hawa'ii in the third grade has little relevance to his actions and positions as a president. If I'm wrong about that, the place to argue the incredible importance would be at that other page, the one you ALREADY edited. This complaint here is about you getting attention. ThuranX (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh my gosh, I don't know what's totally going on here, but, guys, please be nice to each other. I mean, all Wikipedians are buddies together, right? Like, seriously, this isn't too big of an issue, dudes. Have a fantastic day, all! Celestialwarden11 (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

IF it's not on this page, then you shouldn't be bitching about it on this talk page, but at that article, where you had added the information before coming here.

How silly! I didn't say I ONLY saw the reference to Kapiolani on the early years article. That's where I first saw the reference, and where I first attempted to add the new information about third grade. I cannot add information to this article because it is locked.

But the Kapiolani information is ALSO included in this article. Because it is less sourced than the information about Obama's third grade attendance, it should be removed, and the information about his third grade attendance should be added. What's so hard about saying "from ages six to ten, with the exception of part of third grade, Obama attended school in Jakarta"?

The question is one of notability and relevance. That he spent a few months back in Hawa'ii in the third grade has little relevance to his actions and positions as a president.

Nor does the fact that he spent ages 6-10 in Jakarta have much relevance, but it's there. As is the reference, in this article, to his birth at Kapiolani.

If I'm wrong about that, the place to argue the incredible importance would be at that other page, the one you ALREADY edited. This complaint here is about you getting attention.

I will indeed bring the argument over to the other page, but continue to argue that it be added to this article as well. The complaint here is about the article being accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TruthfulPerson (talk • contribs) 21:27, 16 February 2010

This article does not include the word "Kapiolani". Please provide a few words which are in this article, and briefly explain what the problem is. Johnuniq (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I would guess he means "Kapi'olani". Fat&Happy (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yea, but this seems to smell of more of that birther nonsense. The editors list of contributions is completely focused on the Obama family. Looks like a WND prober trying to find a way to add birther nonsense. Which seems to fit a pattern here lately. DD2K (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I've made the same mistake I think Johnuniq made here, doing a computer search for a full word when there is more than one way to spell, conjugate or punctuate it. This article states that Obama was born at "Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii".

The mistakes I don't understand are those being racked up here by "TruthfulPerson", surprising for someone who wrote (in a birther thread you began months ago at satellite article's talk), "Please also do me the courtesy of actually reading what I've said. I did not (contrary to your assertion) suggest ... I proposed ... Please note that your credibility as an arbiter of this very narrow factual dispute is severely compromised when you cannot even accurately recite what has been proposed a few lines before your comment."

You are confused about several facts and/or are not absorbing what you are reading. Nobody on this talk page speculated about a one-day visit. I repeated the vague recollection of Mr. Inoue himself — as represented in your first source — that the young Obama's visit may have been for a few months. Perhaps you were addressing me with your "YOUR"?

I imagine you will understand when I say that Wikipedia's policy as it pertains to the topic of this thread is that when or where a person visited or vacationed as a child is irrelevant detail in a biography unless that data point is an indicator of something else of relative significance. (As in relative to the significance of the other things they have done.) It is even more perplexing why you wish to press for this point when the article already asserts that Obama spent most of his youth (all but 3 to 4 years from birth to high school graduation) in Hawaii. Your characterization that the page's attention to WP:Weight and WP:Source issues is new shows a complete unfamiliarity with it, as I would say those are and historically have been the most common problems with suggestions here, and apparently problems you've run up against regarding Obama articles elsewhere. Again, this is not simply an issue of poor sourcing, it is an issue of weight.

Finally, it is Wikipedia's policy that posts on talk pages are to be signed by the posters. You do this by typing four tildes (~). I do hope the next time we see that signature here, you will have read, comprehended, and resolved both Wikipedia policies and the issue about which you seek to edit. Abrazame (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I see we've gone from "Kapiolani is not in this article" to "Noelani isn't properly sourced" to "Noelani should be on another page," to "he only visited Noelani in third grade" to "so what if he spent half of third grade in Hawaii" to "you're a birther." I guess neener neener neener is next.

I think what you meant to say, Abrazame, is that you're a Wikipedia newbie with no clue as to what WP:Weight and WP:Source mean. It wouldn't be giving undue wight to throw in a line saying that "Except for part of third grade, Obama spent ages 6-10 in schools in Jakarta." It would simply be accurate based on the undisputed testimonial and photographic evidence -- the very same evidence that supports the claim that he spent Kindergarten at Noelani. And I can't imagine why you say it's "not simply poor sourcing", when there's no problem with the sourcing at all. Quite frankly, I see very few claims in the rest of the article which are supported by signed-by-the-president photographs.

Furthermore, if you are indeed familiar with sourcing and weight, you'd remove the claim regarding the Kapiolani birthplace. It's an embarrassment that it's been included here. It's just an unattributed statement in a couple of newspapers, never documented or corroborated by a human source. TruthfulPerson (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest (strongly) that you refrain from personal attacks and focus on the content of the page. The best way you can do that is by explaining why your proposed change is better than what exists. To say he attended schools is not saying or even implying that he never set foot in Hawaii or anywhere else during those five years, and has nothing to do with where he was born - or is reported to have been born. Furthermore, we do not use pictures to determine where the man was 40 years ago.  Frank  |  talk  17:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for Feedback

Hello Barack Obama editors. I have created a draft article on the international media reaction to Obama's 2008 election here and would like to solicit your feedback. Please leave comments and suggestions on the page's talk page here. Thank you --Amandaroyal (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistent titling?

Other presidents are linked like "John_F._Kennedy" with a middle initial - why is the link for this president not Barack_H._Obama? This creates inconsistency with others and appears to reduce stature of this person.

