Talk:Barack Obama

Redundant discussions

In case anyone is wondering if they have an original comment about one of the frequently-discussed issues for this article, here is a list of discussions at length which have taken place just in the past couple of months.

Race

• Talk:Barack Obama/race
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 47#Barack Obama is half-white
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 46#Ethnicity in first sentence
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 46#Media coverage of ethnicity controversy and the intro
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 46#Mulatto, the term is Mullato
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 44#He's Multi-Racial.
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 43#Obama and race

Religion

• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 47#Religon
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 46#Religion

Citizenship

• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 46#Supreme Court Controversy
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 45#Still no mention on the birth certificate?
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 45#Donofrio v. Wells
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 44#Unverified Birth Hospital Needs Revision and Reference

Full name

• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 46#Article Name
• Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 44#Barack Hussein Obama JR, not II

Give this some consideration before deciding to start another one. Bigbluefish (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Please skim this page first (and ideally the FAQ) before starting a new discussion about Obama's birthplace, citizenship, race/ethnicity, etc. You'll probably find there's already a section there where you can add your comments. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want to read about where Obama was born and have concerns about it, read Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#Citizenship facts, rumors and claims and in particular this source which is heavily utilized in the article.

Where is the archive on Ayers? 68.5.11.175 (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Should we select one from this list? ↜Just me, here, now … 19:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Any of those should do. I do wonder why the Ayers topic is not included in the "Discussions". Admins getting censor happy?Miker789 (talk) 02:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you miss the whole WND invasion? They spammed the page and we even got mentioned on Drudge and Fox News for having "whitewashed" the article. Soxwon (talk) 02:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Where did the discussion on Teleprompters go? I don't believe that was finalized.Miker789 (talk) 02:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Bold change to lead

Current introduction: 1. Who he is (President) and what he used to be. 2. Education and Illinois Senate 3. Keynote address and Senate committees 4. Close primary campaign with Hillary Clinton, African-American, McCain.

3b (Senate committees) is the most out of place for an introduction. It is not a key point. Other senator articles don't deem committee assignments as a key point for the introduction. A more important point was that Obama ran as an anti-war candidate and was one of the early politicians to do so. Spevw (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Corrected, nothing controversial added. Very plain language used. Spevw (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

An editor has shortened and refined the lead.[4] I like the change, with the exception of using the word "virtual" to mean "almost". I know there was a deliberate effort to describe Obama's senate career in the lead, but I find the actual list of committees and legislation to be very dry and not terribly informative to someone who is reading the lead for summary purposes. So, preemptively, I like it! Wikidemon (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

See, I'm no dummy, my ideas are good. I also am changing it to almost like you suggested. Spevw (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I just want to point out that calling this a "consensus" edit in edit summary is a stretch - one editor agreed with it, and others might not. I'm not saying necessarily that the edits were bad, but I am saying that major changes to the lead section of an FA on article probation, which has seen much contention, should be done with great care. Waiting for actual consensus to form when the changes are substantive, as these are, would be prudent. Tvoz/talk 08:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I went over the revised lede and made some changes to it:

• Reinstated "close" for the primaries as "prolonged" has a POV tinge to it (def: "tediously protracted"), whereas "close" is just descriptive.
• Rearranged the paragraph about his Senate run because as it had been amended, the chronology was off - the keynote came before the election and saying he was elected and following that with he was relatively unknown is misleading: he was relatively unknown nationally until giving the keynote in July, and then he was elected in November. Also it had said twice that he was elected, so this modification corrects that.
• I removed the addition of his campaign themes for now - the lede is supposed to summarize the article, and this sentence didn;t seem to summarize what is covered in the article, however accurate the description might be. Also I think this one is too major a change to just slip in.
• I agree with the removal of the second swearing-in - it is a trivial point, not suitable for the lede.
• I agree with the removal of the Senate committees.

My changes were an attempt to reconcile what we had with what was being changed, and think that further major changes to the lede should be discussed, as I said above. Tvoz/talk 08:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Tvoz said "I just want to point out that calling this a "consensus" edit in edit summary is a stretch - one editor agreed with it, and others might not. Yet Tvoz changed things without even one editor agreeing to it so there was no consensus. This is not really a technicality because the Barack Obama article has strict rules, article probation, etc. But I think this issue is settled since there is no debate in over a week. Spevw (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Spevw, you made your edit less than an hour after posting here, and without benefit of any discussion - and said "corrected, nothing controversial added" above after you made the edit which was just not true. I reverted some of your changes, as outlined above, because they were in part incorrect - see my comments above about the chronology, for example - it is not ok to leave incorrect or misleading, confusing information in this high-profile article pending discussion. I came here, outlined the changes I made to your edit, and requested input from other editors before further major changes were made. It was your "bold change to the lead", made without consultation, that was outside of the way things are supposed to be done in this article. I probably should have reverted the whole thing, pending discussion, but I was trying to work with what you had, as Scjessey also did in removing your addition of the second swear-in. Wikidemon said he liked it, after you made the edit, but that is not consensus, nor did Wikidemon claim it was - he merely gave his opinion of an edit that you had already made. So your pointing out the rules of editing this article is offbase since you didn't follow them yourself which is what precipitated my and others' cleaning up of your edit. And as for no further debate on the intro, read the rest of the talk page. Unfortunately the floodgates were opened by editing rather than discussing first, and now the wording we have is, in my view, significantly worse than what we had before. I'm hopeful we'll improve it soon. Tvoz/talk 02:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Unexpected

Thanks to the editor for providing a reference, but it confirms that the word "unexpected" is misleading. The Republican challenger imploded with a scandal. The only thing the article says is that he wasn't expected to win going into the race and that the size of his margins weren't expected, but it's not really accurate to say his victory was unexpected without clarifying what is meant by this. No one was shocked when he won. It wasn't a big surprise. It was expected. It maybe wasn't anticipated at the start of the race and he may have been an underdog, but to stick in unexpected in the "lead" (introduction) of this article as if that's very notable is misleading. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