188.194.100.217 (talk) 08:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

For one thing, article titles need to be consistent to the person in question, not to everyone else that also happened to hold the same job or office. I'm pretty sure most sources, the media, etc., consistently refer to him as Barack Obama, not Barack H. Obama. Kennedy, on the other hand, is generally referred to as "John F. Kennedy," not "John Kennedy." Similarly, John Quincy Adams is consistently referred to by sources as such, and not as "John Q. Adams." --OuroborosCobra (talk) 09:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactally, for the same reason Richard Nixon is not at Richard M Nixon. WP:COMMONNAME applies here.--76.69.166.252 (talk) 03:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Bad example. Nixon WAS called Richard M. Nixon by Americans in those days. Judith Merrick (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty inconsistent. Look at the list; Clinton is Bill, the Bushes are George+initial, Nixon through Reagan are all their familiar names, FDR through LBJ have initials, and it continues in that vein. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it has (In JFK's case) something to do with the fact JFK was know as John F Kennedy in the media, and Obama is not known as Barack H Obama most times...?--大輔 泉 (talk) 03:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Which is what we said, 4 days ago. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

"The Obamas have a Portuguese Water Dog named Bo."

Not a big deal, but this sentence does not have a cite. Either of these should suffice: [22][23] 71.57.126.233 (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the references. DD2K (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I object, Socks, the First Cat is not mentioned in Bill Clinton's article!! Besides, Bo is the girls' dog, not Barack's. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/04/12/Meet-Bo-the-First-Dog/ (The Obamas welcome Bo, a six-month old Portuguese water dog and a gift from Senator and Mrs. Kennedy to Sasha and Malia) so Wikipedia is wrong. Bo is not Barack's dog. Socks the First Cat (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I confess, I am not Socks the Cat. That cat can't type. Besides, Socks died and I'm not dead. Socks the First Cat (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a childish sounding reply but there is a valid point, the dog is Barack's gift to his daughters, which he got free from Senator Kennedy.

This is a potential undue weight issue because it's so trivial but it can stay until other information gets rejected or taken out because of space considerations or undue weight accusations. JB50000 (talk) 05:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Based on the handling of other trivia not allowed, this should go and mention of the dog should be in the Family of Barack article. JB50000 (talk) 05:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It was already there. Please read before adding material indiscriminately. Tvoz/talk 06:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Campaign is over, political positions section needs to go

The campaign is over. The political positions sections need to go. If not, it doesn't represent his positions too well. Keeping it represents the dumbing down of Wikipedia because it is way too simple and not even accurate. JB50000 (talk) 07:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

So you don't think that the political positions of the US president are important to Wikipedia readers? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Political positions needs expansion. Also, we need a controversies section.Malke2010 16:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do we need a "controversies section"? Why can't notable controversies be woven in to the body of the article where appropriate? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

A controversy section appears in many BLP's on wikipedia. Weaving them into Obama's article and then using soft articles as citations by friendly Washington Post type reporters where Obama isn't asked hard questions appears dishonest. Also, somebody searching specifically for information on his controversies would have to wade through the entire lengthy article. As the article stands now, the controversies are synthesized to downplay them, offer references that support the synthesis, and then the next sentence moves on to something else, as if the controversy has been explained away and dispensed with. The synthesis WP: SYN isn't allowed.Malke2010 17:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

So your argument is based on the idea that because other articles have controversy sections, then this article should too. Sadly, that is not a good argument for a controversy section and ideally articles should interweave controversies into the relevant section. (Before you reply that we should go into those articles that have controversy sections and remove them: this is not the place to make that comment and if you have problems with those sections, then it's best to take it up in those article's talk pages.) Thanks - Brothejr (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about other BLP's. It's about the WP:SYN of Obama's controversies. Please stay on topic.Malke2010 17:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, I was on topic and you might want to read what WP:SYN actually says because simply put: it has absolutely no baring in any of this. The facts as stated by the references are in the article, just not in a convenient section for you to go to. Brothejr (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a synthetic argument to me.Malke2010 18:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you are making no sense. The premises of your argument has been: we need the controversies pointed out in a section for easy reading. As far as a synthetic argument, if you mean is it made out of Polyester, then no I prefer Denim myself. Now, back on topic, if you actually have a suggestion for a specific improvement/addition, please write it here. However, if you're here just to comment on other editors or how this article is written, then thank you for your comments, but this is not the place for them. Brothejr (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem upset. Please stay on topic, and WP:CIVIL. I was asked by another editor why I felt there needed to be a controversy section. I answered. Then you came back with your question. I answered in a polite and informed manner.Malke2010 18:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

And you where given a polite and informative answer here too. To add on in regards of "controversy sections": For quite some time we're trying (just as Brother stated above) to "interweave controversies into the relevant section" and not just for this article. Look into the edit history of other major politicians and you'll see the effort being made. Simply said: "Controversy sections" are mostly depreciated at least where possible.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW: The section title implies a different discussion. Just saying. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, but I think Brother's comments were clearly lacking in WP:CIVIL and I appropriately and accurately addressed them. I agree that a WP:BLP is better served by weaving controversy, but it seems that the practice on this particular article has been done through WP:SYN. A good compromise would be to revisit some of these citations to insure WP:NPOV and allow the addition of the legitimate counterpoints to the controversies.Malke2010 19:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Brothejr's comments were civil enough. The neutral point of view is well represented in this featured article. If you have specific suggestions for inclusion then by all means make them, but calling for a controversy section just for the sake of it will get you nowhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Brothejr was the polite one answering your questions and it seems that you may need to read both WP:Civil and WP:SYN. Your understanding in both of those guidelines seems to be lacking somewhat. DD2K (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Barack Obama's controversies should be revisited, especially their WP:SYN with the questionable citations. As regards Brother's sarcasm, I suggest you drop the WP:STICK.Malke2010 20:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) Now finally you lost me too. What exactly are you referring to when you point out wp:SYNTH and what citations do you see as questionable ones? Could you please clarify? That would be a start so you can get more specific answers. Thanks, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If you see a particular example of WP:SYN, or weak citations, why not bring it up here after revisiting the matter? I don't see how that has anything to do with whether criticism and controversies are culled to form their own dedicated section, or woven into the portions dealing with the subject matter at hand. I don't think you'll find much appetite for a renewed proposal that we break out a new section for that, and meta-discussion about which way encourages better editing practices might be more useful at WP:CRIT than here. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

(ui) back to the original question, I think that "positions" per se are a lot less important to a sitting president than a candidate. During the election one can look at a candidate's proposals, policy platform, record, and stated positions, and probably a few other things. Once elected their actual performance in office becomes relatively more important. This article, and even more so the child articles, suffer a bit by conflating all of these things. Making a speech announcing your position on something is a lot different than getting legislation passed (or signing it despite reservations). - Wikidemon (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stay on topic(jk)...errr...I mean I agree. I was going through the Barack Obama political positions section and thought it definitely needs to be cleaned up. Or maybe even some of it moved over to Political positions of Barack Obama and Presidency of Barack Obama. I wouldn't oppose a change in that section off-hand, and do believe it reads more like a candidate than a president. DD2K (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Positions that might've changed since he became President should be updated, of course, but we're stuck with RS's that say so. Let's take a look at Gitmo for example: He still wants to get out but it seems to take longer than he (Obama) expected. Does it change his political position at this point? No, I don't think so. It's changing his timeline unless he pulls back on the basis of his original promise. We should take a look at each of his positions and see if sources show an "unexpected" change in his position to some issues.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need to include every time Obama modulates his position to allow for the realistic timing of something. He seems to be firm in his convictions on Gitmo, for example. Changes in position from campaign promises should not be made too much of. The reality of governing should be considered when reevaluating his positions.Malke2010 21:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"...when reevaluating his positions." Again and for the last time: What exactly would you like to change? Unless you keep on talking about in general this will only become a disruptive thread which we had plenty of and will be closed soon. So please come up with something we can work on or this thread is gone/closed very soon.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It's very clear I was responding to your comment "We should take a look at each of his positions and see if sources show an "unexpected" change in his position to some issues." If you are going to look at each of his political positions you should do so with the understanding that he is now governing, and, in fairness to him, that is very different from being a candidate making a promise. If you do that, then it doesn't matter if he's had what you call an 'unexpected change.' And framing comments the way you did above, comes across as bullying and threatening with an ultimatum. You do not control this article or this talk page. Everyone is free to offer suggestions, opinions, and to edit. It's always best to WP:AGF.Malke2010 22:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

ROFL. You can't go around accusing fellow Wikipedians of "bullying" you, "threatening" you "with an ultimatum" and ownership ("You do not control this article or this talk page.") while insisting they assume good faith in the same breath. That's akin to saying "don't fucking curse" to someone. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) So much for wp:AGF. I no longer talk to you with the environment you've set. Bye bye The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The funny thing is that s/he's not even made clear what the "bullying" part is. I just read a lot of blablabla but even if asked more than just once the editor doesn't (or can't????) give a clear answer what s/he wants to have changed. Seems to me just another editor who is not up to date (wiki wise) and just wants to have a "criticism section" no matter what???? I'm clueless, honestly, and if nothing constructive will come from this editor how to enhance the article I will do what I already said in my last edit summary. Cheers, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

There's already been useful comments, such as that this section is better for candidates that are running, that there is the problem of positions changing so do we use the current one and ignore the old one or just show how it's been slightly modified. If Magnificant Clean-keeper is saying bye-bye, he can leave but should not close the discussion.

So focusing the discussion...one question is if we should keep it only current or make it the history of his positions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JB50000 (talk • contribs)

Continued discussion of whether to have this section or not

1. Support JB50000 (talk) 06:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's important to keep talking about it. It's important for his positions to be known, especially with all the babel coming out of Congress. This is a good article, overall, and people wanting to know more about Obama will come to Wikipedia and if his positions are spelled out, it could be helpful to them. Also, he's only been in office one year. Maybe the political positions could become a separate article, a stub, maybe, if people don't want it on the main article.Malke2010 17:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Malke, you're the reason I collapsed this thread because you led it of track and had no concrete answer to what you actually want to have changed. Even after you're asked several times you made no specific proposal whatsoever. To make this clear: I collapsed this section since became a dead-end which had nothing to do with JB's original title. And if you would've read the "Political positions" section in this article you would know that there IS a sub article [and BTW, not a "stub"]. Cheers, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
• Further comment. The section should definitely stay although it might be possible to trim it down further. The only question is how far and which part(s). Some specific suggestion would be appreciated.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments to individual editors are best left on their talk pages.Malke2010 22:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I've responded to your comment made above and stayed pretty much on subject (at least as far as I see it) and those do belong here. If you have further "things" you would like to discuss with me on a more personal bases you certainly can do so on my talk page.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

When people edit BLP's, they seem to forget that the reader's best intrests need to be the first priority. With that in mind, we need this section. Many readers may just be looking for that topic and instead of weaveing it into the article, it would nice to have hem in clear sight. (Then again, this is comming from a McCain supporter so I may get blamed for political bias but oh well....)--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 22:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - On first glance I would lean towards deprecating this section in favor of putting any useful information into the chronological sections about Obama's major acts, legislation, etc. That's not to say a separate article could organize his major beliefs, positions, initiatives, etc., thematically rather than chronologically, but I don't think that's the best way to present information here. I don't think we'll be in a position to encyclopedically assess as a lifelong matter what Obama's political positions have been until the final chapter is written. I don't terribly object, though, so if peole want it to stay so be it. It might also help to look to some other presidential featured articles to see how they treat this. Not per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but rather to get some inspiration on how to do it well. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If we want to see and learn from other presidential articles we would need to look into their article's history and see how they where "treated" at the time they where in office. Of course, since WP didn't really exist before maybe George W. Bush (and since then changed it's approach quite a bit - just think about criticism sections which are now mostly depreciated) it might be difficult if not impossible to apply those credentials from then to now. Maybe we have to refigure it (if we want to change it) which would or could then be an example for other high profile articles to come.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If featured / good quality articles about deceased or retired world leaders don't generally have a "political positions" section we can perhaps surmise that it's not always a good idea even when done, which I think would mean there is even less of a call to try to summarize the matter while still in office. If they do, we can perhaps see some examples of how it can be treated. It's just a data point that could be useful. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Obama is still serving his presidency. It's only his first year. There's a lot going on right now and members of congress have their own agenda. If you remove the positions section entirely, even if there is a sub-article, I am concerned that his voice here is being subdued.Malke2010 23:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Also agree with readers' needs.Malke2010 00:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: History of his positions - a concise summary.