CoM, please read it again - the "unexpected" is referring to the Democratic primary landslide win in March which was unexpected, not the November election against the imploded Republicans which was not. Tvoz/talk 07:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

A Senate primary win does not a star make, however unexpected it may have struck the small fraction of people in his state that follow Senate primaries. For that matter, actually getting elected to the U.S. Senate does not make someone a "star". It makes them a Senator. Obama became a star due to his address to the Democratic convention which electrified not only the party in the hall but in the nationwide TV audience and got people talking about him across the country. I don't understand the reverts here. Can't we just get a reference? Abrazame (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. One bit taken out of context from an enthusiastic New York Times story doesn't belong in the introduction of this article. The significane of the "unexpectedness" of Obama's primary win in the Senate primary is at or approaching nil. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There are now a couple of reliable sources referencing the surprise surrounding the landslide victory in the Dem primary and pointing to Obama as a rising star among Democrats at that time. Thus I don't think there's a problem per say with the lede or with the text on this later in the article, but there's also probably room for compromise. Certainly Obama's convention speech raised his stature and "star power" far more than his primary victory and it should be easy to find references that demonstrate this (as currently written, the intro places more emphasis on the primary win - "made him a rising star" - then on his convention speech - "further raising his visibility" - and to my mind at least the emphasis there is reversed from what it should be).

If ChildofMidnight and others have problems with the current wording they should propose some alternatives here, though the sources cited seem to demonstrate that the notion that the significance of his primary win is "at or approaching nil" is not really accurate, so it's not necessarily inappropriate to mention this in some form in the lede (though I would say it's not incredibly crucial either).

I would think it should be easy to come up with a solution agreeable to all on the talk page, and that's what should happen now rather than continued edit warring. In the grand scheme this is a very small issue so let's try to be flexible in coming up with a wording that most can agree on. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I read this section first and expected to agree with ChildofMidnight and Abrazame, but then I went to go check the sources, which support the text fully. I'm not at all clear on how it is "taken out of context" from the NYT article, considering that is the context of the article. It also explains how a not-yet-elected Senate candidate was selected to give the keynote speech at the nominating convention, which is a fact that seems rather odd without the proper context. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Bbatsell - that is exactly right. I'm not inclined to compromise on this one, as it is so clearly the point of the source, and true to boot. Tvoz/talk 03:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If in fact the "unexpectedness" of his victory in a Senate primary race was the reason he was selected as the keynote speaker (according to good sources), that would be interesting to note and explain in the body of the article. In the lead (introduction), the reader has no idea what this unexpectedness is all about. It makes it seem like people woke up after the election WOWING at the outcome... of the Senate primary in Illinois? This is minor. And I agree with the comments in the section below that Obama's major policy positions and decisions are for more notable. I preferred the old version of the introduction, for what it's worth, and thought it would have been better to update it with major presidential decisions (a couple mentions like the spending bill, appointments, war in Iraq, and Afghanistan decisions) instead of taking out all the details on his Senate career (which probably could have been summarized) and adding this bit about how important the unexpectedness of his Senate primary victory was. Just to be clear, a big part of the problem is saying something is unexpected isn't enough to clarify what that means. Why was it unexpected? What part of it was unexpected? There's none of that context. My suggested edit is simple, take out the word unexpected. If someone wants to move it and explain it elsewhere, that's up to them.ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the point is obviously that the "unexpected" aspect was the "landslide" nature of the victory. As currently worded I suppose it's a bit ambiguous but not a huge problem. I think I tend to agree with C of M on this one point though, i.e. is the word "unexpected" all that necessary, at least in the lede? I think what's really important here is the "landslide victory" itself. Even had a landslide been completely anticipated - and Obama was hardly a total underdog by the final weeks of the campaign, see here ("Obama, meanwhile, has shot up as high as 20 percentage points ahead of Hynes and Hull, according to the latest polls," March 11th) and here ("Though Obama...lagged in polls as late as mid-February, he surged to the front of the pack in recent weeks") - it presumably would still have catapulted him to the front ranks of up-and-coming Democrats. If removing "unexpected" from the sentence ends the argument I think I'm okay with that, though I'm open to being persuaded that the word (or something similar) is particularly important. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, we should remove "unexpected". It's one of those words that newspapers sometimes use but we should not, a word to avoid like "ironic(ally)", "coincidentally", "sadly", "surprisingly", etc. It inserts a narrative voice that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, some kind of all knowing person who makes a judgment on what is and what is not to be expected. Wikidemon (talk) 04:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

←I'm afraid I disagree. The sources directly support that his win and its landmark size were unexpected - we're not making the judgment, the sources are. Why are we bending over backward to not say something that is the characterization of the sources? Examples:

But Mr. Obama, a state senator from Chicago, awoke Wednesday to a deluge of national attention, a result of his overwhelming victory the night before by margins unforeseen by any polls or guesses. (NYT ref)

Obama, 42, whose initial campaign strategy was to build a coalition of blacks and liberal whites, instead surprised even his strategists by amassing broad support from throughout the party. (Trib ref)

Three weeks ago, state Sen. Barack Obama appeared to be an also-ran among the eight Democrats running in Illinois for the nomination to an open U.S. Senate seat. (USA Today ref)

I think it is a fair word to use, and since the unexpected Senate primary win was arguably an extremely significant step in his rise, as it certainly led to the national exposure and the speculation about his future etc - it belongs in the lead. I don't necessarily object to expanding the lead if we get consensus about that, but we don't need to cut an accurate descriptive word to do that. I don't think it's the most important word in the article, but I think, as I said, it is accurate, well-supported, summarizes the article properly, and I see no reason to take it out. Tvoz/talk 07:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC) The sources I referred to here are in note 61 of the article: [5], [6], [7] Tvoz/talk 05:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The two sources I linked to in my comment above somewhat contradict the NYT story. One (a Chicago paper, no doubt more in touch with the campaign) specifically references polls putting Obama ahead by as much as 20 points prior to the election. The other mentioned that Obama had surged to the front toward the end of the campaign. Three weeks prior to the election he may have seemed like an also-ran, but three days before he probably was the favorite. Thus the "unexpected" label may be applicable if we take the long view ("one month ago no one thought he would win, much less in a landslide") but not so much if viewed in light of the final days of the campaign ("Obama had surged to a huge lead in the final stages"). We could say that the victory was unexpected because he was not the early favorite, or that it was expected because he was leading the polls in the end, and I don't think one view is more correct than the other. So overall I think the situation is a bit more ambiguous than you're suggesting, and I'm wondering what you think of the two sources that are clearly characterizing Obama as the frontrunner in the home stretch.

But again, is the "unexpected" nature of the victory really what matters in terms of Obama's star status, or is it rather the fact that he won and won big time? I think the latter, which means removing "unexpected" doesn't really do any harm to the key idea. And Tvoz I guess I would somewhat reverse your question: why is it so critical to refer to the primary win as "unexpected" when the sourcing for that seems to be ambiguous at best, and when the "unexpectedness" of the victory was almost certainly far less important than the victory itself/the fact that it was a landslide? I just don't think we lose anything by removing the word and indeed I think the sentence has greater clarity without it.

Finally I still think we should be placing greater emphasis on the convention speech rather than the primary win in terms of raising his star power, somewhat reversing the emphasis in the current sentence. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

OK - first I didn't say the word "unexpected" is critical, but I believe it is accurate and correctly reflects sources and the article itself. Yes, I am taking the long view of the primary victory - and its size - which multiple sources have identified with words that mean "unexpected", because it was in fact unexpected. Even if he had surged in the end, overall he had not been predicted to win and he certainly had not been predicted to win big, and across ethnic lines in the way he did - which one of your sources (LA Times) mentions: expected strong support for Hynes from Chicago's Democratic machine failed to materialize and instead surprised even his strategists by amassing broad support from throughout the party. (I can't access the entire Sun-Times article via the truncated Highbeam link, so I can't verify whether it says anything one way or the other about the victory.) Of course I think the speech should be emphasized, but it seems pretty clear that without that surprising landslide primary win he likely would not have been on the Kerry campaign's radar, and wouldn't have been selected to give the speech that (I believe) launched his national career. So yes, emphasize the speech, but the chronology is important, and the surprise nature of coming from essentially out of nowhere - no offense intended to the Illinois State Legislature - to win big across the board and thus be propelled to the national stage should be captured in the lead, in my opinion. If someone wants to peopose alternate wording, I'm of course interested in seeing it, as I said in the previous section. Tvoz/talk 23:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree with respect to our thinking about this which is fine of course, and anyway I certainly don't want to make a big to do about this. Also ChildofMidnight has taken a stab at some new language that I think works better, namely that Obama "entered the 2004 Democratic primary for U.S. Senate as an underdog. He won the primary with broad support that surprised campaign watchers and raised his profile in the Democratic party." I think that's a good alternate version, though perhaps the sentence that follows could be concluded a bit more strongly than "further raised his profile" (with respect to his convention speech). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I had not seen the edit until you mentioned it - I was under the impression that we were still discussing this, so am surprised to see that new wording was posted before we finished talking about it, but in any case - it now says "raised his profile" twice in succession which is not good writing even with the "further", and I agree with you that the sentence about the speech is weak. So I'm not happy with the new wording, and think it should have been hammered out here first, seeing as it is in contention. Also - the writing of the intro is now significantly poorer - we can do better than starting so many sentences with "He". Tvoz/talk 05:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely the discussion should have continued here before the changes were made (@ ChildofMidnight, if that user is reading this, as they should be). And I did not look as closely at the precise wording as I should have, you're right about repetitiveness being a problem. We do need less "he" in that paragraph and one or two "Obama"s instead which is easy enough. And perhaps we can replace "that further raised his profile" with something like "that marked him as a rising star in the party" (I'm not even close to being married to that wording). I think it makes since to use the "star" appellation here in the clause on the convention speech, particularly since several sources in footnote 65 use that exact terminology. So changing that phrase (to my proposal or something more felicitously worded) and fixing the hes might take care of the repetitiveness problem. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestions are definitely better than what's there now (particularly the "rising star") - honestly, I'm too tired to fine tune right now, but I for one would be happier with what you're suggesting than what's there now, so I'm ok with your editing it along those lines and I'll take another look tomorrow with both eyes open. But what's there now is really not ok for an FA. Thanks for sticking with the discussion. Tvoz/talk 06:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there a proposed version right now? The discussion is a little hard to follow. I'll repeat my concern that trying to state as fact people's subjective expectations (it was a surprise, surprisingly, unexpectedly, nobody thought...) is unencyclopedic here even if some reliable news sources feel free to opine in that way. COM's version, "surprised campaign watchers" is more specific. Who did it suprise? Who was expecting or not expecting it? Presumably Obama himself and many of those who voted for him thought he might win... most people in America and the world were not surprised at all, and in fact they have never heard of it until this day. So it is important to qualify or explain the context of descriptions of the degree of unexpectedness. Wikidemon (talk) 07:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Some polls

1. As stated in the multiple, reliable sources cited in this article's 2004 U.S. Senate campaign subsection for the sentence:

   In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won an unexpected landslide victory with 53% of the vote in a seven-candidate field, 29% ahead of his nearest Democratic rival, which overnight made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party and started speculation about a presidential future.

   and as Bigtimepeace noted, on election night, it was the landslide aspect of Obama's "overwhelming victory the night before by margins unforeseen by any polls or guesses" that "surprised even his strategists by amassing broad support from throughout the party" and was unexpected. The last polls published before the primary election showed that Obama's support had surged in the final three weeks of the campaign to 33% or 37%, with a double-digit lead over Hynes large enough to overcome Hynes' regular Democratic Party organization support and win a plurality victory in the seven-candidate field.[8][9][10]
2. Throughout the primary campaign, Hynes and Obama were never "underdogs" or "also-rans," even when Hull—after unprecedented early saturation television advertising that no other Democratic or Republican candidate could afford—transiently opened a 9% to 10% lead over Hynes and Obama in the polls for two weeks in mid-February 2004. One month before the primary election, Obama was the least well-known of the five leading Democratic candidates, but had more cash-on-hand than any of the other Democratic or Republican candidates (except Hull). Two months before the primary election, Obama was in a four-way tie for the lead in the Democratic primary race with Hynes, Hull and Pappas.
3. "Unexpected" is an accurate, well-sourced, useful qualifier for differentiating Obama's unexpected landslide victory in the March 2004 U.S. Senate primary election from his expected landslide victory over Alan Keyes in the November 2004 U.S. general election.