1. Oppose (support complete removal), but this is a possibility JB50000 (talk) 06:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC) (DDK2 and Wikidemon seems to suggest an oppose and favoring removal of this section, which I can see their point)

Proposal: Keep the section only to reflect his 2008 positions then when he campaigns for 2012, replace it with his party platform

1. Oppose This would be too commercial an approach, not very encyclopedic. JB50000 (talk) 06:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think either of the above two is viable as a proposal to be !voted on. In the first place, I don't think there is much call at all for expanding the political positions position section by turning it into a chronological account of how they arose, evolved, changed, etc. By nature "positions" is a snapshot of a person's current thinking. If we want to turn that into a moving picture by examining it over time we are basically retelling the entire biography but from a standpoint of his positions, as opposed to his actions, events, etc. I don't think that's called for in this main article. That would be a matter for a sub-article if anything, and would have to be fully developed there before we come up with a condensed version here. Regarding the second proposal, we can't !vote on what we're going to do in 2012. All we have to work with for now is 2010. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

We do have a sub-article and you know it. Are you thinking about creating a new sub? And if so under what title as "political positions" is already taken.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I would not wish to create a new sub-article. I am saying that before we consider a section here on the evolution of Obama's ositions over time there should be a sub-article covering it. Whether or not the "political positions" article gives us a starting point I don't know, but I don't think it's a good idea either way. The current child article is a half-formed and messy attempt to distill Obama's position in the present, although it is more than a year out of date in that respect. Right now we have a "presidency of" article, and articles about his legislative career. Going through his life in order to distill out his political positions would be redundant because it takes a second pass through the same things, it is slicing the same cake in a different direction. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I concur with you that the "political positions" sub needs some major updating. After the election had passed the article was pretty much abounded and is severely outdated as new developments are implemented in his "presidency" article while neglecting the other (article). To incorporate the positions article with the presidency article would be overkill in size so I wouldn't be opposed to a major redo of the first one and then again summarize it here on Obama's main article but this would be a major effort and would take more than one editor to do so. But don't count on me as I usually only fix errors or other minor (or not so minor) content as you should know by now. Not that I wouldn't like to help out more but... [private]. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, at least a summary on this article.Malke2010 00:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Support how does this proposal violate WP:SOAP at all?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Where does it say that the proposal violates wp:soap? I can't even find the word in this section so I'm a little confused. Can you enlighten me, please? Thanks, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that anywhere, Coldplay. Are you saying that this proposal violates WP:SOAP, because I don't think it would, not in the least. The President of the United States better well have positions. That's why we elected him. The question is whether or not to delete his positions from this article.Malke2010 01:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I just asked him on his talk page about the "soap" thingy which left me clueless as I too couldn't find even the word in this section.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he confused it with WP:SYN, which would also not apply.Malke2010 01:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it never says anything about soap. However, it may be considered advertiseing by puting his positions on the page. Sorry for the misunderstanding.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

We have to be careful to not do this. Judith Merrick (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

First year in office

This article has some summary style accounts of some major policy issues during Obama's first year in office [24]. It's a very liberal source (LA Times) so it's quite flattering and leaves out the unfavorables, but I still thought it was interesting and might be worth using as an article source. I think more substance on the most notable aspects of Obama's career needs to be added as it develops and the depictions his previous campaigns and platform are overdue for trimming. I'm making this a subsection of the above discussion as it seems to relate to that discussion in some respects. As there's been action on his policy positions, that content needs to be worked in and some of the lesser spin and fluff removed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Obama's health care position has changed somewhat. During the campaign, he was against the public option but now he's for it. However, he will not join a jihad for it and is probably willing to let it go. Dumb down Wikipedia and what are you going to say? Obama is for Obamacare?

In selecting positions, who is to say that his Venezuela position is not notable or not to be mentioned, yet the obscure subject of Dafur is mentioned. The economy, especially the banks, is a big position (he favors taxing transactions and really taxing the greedy bankers) yet nothing is mentioned. On the other hand, teacher pay is mostly at the local level so why have any mention of it?

This selection of topics has components of original research, which is forbidden.

There are two possible selections. #1 is to rewrite it to the level of a featured article or #2 is to get rid of it. Now it is so far from a featured article that any high school senior writing it for history class would get an F. JB50000 (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This would be the WP:SOAP bit that cropped up earlier, methinks. Try not to refer to Dafur as "obscure" in the future, please. To be fair, this article is not "F" material. It's actually one of the best articles on Wikipedia, if you look at it from a neutral perspective. We must be careful not to overload this article with recentism, and avoid using POV terms like "Obamacare" and "greedy bankers". -- Scjessey (talk) 12:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

If it is one of the best articles in Wikipedia, Wikipedia is really in trouble. It is flawed but it is too much of a fight to get it to be a best article. JB50000 (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agree. Don't call it Obamacare. Don't paint Obama with the Harry Reid/Nancy Pelosi brush. Obama originally wanted a universal plan. He said he thought the plan in the U.K. had failed because it included a private option. Doctors and hospital administrators agreed with the original universal plan. It works like Medicare and everybody is covered. Harry Reid has been riding on private jets paid for by health insurance companies for years. Obama has not. He has his own jet of late.Malke2010 14:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you trying to make some sort of point with that comment? And when did Obama say that UK and Canadian health care had "failed"? And why are you soap boxing your dislike of Harry Reid on this talk page? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Never said anything about disliking Harry Reid. Merely illustrated that Obama's positions are not always represented well by party leaders with their own agendas to service. This is why it seems like a good idea to keep Obama's positions in his article, or in a sub-article, at least for now. For a sub-article, perhaps someone could open a sandbox and others could help out with suggestions, citations, etc.Malke2010 17:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC).

As an engineer, I prefer numbers. Could there possibly be a spot in this "First year in office" section which involves the employment of the American citizen? I have no problem with citing the actual numbers of employed Americans on day one of inauguration and with the shrunken number 1 year later. We should not have the number as a percentage, due to unreliable percentages from the source. We should keep the numbers as whole and real as reported by the IRS. The number should be the population minus number of full-time-tax-paying jobs. This would be very easy to report the difference within a one year time-span. Any objections? Bikeric (talk) 06:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

If you are suggesting that an editor inserts their own chosen statistics into a BLP in order to convey certain information, then, yes I object. The whole purpose of requiring a reliable source is that raw numbers can be picked and given a slant to support a wide variety of interpretations. Therefore, a relevant source is required: a source that is reliable and is suitably qualified in the interpretation of the statistics and how they relate to the incumbent President. Johnuniq (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Continued problems with political positions

The problem continues. This section is full of original research ideas justified with references. The choice of topics is purely original research. Even the writing is inaccurate and biased. Look here as an example...

Obama has supported eliminating taxes for senior citizens with incomes of under $50,000, and raising taxes on income over $250,000, on capital gains, and on dividends.[169] He has also supported simplifying tax filings and removing loopholes.[170]

There has been debate to whether Obama is raising taxes for some people by supporting certain health care measures. Some union members with good health insurance will be taxed. Democrat and former Clinton aid Stephanopolis questioned whether the insurance requirement was a tax. This article can't be one sided and just paint part of the picture yet it's also not a debate article. The article should not be about what Obama promised and what the retort is, yet we shouldn't also just be a mouthpiece of the 2008 Obama campaign.

The quote also says that Obama supports simplifying tax filing. He's done nothing in a year so maybe this political position was just a campaign gimmick?

The point is that there is surely a reference to his pledge of simplified taxes but the reference is just repeating a campaign promise. It is not necessarily a major position of Obama because he's done nothing.

So the fairest thing to do would be to get rid of the section. If it is not gotten rid of then every position must be analyzed and proof that it is an important position must be made. That is very hard to achieve.JB50000 (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

He is a sitting president. He will probably run for reelection in 2012. His political positions are relevant. It's not like he's retired. Here is his tax plan [25].Malke2010 06:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to write the article for former Finnish prime minister Aho and came here for comparison. The political position section for Aho is difficult to write. He was against EU membership. Later, he was for it and rightfully brought Finland out of the periphery of Europe by getting EU membership. Now EU membership is a non-issue.

So for Aho, should there be a political positions section? If so, how should it cover his EU position. Also who is to choose which positions to list.(somme issues are obscure, somme issues are hard to say, somme, like the EU are easy). These are difficult questions that I can't answer for Mr. Obama because I even have difficulty answering it for the article on Mr. Aho. If there are any ideas, let me and others know on the Aho talk page. As far as this article, I can only suggest discussion. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello. You might also try asking for help at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics .. kind regards, --guyzero | talk 20:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Thank you, but no response there Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Summary?

I don't see a consensus to keep this section. On the other hand, there is not a clear consensus to remove the section. There is some mention to trim it.

How about this as a compromise? Trim it down to the basics of the 2008 campaign. Iraq, Guantanamo/treatment of suspected terrorists, tax increases for the $250,000 people, health care, missile defense are probably the main positions. Hurricane Katrina is not a big issue, every politician is opposed to hurricanes. This could be a subsection called "Pre-presidential positions" which could be hidden text. Then in 2012, we could have a "Re-election positions" which would not necessarily be his campaign positions but a summary of his positions in 2012. Those could be very different particularly if there is an al-Qaeda nuclear attack on New York or if Citibank goes bankrupt and takes down the other banks or if there's a giant New Madrid/St. Louis earthquake that flattens St. Louis and Memphis. JB50000 (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC) Good idea. 2008 positions and later 2012 positions

This appears to be the new consensus. Keep the positions for the 2008 campaign. Actually, I think it's a little like advertising but this is ok. There probably should be a major update in 2011. However, it is very historical that his 2008 positions stay here, like his Iraq opposition (which is almost a non-issue now). JB50000 (talk) 04:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

New guideline for this article.

We should come to an agreement, everyone of every political opinion and those with no opinion. This is about what we want the article to be.

One possibility is to stick with the facts. Only facts, no conclusion. If it is an opinion, then cut it out.

Another possibility is to allow reliably sourced analysis, but trying to keep the analysis down, when possible. Part of a historical article or biographical article is to analyze history. For example, in World War II, we could just list the battles and when Germany surrendered. Or we can use reliably sourced analysis to explain why the Battle of Britain was won (or lost if you are a German) and how that battle was important for the war. The importance of the Battle of Britain is commonly accepted but cannot be proven. The Iran hostages hurt Jimmy Carter's presidency. That cannot be proven but is thought to be true by reliable sources.

This latter possibility is more educational but more difficult to write.

Which possibility do others prefer? I am very neutral. I think the first one is easier since Obama is a current figure and lean very, very slightly to this choice. However, I can see the better educational value of the latter but at a cost of needing huge discussion for each analysis or opinion put in the article, even if it is the reliable source's opinion, not the Wikipedia editor. Again, please no arguing, just discuss how we should proceed. JB50000 (talk) 05:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting meta-question. Thanks for thinking of that. Although I would prefer the second, I think you're right that it would be very difficult. There's a stalemate that settles in when so many people are watching an article, and also, it's very hard to know how history will judge today's events. For practical reasons I think we have to stick with the facts, then with small pieces of analysis like "did the stimulus plan work" or "were the tea parties a major challenge to the Presidential agenda" we can probably trail a year or so behind the news, at which point it won't be an active political issue and might generate some more thoughtful analysis among historians, journalists, and other academics as opposed to news of the day, which is often just a scorekeeping of political gains and losses. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Given JB50000's clear anti-Obama biases, I'm leery of this even being raised. The article is actually in pretty good shape, using WP:SS and steering readers to the issues they are interested in. I suspect this is more about focusing on the nature of some sources, so he can eliminate praise from sources he will find wanting, and including more criticism from those he finds supporting his views. This, in turn, makes the article far more about 'analysis' than facts, but hidden in the guise of 'It's a fact that Beck says Obama is a racist,' rather than a more neutral 'Beck, in the summer of 2009, accused Obama of being a racist, citing his whatever...'. Given JB50000's reluctance to accept consensus on the use of a word which Obama's own employer used, I find it quite difficult to believe that JB50000 will accept any other consensus not in agreement with his already decided thoughts. ThuranX (talk) 07:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop these personal attacks. I have no anti-Obama bias. ThuranX, you just stop accusing people. If you have no opinion, stay away. If you think the article should be just the facts, say so. If you think certain kinds of opinion can be in the article under certain conditions, say so and say how and when.