Polls in the last five months of the 22-month Illinois 2004 U.S. Senate Democratic primary election campaign:

• Oct. 27, 2003: Chicago Tribune/WGN-TV poll Oct. 15–20, 2003:[11]
  • Pappas 16%, Hynes 12%, Obama 9%, Chico 6%, Hull 6%, undecided 45%
• Nov. 9, 2003: Cook County Treasurer Maria Pappas announces candidacy[12][13]
• Dec. 9, 2003: former U.S. Sen. Paul Simon, 75, dies from post-operative complications one day after heart surgery[14][15][16]
• Dec. 31, 2003: primary fundraising to-date:
  • Hull $12.7 million, Chico $3.5 million, Hynes $3.5 million, Obama $3.0 million, Washington $875,000, Pappas $250,000, Skinner $83,000

• Jan. 15, 2004: Chicago Tribune/WGN-TV poll Jan. 6–11, 2004:[17]
  • Hynes 14%, Obama 14%, Pappas 14%, Hull 10%, Chico 6%, undecided 38%
• Jan. 22, 2004: CBS2 poll Jan. 12–14, 2004:[18]
  • Hynes 20%, Obama 19%, Hull 19%, Pappas 18%, Chico 9%, undecided 7%

• Feb. 4, 2004: Daily Herald/WBEZ-FM 91.5 radio debate in Chicago, IL (6 of 7 candidates; Hull absent)
• Feb. 22, 2004: Daily Southtown poll Feb. 19, 2004:[19]
  • Hull 27%, Hynes 17%, Obama 17%, Pappas 14%, Chico 5%, undecided 16%
• Feb. 23, 2004: Chicago Tribune/WGN-TV poll Feb. 11–17, 2004:[20]
  • Hull 24%, Obama 14%, Hynes 11%, Pappas 9%, Chico 7%, undecided 34%
    • name recognition: Hull >60%, Pappas 55%, Hynes 54%, Chico 38%, Obama 32%
• Feb. 23, 2004: Illinois Radio Network/WBBM-AM 780 radio debate in Springfield, IL (all 7 candidates)
• Feb. 25, 2004: Obama begins television advertising in the Chicago metro area[21]
• Feb. 26, 2004: CBS2/Newsradio 780 poll Feb. 22–24, 2004:[22]
  • Obama 27%, Hull 25%, Hynes 18%, Pappas 14%, Chico 6%
• Feb. 27, 2004: Chicago Sun-Times endorses Obama[23]
• Feb. 29, 2004: Chicago Tribune endorses Obama[24]

• Mar. 4, 2004: PBS television debate WTTW-TV Ch. 11 in Chicago, IL (all 5 leading candidates)
• Mar. 5, 2004: Daily Southtown poll Mar. 3, 2004:
  • Obama 28%, Hull 23%, Hynes 22%, Pappas 10%, Chico 3%, undecided 11%
• Mar. 7, 2004: Daily Herald, Peoria Journal Star, St. Louis Post-Dispatch endorse Obama[25][26][27]
• Mar. 9, 2004: Chicago Tribune/WGN-TV poll Mar. 3–6, 2004:[28]
  • Obama 33%, Hynes 19%, Hull 16%, Pappas 8%, Chico 6%, undecided 16%
• Mar. 10, 2004: League of Women Voters television debate WLS-TV Ch. 7 in Chicago, IL (all 5 leading candidates)
• Mar. 11, 2004: Obama begins television advertising in downstate Illinois
• Mar. 14, 2004: Copley News Service poll Mar. 8–10, 2004:[29]
  • Obama 37%, Hynes 18%, Hull 16%, Pappas 8%, Chico 5%, undecided 14%
• Mar. 16, 2004: primary election results:[30][31][32][33][34][35]
  • Obama 53%, Hynes 24%, Hull 11%, Pappas 6%, Chico 4%
• Mar. 16, 2004: primary spending:
  • Hull $29.0 million, Obama $5.5 million, Hynes $5.5 million, Chico $4.1 million, Pappas $1.1 million, Washington $850,000, Skinner $100,000

Polls in the last three months of the 8-month Illinois 2004 U.S. Senate general election campaign:

• Aug. 4, 2004: 19-member Illinois Republican State Central Committee offers Alan Keyes the Republican U.S. Senate nomination[36]
• Aug. 8, 2004: Conservative talk radio show host Alan Keyes of Maryland accepts the Illinois Republican U.S. Senate nomination[37]
• Aug.22, 2004: Chicago Tribune/WGN-TV poll Aug. 13–16, 2004:[38]
  • Obama 65%, Keyes 24%, undecided 12%
• Sep.26, 2004: Chicago Tribune/WGN-TV poll Sep. 17–20, 2004:[39]
  • Obama 68%, Keyes 17%, other 3%, undecided 11%
• Oct.24, 2004: Chicago Tribune/WGN-TV poll Oct. 16–19, 2004:[40]
  • Obama 66%, Keyes 19%, undecided 9%
• Nov. 2, 2004: general election results:[41][42][43][44][45]
  • Obama 70%, Keyes 27%, Franzen 2%, Kohn 1%

Newross (talk) 23:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

So, folks, let's try to bring this together. Is underdog the appropriate term to describe Obama during the primary, supported by reliable sources? Wouldn't appear as such from the polling cited above, unless one applied at little WP:OR. I suggest we either find the reliable sources or simply remove that term. Also, Wikidemon pointed out above, that "some campaign watchers" is horribly vague. So, same algorithm, let's either have the reliable source or remove the statement. I was bold and made two edits that had the effect of rendering the sentence: "He entered the 2004 Democratic primary for U.S. Senate as an underdog and then won the primary with broad support that surprised campaign watchers and raised his profile in the Democratic party." My edits were viewed as contentious by an editor and quickly reverted. So, I'll repropose this sentence as a compromise and closure to this discussion. Any takers? If not, please tell us why not, complete with reliable sources. QueenofBattle (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see new section "Introduction, again" below for discussion about the 3rd and 4th paragraph of the intro - I hadn't seen this new section when I posted below, but since this is about the subsection itself, let's keep the introduction discussion separate. I've proposed new wording that might address your concerns. Note that the style of this article is to not have citations in the intro section, but it is supposed to summarize the subsections which do have citations. As for being bold - unfortunately this is not a good time for bold edits to the intro of this article on article probation, as it has already been a contentious area. Tvoz/talk 23:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

I have taken a stab at reworking the introduction along the lines that several editors have been discussing above to reinstate wording that we had previously, tweaked to accommodate some later edits and to remove repetitive, poor writing and wording identified above as subjective and unencyclopedic. Please discuss further changes here before making them - the introduction to this featured article on article probation is not a good candidate for bold, unilateral editing. Tvoz/talk 07:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should revert to the introduction before you made major changes. That version was written fairly well and included some good information. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion would've carried more weight if you hadn't just already reverted it. Shame that edit-warring is your preferred method of discourse. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Version before recent changes

For convenience, here is the recent stable (virtually unchanged for many weeks) version of the introduction before CoM and others started edit-warring over it:

Barack Hussein Obama II (Template:Pron-en; born August 4, 1961) is the 44th and current President of the United States. He is the first African American to hold the office. Obama was the junior United States Senator from Illinois from January 2005 until November 2008, when he resigned following his election to the presidency.

Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he was the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review. He worked as a community organizer in Chicago prior to earning his law degree, and practiced as a civil rights attorney in Chicago before serving three terms in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004. He also taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. Following an unsuccessful bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000, Obama was elected to the United States Senate in November 2004. Obama delivered the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004.

As a member of the Democratic minority in the 109th Congress, Obama helped create legislation to control conventional weapons and to promote greater public accountability in the use of federal funds. He also made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. During the 110th Congress, he helped create legislation regarding lobbying and electoral fraud, climate change, nuclear terrorism, and care for U.S. military personnel returning from combat assignments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I recommend that future changes be worked out here, with this version used as a base, before being applied to the article. Stop edit warring. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that compared to other Presidential articles, there's not much about his personal life. Should we include a blurb about him marrying Michelle or hailing from Hawaii? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxwon (talk • contribs)

First of all, this section is about the introduction of the article only. Secondly, this is a summary style article about Obama, so you will find much of the "meat" you are looking for in daughter articles linked to throughout the main article. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I know, but all of the other introductions is what I was talking about. GWB has his marriage and business life mentioned, Reagan his life as an actor and state of birth, and Clinton his marriage. I just thought it would appropriate for a little blurb. Soxwon (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, although the content of this article should not necessarily be determined by the content of other articles. Let's get the edit-warring stuff resolved before tackling new stuff, and don't forget to read WP:SS. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I know, but right now it reads as if all he's ever done in life is politics. Shouldn't at least mention that he's human too? Soxwon (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Per this reversion[46] I see nothing objectionable in either version, and slightly favor the version ChildofMidnight reverted to for a number of stylistic reasons, so whatever people settle on is okay with me. As a process matter I strongly encourage people to make only incremental or uncontroversial changes, and to respect the need to discuss if those changes get reverted in good faith. Let's face it, most changes to most articles are not for the better, and that's especially true on a featured article. When edits fly by too fast to keep track of, we can't tell which is the good stable version, and the whole thing slowly degrades as a matter of entropy - even simple matters like punctuation, format, and link placement get messed up. Wikidemon (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and several editors were in the midst of discussing it here when CoM chose to go ahead and change it back without discussion. My edit was an attempt to be reflective of the exchanges here, including your concerns about the word "unexpected", to move the discussion along and I was hoping that CoM would respect the concept of discussion this time and not make his changes unilaterally. But apparently not. Tvoz/talk

Months Years (my God!) of experience with this article has shown me that it is far better to establish consensus on this talk page first, with all but the most minimal of changes. It is the only way to prevent edit warring. The changes Tvoz made did appear to reflect emerging consensus, but a certain amount of gun-jumping took place. CoM's reversion without discussion was understandable, but very antagonistic - especially given that CoM has been doing exactly the same thing as Tvoz in the ledes of lots of other articles, all of which have precipitated silly edit warring. Propose changes, build consensus, then make changes. Edit warring sucks. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well, after 3 years and over 300 edits on this article, Scj, believe me I know how it goes! And this latest round is far from the worst I've seen here. I don't think my edit was gun-jumping, but rather, as I said, a "stab" at synthesizing the discussion and getting the wording closer to where it was when it was stable before the willy-nilly editing began, because the material that had been added was poorly written and not representative of any kind of discussion, let alone consensus. And my edit was accompanied by requests for discussion in edit summary, on the page itself, on this talk page, and on CoM's talk page. So I was not edit warring and I don't think his reversion without discussion was the least bit understandable. Tvoz/talk 02:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with your edits at all. All I'm saying is that there has been a recent influx of partisan editors, mostly of the Limbaugh persuasion, so a return to the propose → consensus → edit system is probably prudent - at least for a while. I am not accusing you of edit warring specifically, but I am suggesting that "going for it" might precipitate an edit war in this current climate. And let me add a qualifier to my suggestion that CoM's reversion was understandable - it was understandable given CoM's editing history, if you get my drift. Anyway, according to the ArbCom case currently (and in my opinion, ludicrously) underway, this is a "toxic atmosphere" for editing; therefore, I recommend going back to the arduous talk-about-every-little-thing-for-weeks system that flourished under the WB74 era. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

WB74. Did you have to remind me? OK, I'll go along with this, but if others don't, something will have to be done. We've worked too hard on this article to sit by and let it be hijacked. Tvoz/talk 04:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Introduction, again

I am still not in agreement with the edits to the introduction that were done without consensus, and I find it to be choppy and in places poorly written in terms of style - I've mentioned, for example, the repeated start of sentences with "He" or "Obama" throughout the intro. In my opinion the way it was before this spate of editing begun by Spevw was better writing at least in part, although I agree with the thrust of some of the edits. Some of the changes made by CoM were unexplained, and did not improve the writing, so let's try this piece by piece.