Besides you just accused me of being a Nazi when I said I was against Nazism. I said I preferred the facts only but you are saying I want to insert opinion. JB50000 (talk) 08:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Godwin in one. Interesting. No, You're clearly interested in inserting your opinion, finding numerous ways to cast aspersions on Obama's use of 'professor' to describe his position, when we have clear,irrefutable evidence from his employer, yet you continue. It's no personal attack to state what multiple people see, and that's all I have done. I stated what I saw and explained my objections to this entire line of questioning. Your reply is a opoular GOP debate tactic - state that anyone who doesn't give a binary yes/no has an agenda, but because you just want a yes/no, you surely cannot, when it's clear your question is a fallacious trap of the 'have you stopped beating your wife' style. If we say facts only, you'll argue that regardless of what the Law School says about what its professors are called, his specific title, in another part of the same press release, is Senior Lecturer, so we should use that instead, and you will perpetually rewqrite it in that 'Obama called himself a professor but he's really just a SL' style. IF we select analysis, you'll throw policy in our faces any time anyone tries to phrase anything in a way you object to, stating we aren't staying neutral, but your analysis based statements will always be neutral, and we'll spend weeks bogged down in POV debates for any edits anyone but you wants to make. You seem to think we're all new to this game. We aren't, we can see what's coming in this 'honest debate'. ThuranX (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is meant to reflect (not the same as "report") coverage from reliable sources, put into an historical perspective. I believe it does that extremely well. The sort of thing being advocated by JB50000 is "interpretation", and perhaps even "revisionism" of those sources. For example, if a source said "Obama is an excellent speaker", JB50000 would want this article to say "Obama is a speaker" by the rationale presented above. I must concur with ThuranX that this kind of approach is not appropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I am very sorry to see a good faith discussion degenerate into false accusations against me. "JB50000 would want this article to say..." is so far from the truth that such statement is hurtful. Basically, I wanted to discuss if the focus of the article should be very factual since the man is a current political figure or if there should be some attempt at historical commentary. Initially, the first response was constructive but subsequently, there hasn't been much useful and guiding comments. JB50000 (talk) 05:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Some of the responses are not clear, but to summarize as best I can. If mistaken, feel free to correct:

JB50000: I am very neutral. I think the first one is easier since Obama is a current figure and lean very, very slightly to this choice. (Facts only is easier, analysis difficult)

Wikidemon: Interesting meta-question. Thanks for thinking of that. Although I would prefer the second, I think you're right that it would be very difficult. There's a stalemate that settles in when so many people are watching an article, and also, it's very hard to know how history will judge today's events. For practical reasons I think we have to stick with the facts, then with small pieces of analysis like ... (Prefer analysis but given the difficult, stick with the facts first)

ThuranX: Argumentative, no opinion offered.

Scjessey: This article is meant to reflect (Analysis, not facts only)

So the censensus is best summarized as "think we have to stick with the facts, then with small pieces of analysis" (quote from Wikidemon). So heavily based on facts and, as Wikidemon said, be very careful with any analysis. So if one source says something with analysis, it should be disregarded. JB50000 (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

So there is general agreement to stick with the facts and be very, very careful if including any analysis and lean towards not having analysis? JB50000 (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No. The divergent opinions of four editors do not constitute a consensus. If there is any consensus in this and other recent discussions, I would say it is that *cough*"no single editor"*cough* is qualified to determine that their particular views are supported by a consensus. Another view which seems to be supported at near-consensus levels is that the article is in pretty good shape as it stands, and is not in dire need of a constant deluge of proposals for new "guidelines" for its improvement. But hey, maybe I'm just claiming consensus support for my own views... Wouldn't be a first here. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is humming along just fine under Wikipedia's suite of policies and guidelines without editors unilaterally inventing new ones. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no point in this discussion, consensus can never trump policy. Dayewalker (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

JB50000, isn't this what we already do? Tarc (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. So the consensus is not facts only with limited analysis but any kind of opinion is allowed for this article as long as it has reliable sources and verifiability? I am not arguing. I want to understand. There has to be an answer. It can't be - only what I like and what I can get enough people to tag team revert my way. Is Daywalker saying consensus doesn't matter that we can edit according to policy? (sorry if misunderstood). Scjessey's this article is fine is not true, witness the box closures and protests, from time to time.

I thought it was mostly facts but there has been a flurry of opposition within the past hour. It can't be - only what I like and what I can get enough people to tag team revert my way. There must be an answer to this question! I take it that the real consensus is that properly sourced and verifiable opinion is allowed? JB50000 (talk) 06:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

If you have a proposal for specific text to be removed or information to be added, the by all means introduce it for consideration. I'm sorry to stretch WP:AGF here, but this is beginning to look like a fishing expedition. Tarc (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The neutral way is to decide first. To use a "case by case" basis can be a way to find an excuse for something you want and another excuse for something you don't like. Judith Merrick (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

We should have some people editing like negative analysis yes, positive analysis prohibited or negative analysis no, positive analysis yes. So let's agree on being very, very careful when including any analysis. It is not right to cherry pick whatever you want and then say "I have a source that says that". JB50000 (talk) 04:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Defining "small" for law firms in the US.