1. What is the rationale for changing

Following an unsuccessful bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000, to

Obama lost an election for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000.

No explanation has been given, and the new wording is not an improvement, writing-wise, so I think we should go back to the long-stable wording with "Following", and ending with Obama ran for United States Senate in 2004 which encompasses both the primary and the general election.

2. I have a problem with the "underdog" and "surprised many campaign watchers" wording. It's true that we deliberately do not include citations in the lead, and I agree with that, but I think the "surprised many campaign watchers" is weasel-ish, raising questions of "who are the campaign watchers?" which is in the citation but not the article text the intro is supposed to summarize. I suggest replacing that phrase and tightening the wording that ties together the primary win with his increased visibility, leading to the convention speech which further raised his visibility, followed by the landslide Senate win. Although I think the word "unexpected" would be ok (and it is in the relevant subsection of the article,validating this as a summary), I've further tweaked the sentence as per earlier discussions with Bigtimepeace and Wikidemon above, and would like to try the following which is supported by the sources in the subsection, is less choppy, and may be easier to understand:

A come-from-behind, broad-based victory in the March 2004 Democratic primary raised his visibility, with his prime-time televised keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004 making him a rising star nationally in the Democratic Party. He was elected by a landslide margin to the U.S. Senate in November 2004.

3. It's not a "bid for president", and "campaign" more accurately captures the length than "contest" and I think "won the nomination" is not self-explanatory. Also, it's better writing to not have every sentence follow straight subject-verb construction. So, I propose replacing the choppy

He launched a bid for president in early 2007 and competed in a close contest in the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries against Hillary Rodham Clinton. He won the nomination and became the first major party African American presidential candidate. with

Obama began his run for the Presidency in February 2007. After a close campaign in the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries against Hillary Rodham Clinton, he won his party's nomination, becoming the first major party African American candidate for President.

And, I would reinstate the hidden text request that people discuss major changes to the intro, which CoM removed without explanation.

So, putting it all together, I would change the 3rd and 4th paragraph of the intro to read:

Following an unsuccessful bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000, Obama ran for United States Senate in 2004. A come-from-behind, broad-based victory in the March 2004 Democratic primary raised his visibility, with his prime-time televised keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004 making him a rising star nationally in the Democratic Party. He was elected by a landslide margin to the U.S. Senate in November 2004.

Obama began his run for the Presidency in February 2007. After a close campaign in the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries against Hillary Rodham Clinton, he won his party's nomination, becoming the first major party African American candidate for President. In the 2008 general election, he defeated Republican candidate John McCain and was inaugurated as President on January 20, 2009.

Can we discuss this proposed change please? Tvoz/talk 23:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

OK by me, IF we can have the reliable source for the "come-from-behind" part. It seems like a reasonable statement to the casual observer, but a little sourcing would help deflect the charges of original research that might come up. And, I'm not suggesting that the source be in the lede, but more appropriately in the body of the article. It's the same issue I had before with "underdog", namely show me the...reliable source. So, continuing my stream of conciousness, maybe remove the term, "come-from-behind"? QueenofBattle (talk) 04:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, to tell you the truth I prefer "unexpected" to "come-from-behind", as per my comment above, (sources are in note 61:[47], [48], [49]) - but there were objections. I think Newross's comment above is relevant here. Tvoz/talk 05:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I reject the "Landslide" wording. It is a very subjective term and has almost no meaning. Furthermore, the link to Landslide victories has no relevance since the only example given are presidential elections of which this was not. Also, the phrasing is very confusing. Additionally, the use of Landslide is an opinion, and not a fact, yet it is being presented as a fact. While he did win the general election by a wide margin, this was not really that suprising (which is what a landslide would suggest). Illinois is pretty blue, and for him to not have won by a huge margin once he had the Dem nomination would have been more of a story, especially against Keyes. Simply stat that he won and the magnitude of the victory without the subjective termaninolgy. Arzel (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

My responses:

1. "landslide" does not at all require or even suggest that it is surprising - the wins by Ronald Reagan in 1984 and Richard Nixon in 1972, to name two, were not surprising, and are universally described as "landslide". All it refers to is the size of the victory.
2. I have no problem with removing the link to the List of landslide victories - that got picked up from the previous and I hadn't looked at the linked article. Could link to the Wiktionary definition or no link.
3. As for being subjective, I am using "landslide" in the intro to describe the general election where he won 70% of the vote - as the Washington Post said, "Obama took 70 percent of the vote in November, beating Keyes by the largest margin in Illinois history." [50]. That, by any definition, is a landslide. And I've added two more contemporaneous references to the body of the article -the Senate campaign section - one from the Chicago Tribune whose headline is "Obama scores a record landslide" [51] and one from the Chicago Sun-Times whose headline is "Obama takes Senate seat in a landslide" [52]. In fact some sources also refer to his primary win as a "landslide": for example, Chicago Tribune here and USA Today here, as cited in the article body. We're not supposed to be doing our own analysis of whether his wins were likely or not, or what is a big story, or Illinois' blue-ness vs. Keyes appeal - all of that is OR unless backed by reliable sources making those points. In fact, reliable sources describe it as a landslide and we are reflecting those reliable sources.
4. Finally, which part of the phrasing did you find confusing? I might be able to clarify it.