Referring to this diff [26] a 12/13 associate or lawyer firm is not small. It is not big but it is somewhere above middle. The vast majority of firms are single practitioners (American Bar foundation statistical report from 2000 ) and to have 12 or 13 lawyers places this firm in the top (roughly) 30% by numbers of people and into the top 10% by counts of firms. A reference that uses "small" is significantly at odds with what we have as the demographics of firms around that time. I say drop the "small".Ttiotsw (talk) 08:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

OK answering my own question - Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Unnecessary_vagueness says to avoid words like "small". We have the size - that will do. Ttiotsw (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Use of national statistics to create your own definition of "small" is synthesis and original research. Use of the Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Unnecessary_vagueness in this case is off-point. The MOS refers to vagueness; there is nothing remotely vague about the phrase "small, 13-attorney". As used, "small" is an additional descriptive conveying public (or media) perception. The use of the term "small" is referenced to TIME magazine and the Los Angeles Times, both considered reliable sources. To those two cites, are there any reliable sources out there that refer to Davis, Miner as a "large Chicago law firm" or similar wording? (I did see one referring to them as "tiny but politically connected", or similar phrasing, but didn't make a note of it at the time.) As far as national statistics, the comparative is presumably not intended to relate to every law firm in the country, but rather to the law firms in a major metropolitan area bidding for the services of a magna cum laude Harvard Law grad who happened to be the first black editor president of the Harvard Law Review. In context, it seems like perfectly appropriate use of the word. Fat&Happy (talk 16:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, we don't have a source that specifically states what the size of the law firm was (or how many lawyers) at the time Obama was there. So we shouldn't be giving specific numbers or vague quantifiers. If in doubt, leave it out. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Et tu, Scjessey?

Morain, Dan, "Obama's law days effective but brief", Los Angeles Times, April 6, 2008, Retrieved February 14, 2010 ("small", p. 1, paragraph 3 (excluding intervening 'correction' notation); "13-attorney", p.2, paragraph 1)

Ripley, Amanda, "Obama's Ascent", TIME, November 03, 2004, p. 3, Retrieved February 13, 2010 ("small", paragraph 2) Fat&Happy (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware of these sources. But why is the quantifier important anyway? Does it really matter how big (or small) the law firm was in the context of Obama's life? I still think it is superfluous information that adds nothing to the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, the main subject of commentary is alluded to in my first response above; he was pretty much in a position to accept a high-paying job with any prestigious Chicago law firm he wanted, but chose to go with the "small, 13-attorney civil-rights" firm instead. This has been presented as an indication of his dedication to community service, though others point out the political connections of the firm, saying he chose them to advance a political career. There might also be implications that he would have had a chance to participate more at the smaller firm, but that seems to be discounted in the LA Times article.

I'm actually pretty neutral about whether it should be there or not. It seems the old 12-member wording was there forever, until someone placed a {{cn}} tag on it, so that might mean a long-standing consensus of relevance. Or long-standing apathy. I think some indication of the type of firm he chose adds to the article, and my main goal here was to maintain existing content while adding verifiability. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thinking more about it as I re-read my response above, I'm inclined to a phrasing like "small but politically powerful firm specializing... ", which alludes to both sides of the debate about his motivation without taking sides. But of course, that would entail trying to find the source where I saw that comment, which isn't worthwhile if every word added to the article needs to be parsed and debated ad infinitum, and then still be subjected to revert wars. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If you were going for "small but politically powerful" you'd have to be careful about synthesis and make sure it was fully supported by a source. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, yeah. As I said above, I ran across the phrase "tiny but politically [something]" recently, but didn't make note of where. I'm pretty sure (but not 100%) it would have been in an RS, since I bypassed most Google hits that wouldn't qualify. But just for S&G, is changing "tiny" to "small" synthesis or editorial prerogative? Fat&Happy (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It is perhaps noteworthy that Obama chose this one rather than making the more typical choice of a large firm that would be more prestigious for a junior lawyer with ambitions to make money as a corporate lawyer, but neither "small" nor "politically powerful" catches the salient details of the firm and why one would choose it over others. Rather, Obama was apparently pursuing a different goal. I think it's best to avoid characterizing it at all. For what it's worth, a 10-12 attorney firm would be considered small in the US at the time. I think a mid-sized firm would be in the range of 30-100 or 200 lawyers. There is no single standard, though. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment-I don't think this really matters one way or the other, as far as I can see. So why not just use sources and cite what they reference? Descriptors can mean nothing, or they can mean everything, depending on context. My vote is cite WP:RS and put in what descriptors they use. DD2K (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources are good for facts, not always good for tone and word choice. Calling a law firm "tiny", as Time Magazine does, is setting an informal but authoritative narrative tone for Time's readers. But tiny is not an apt description of a law firm, and I doubt most sources comment on its size in that way. Citing the rough or exact number of lawyers is more informative. "Politically connected" is also more to the point, but even that is probably a little opinionated and vague. In many towns there are some high profile small firms that do business with the city and its leaders, and there's a revolving door between the city and those firms. Many power players, unlike Obama, don't have the academic credentials to qualify for the bigger firms just out of college, nor would they choose those firms if their ambition is local politics. To really do this right it would be great if we could get some sources to describe exactly why Obama chose that firm over others (if he indeed had a choice), and see if there's a way to describe that in several words. I also agree that it doesn't matter a whole lot. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not vital, but we must not be sloppy. Some want small. But Wikidemon points out that Time Magazine says tiny, which is not the same as small. We can put 12, like it was. Or we can put that the Chicaco office currently has 10, which the law firms' website says. So my vote is 10 or 12. JB50000 (talk) 04:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps if you spent more time actually reading the provided references instead of opining on what they might or might not say, you would realize both the cited TIME source and the LA Times one say "small", with the LA Times one later also using the "13-member" wording. Fat&Happy (talk) 05:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

2 New photos found

The President of Argentina (right) and President of the United States (left)

• 
  Presidents of Argentina and the United States
• 
  doing some sightseeing

2 good photos. JB50000 (talk) 08:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Since the provenance and copyright issues seem to be in order (I'm no expert), I don't see any problems with the photos per se. In fact, it's good to see evidence that South Carolina's recent moves toward warmer Argentine relations have apparently evolved to a bipartisan national effort. Probably substituting the official title of the second photo, "President Barack Obama looks out over the Forbidden City in Beijing, China. November 17, 2009" would be an improvement over "doing some sightseeing". It would also be better to mention the Argentine President's name, Cristina Fernández.