Hope others will weigh in so we can move this along. Thanks. Tvoz/talk 20:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Obama's approval rating falling

Why you write only the positive items about Obama?! From the current article: "In 2008, Congress.org ranked him as the eleventh most powerful Senator,[75] and the politician was the most popular in the Senate, enjoying 72% approval in Illinois."

That's good, but you write 0 words about his big rating's falling, source:

• Poll: Obama's popularity slipping

It would be good to write about it also in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.149.128 (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the main difficulty with this article will be making adjustments to the section on his presidency since we must write that in summary style. Ultimately I think we'll need a sentence or two on his overall approval rating and how it shifted over time. I don't think we're at that point yet though. If we were going to say something about his approval ratings right now, it would be that they are still fairly high, hovering around 60%. In the poll you cite, the decline in approval (5 points) was probably close to the margin of error (though the increase in disapproval was more significant). That's just not significant enough to include in his biographical article.

What the presidency section lacks now, but which we'll definitely have to have eventually, is a brief discussion of Obama's economic policies, and that might be a good point to discuss approval ratings. But I think we're a couple of months away from being able to cover that properly. A good landmark, so to speak, might be at the end of the First 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency. Media are guaranteed to widely cover that and evaluate the presidency up to that point, and I imagine that would also mark a good point to discuss Obama's approval rating and to generally revise the section on his presidency. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Approval ratings are only biographically relevant with the benefit of hindsight and statistical significance. Neither of these apply to Obama right now. I agree with Bigtimepeace's observations about other more likely foci for improvement. Bigbluefish (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

A link to the existing first 100 days article might be useful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Approval ratings go up and down. If it is mentioned, it is only appropriate to mention overall trends, if even that. Of course, detailed remarks would be ok if there is an article about the "Approval Ratings of President Barack Obama", if such article exists. Spevw (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The relevance of approval ratings is that they drive media coverage. When president's numbers are up, the press asks, "What is he doing right?" When the number are down, its all, "What's he doing wrong?/Why is he screwing up?/etc" Whether they are statistically significant or measure anything real is beside the point. They don't allow you to predict an election outcome because approval of one person is a fundamentally different thing than choosing between two. Kauffner (talk) 12:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thankfully, we are not the media. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and that's all. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 13:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The media is otherwise known as the RS, what we are supposed to be basing the article on. The article on Bush puts stuff about the approval numbers in the lede and also has a chart of all the ups and downs. Kauffner (talk) 01:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Bush had 8 years to get those ratings, Obama's had a little over 2 months. We can put the approval ratings after he's been in for a signicant portion of time. Soxwon (talk) 01:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The article on Obama does not. But if we did decide to include approval ratings then we would presumably look for an RS for them. Go figure. Wikidemon (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

"A little over 2 months" -- I like it. Yeah, this president thing is way overrated. A flash in the pan, really. He'll have to be reelected before it rates more than a couple of paragraphs. A year from now we will regain our perspective and who knows? Perhaps Obama the memoir writer, Obama the community organizer, or Obama the legal intern will prove to be the more enduring image. Kauffner (talk) 02:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

No, but it seems silly to rate him when he really hasn't had a chance to see any of his programs through, or even implement most of what he ran on. (heck he's 1/24th of the way through his term, can you honestly get a good gauge of the man's support?) Soxwon (talk) 02:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not consider fluctuations in the popularity rating of the president to be a biographically significant issue, and that is unlikely to change. It may have slightly more relevance to the "presidency of..." article and in due course to the re-election campaign. Presidential popularity is something for speculation and political operatives. When all is done, after the fact, it will probably deserve a single line or so in his biography as an adjunct to the overall assessment of Obama as president, perhaps more if there is something particularly notable or unusual about it, less if it is unremarkable. Going over it in more detail in the meanwhile is news-ish and recentivism. At some point we will probably want to make a standing note, as in the FAQ, that this is not an issue for the article. Wikidemon (talk) 03:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

In the interest of reaching consensus as quickly as possible: I am against the inclusion of polling data until it is clear in hindsight that the polling is relevant and notable. I would like to see focus return to how to include more information on the stimulus/spending package, major economic policies (including GM, TARP and Treasury), Afghanistan and Iraq War policies (some of which I think was added? Does it belong in the intro?) and content regarding his cabinet (appointments and major figures). ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hardly any of that belongs in the article at this point, and certainly not in the intro. Minutiae of that nature is for the "Presidency of..." article, because they are not biographically-significant. A summary of the more meaningful stuff will doubtless become necessary in the months and years to come, but they would have to be written from a historical perspective once some sort of impact has been ascertained. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wagoner

See WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENT, and WP:NOT#NEWS. Plus, since this seems to be just coming out, it's largely unverified. "Claimed" to be asked by Obama does not equal fact. Grsz¹¹ 23:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed (heck can we just lock this for 10 years, then try and edit it with a little more perspective?) Soxwon (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean that material will never be fit to be in the article or only that it isn't until it's confirmed by a reliable source? SMP0328. (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

We mean that it's impossible to measure the relevance a single event has on the entirety of Obama's life the very day it happens. Grsz¹¹ 23:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Or for that matter is laregly based on unnamed sources (this is Wikipedia not the New York Times) Soxwon (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes it seems like some people around here are reading from the same talking points cue cards. Time and time again, on various articles, they use the reliable source justification, in complete ignorance (willful or intentional, I am not sure) of that fact that RS policy does not exist in a vacuum, and is not the sole arbiter of what can appear in Wikipedia articles. Tarc (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

This is relevant because it is highly unusual for a president to tell someone outside of government...you are fired. But I am willing to wait a few months to see how this whole thing plays out. If the auto issue remains a significant part of his presidency, then this may be an important point.