However, I question the need for even more photos in the article itself. As it currently stands, I can't escape the feeling we're editing the DK Children's Illustrated Encyclopedia, not Wikipedia. Like seriously, what important information is conveyed by an image of Obama's signature at the bottom of a memorandum, or even one of him signing a bill while Biden looks over his shoulder? Sometimes a picture really isn't worth a thousand words. So overall, I'd prefer to see more pictures in the existing commons gallery, even though I consider it currently to be an aesthetic horror. But if there's a particular section in the article, or maybe the Presidency article, where either of these seem to fit in, I say "go for it". Fat&Happy (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the picture of Obama and the Argentine president adds anything at all, and perhaps the picture of Obama in China could be added to the Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration article, although I don't think it's particularly illuminating or compelling. But neither one illustrates anything in this main article, so I would not include either one here. I do agree that if either photo is used anywhere the captions need to be improved. Tvoz/talk 01:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest a global review of all the pictures in the article and some possible pictures. That way, the best can be selected. The best or most important photo is in the infobox and I think the worst photo is of Abington, Pennsylvania where Mr. Obama looks like he is singing and directing the choir with his hand. A photo that doesn't appear but might be good is this one because Mr. Obama declared H1N1 as an emergency and ordered enough vaccine to meet the demand in North America.

• 
  caption to be determined (getting H1N1 vaccine)
• 
  Bad photo already in the article. Looks like he's singing "he lives, he lives, Christ Jesus lives today" while directing the church choir

Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Suomi. About this issue, there was no consensus to add or change photos in the article. Of course I support the idea of updating the article with relevant and appropriately weighted material, including photos. But I don't find how any of these photos adds to the article in any but a decorative sense. Decoratively speaking, the China photo is probably best. The photo with the Argentine leader certainly conveys a warmth and comfort level between them that is modestly relevant to an international relations standpoint except for the fact that I am unaware of any news that makes our relations with Argentina particularly noteworthy to Obama's bio. I accept your opinion of the photo you removed from the article, but I don't think most people would see that as being grand or religious.

To the photo of him getting a flu shot, I have a few issues with that. For one thing, it is entirely inappropriate for the health care reform section. Yesterday the president held an unprecedented day-long meeting with congressional leaders; I would be happy to consider a photo from that event, which seems the single most relevant nexus of Obama and health care reform that can be captured in a photo. Consensus determined last year that the H1N1 issue had not become notable to his biography.

To the digital TV edit, I think perhaps you misunderstand the story, which is neither relevant to his bio or his presidency. Digital TV has been available in the U.S. for several years to cable and satellite subscribers. As to the coupons, my reading of the reference is that the Senate extended a policy of coupons that was already in effect, and did so seven days after he took office; again, not relevant to Obama. Arguably this could be relevant to an article about the congress insofar as it is a somewhat rare example of the sort of esoteric issue they manage to overcome partisan divisions over, but it has nothing to do with Obama. Please don't be discouraged, I assume good faith in your efforts and welcome your continued participation. Abrazame (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I like the top two :) JB50000 (talk) 04:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

How about this[27] picture? It shows a facet of Obama rarely explored by the mainstream press. PhGustaf (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop blowing smoke

Okay, for about a year we had eighteen words:

"Obama has tried to quit smoking several times,[203] and said he will not smoke in the White House.[203]"

Earlier this month, somebody expanded it to twenty-eight words:

"Before being elected, Obama reportedly smoked for about twenty years. He has tried to quit smoking several times, and said he will not smoke in the White House.[213]"

Now we have fifty-two:

"Although Obama has reportedly smoked for about twenty years, shortly after his election he said he would not smoke in the White House itself — which is a no-smoking area. He has tried to quit smoking several times and continues to use nicotine replacements, but has acknowledged still having a cigarette "occasionally".[213][214][215]"

Three times as many words, yet not quite three times as much useful information. Because of other distractions, I didn't make an issue of this when the "about twenty years" thing was added, even though that's pretty much a given with a man in his early forties, as nobody starts smoking in their thirties or forties, and as the "before being elected" thing was pretty obvious too. But part of the point of inline citations to web articles is so that when somebody wants to know more detail about a minor issue, they can click and read more at the source. For all of the details one might update, the fact that a current article on a routine check-up spun a positive health report into a smoking headline does not mean we double or triple the size of the issue in this article. His vision is 20/20 in both eyes, but no sentence for that? He takes a nonsteroidal anti-infmammitory for tendinitis, doesn't seem to interest anybody. His cholesterol is up slightly, nobody thinks to add that. But he had a cigarette in June, that's biographical? No.

For pertinence and concision, I am changing to the following:

"Obama has tried to quit smoking several times over the years and currently uses nicotine replacement therapy, though he has acknowledged that he has not quit entirely."

I am retaining the December 2008 ref to allow interested parties to learn about the White House detail and keep both of the current refs to source the new details. If he does quit, we can shorten it further. If some other detail comes out, we can discuss here whether we add or replace something to include it. Abrazame (talk) 06:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I approve this change. --John (talk) 06:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Factoids in Wikipedia articles are like hedges - they grow and become unruly without periodic pruning. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting Obama smokes Benson & Hedges? Bus stop (talk) 12:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No way, he has much better taste than that! I mean, really, not much of an issue guys. --大輔 泉 (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Profanity at bottom of page

(Lizzie Borden profanity) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.188.250 (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The vandalism has been reverted. If you still see it, you are probably viewing an old version of the page; bypass your cache if so. (this was the vandalism edit) Rami R 23:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No mention of Hawaii in lead?

The lead should really mention the fact he's originally from Hawaii, if only briefly. 82.124.235.191 (talk) 17:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Why? Fat&Happy (talk) 05:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a significant enough element of his biography to warrant it. The amount of coverage of his Hawaiian origins during his election campaign was remarkable for someone who made his political career in another state. A lot of it had to do with how race relations were different in Hawaii than on the mainland, and that that had shaped him as an individual. Typical examples: Obama had multiethnic existence in Hawaii, In Hawaii, clues from Barack Obama's origins. Personally, I think it's fair to say he's more of an Illinoisan than a Hawaiian now, but it does seem to be a matter of debate - Is Obama Hawaiian or Illinoisan?, Hawaii vs. Illinois: Battling over a Favorite Son - TIME, Obama's more Illinois than Hawaii, folks in Chicago say. I don't think it's entirely fair to mention in the lead where he got his undergraduate degree but not where he was born and (mostly) raised. This is something that could be done succinctly.82.120.177.181 (talk) 09:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm the same person as 82. Since there are no objections, I'll make the change. Ucbear (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)