I am also willing to freeze the presidency section completely and open it for editing every 6 months. We'll then have some handle on what's important. Why not write WP:OLDNEWSONLY Contino (talk) 03:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It is now verified on many reliable news sources that Obama got Wagoner to leave. By that criteria, it must to put back in. However, it the prioritizing proposal is agreed to (bottom of this page), then I'm all for not including this because it is not as high priority as the economic stuff and the Afghanistan stuff already there. If we can't even agree on the basic, un-controversial idea of prioritizing information, then the Wagoner edit should be re-inserted. Contino (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Case-by-case basis is best. There is no logical reason for putting the Wagoner material in, and you cannot use your own nebulous inclusion criteria proposal as a justification. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The GM story, and the broader matter of presidential intervention in private companies that the government is bailing out, are still playing out. The dust will not likely settle for months -- we don't even know yet if it is a turn-around, break-up, take-over, or demise. Obama seems to have a hand in it personally so depending on how it plays out it may ultimately be one of the important moments of his presidency. But it may not. Like a lot of current events we probably can't judge the importance until later, in hindsight. Wikidemon (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Presidency section

I know we're going for summary style here, but the entries under Domestic Policy and Foreign Policy / Iraq seem too sparse to me. Under Foreign Policy, Obama's major initiatives have been the plan to scale back Iraq and to beef up Afghanistan, but only Iraq is mentioned (though in the context of an address to troops going to Afghanistan). I recommend that the Afghan ramp-up be mentioned, resulting more or less in:

Early in his presidency, Obama moved to implement the war strategy he had campaigned on, scaling back combat operations in Iraq and intensifying the effort in Afghanistan. On February 18, 2009 he announced that the U.S. troop strength in Afghanistan would be boosted by 17,000. On February 27, 2009, Obama declared that combat operations will end in Iraq within 18 months, telling Marines preparing to deploy to Afghanistan, "Let me say this as plainly as I can: By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end."

In Domestic Policy, I would eliminate the Economic Policy subheading until we we need at least one more subheading, and go with:

On February 17, 2009, Obama signed into law a $787 billion economic stimulus package, which included increased Federal spending, aid to states, and tax reductions. He stated in his remarks that the intended goal was to ameliorate the effects of the recession. Although Obama made a high-profile visit to Captiol Hill to engage with Congressional Republicans, the bill ultimately passed largely on a party-line vote.

Either of these may need to be pared down once his presidency builds some more substance. The mention of the party-line vote seems significant since bipartianship was an important part of his campaign rhetoric and is mentioned three times in the state legislator section. Plus, it might quiet critics who complain that there's nothing even faintly negative about Obama on the page.

Forgot to sign that posting. CouldOughta (talk) 02:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The sentence about the Afghan beefup needs a reference: CouldOughta (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

CouldOughta (talk) 02:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Change made. CouldOughta (talk) 02:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Where do you stand on television references? There was a very good interview with a Dr. Luca Anceschi last week on how Obama is likely to handle US deployments in the region. Ottre 21:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That calls for a two-pronged response. Since this article is the subject of a lot of editing, we need references that are reasonably clear and quick to check & confirm. Watching a video clip takes time and requires summarizing; I can't help thinking that doing so would require a change in the editing culture on this page. A more experienced editor might have a better-informed opinion. Response prong two is to say that we don't need much more than what we have now on the Iraq war in the Presidency section; it has to stay in tight summary form to let it grow with time. Even what we have there now probably will have to be trimmed in the future as the Obama presidency produces more events of note. Plus, we shouldn't put be adding even expert opinion on what Obama is likely to do; we should wait for him to do it. If the material is very good, consider putting the reference on the Iraq war page. CouldOughta (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Need to define what is included in article (Proposal of 30 March 2009)

Resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
One person removed a section about the auto bailout and firing (asked to resign) of the GM CEO. This leads me to think that there needs to be a more orderly process of editing. The WP:Not News argument is used. That's a way to argue against inclusion. How about arguments for inclusion? Before you say something, the argument you use should be applicable to every edit, not just the auto/GM one. This will help the article if we come up with a defined criteria for inclusion. Continued news reporting should NOT be a criteria. Look at newspaper within today. There is no mention at all of Pearl Harbor. The Pearl Harbor bombing is unquestionably encyclopedic. So daily news coverage is not a criteria. Border control issues are probably very important to the communities near the Mexican border. Yet that might not be much of an issue elsewhere. If you accept this to be true, then should the criteria be that Wikipedia is only geared to the general audience and not a specialized audience. If so, then subjects to be included in this article should be geared to the general public with exclusion to specialized audiences. To summarize, I think that after a while (as of now, an undefined period but certainly not 1-2 days after the event), we should consider major items that either pertain to the general audience, are of interest to the general audience, or that the general audience would think are one of the major points of Barack Obama. The exception would be content which we are certain will stand the test of time (such as winning an election or having a heart attack). I would like a few people to agree with the above paragraph. If you disagree, then you should state what are the criteria. By doing it now, we make it objective and orderly. Contino (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC) To my mind, things like WP:SS define what should be in the article, and things like WP:BLP define what shouldn't. This article is supposed to be a summary of Barack Obama's life, which means it summarizes significant facts and events (consensus discussions determine what is and is not "significant") and broadly describes a few other biographical details. I'm not sure defining specific things will be all that productive. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC) If we don't define it then there is a risk that people who love him will want only positive things and people who hate him will want only negative things and people in the middle who want an encyclopedic article will be so turned off that they will leave. Also, by not defining inclusion criteria, we risk just a popularity contest. We all know what happened to Bush, Sr....very popular then not popular. A reasonable criteria would be that all sections must have a valid reason for inclusion and each section must summarize the most important points and have no unimportant points. For example, Obama's childhood dog, if he had one, would be less important that Obama's school that he went to. Therefore, the school information has higher priority. By having these criteria, you no longer support or oppose information you like or don't like. I think this is the best way to define criteria objectively rather than "if I see it and don't like the subject or information, I oppose it". This is also a way to get rid of "Is Obama really an American?" because that is of so little importance compared to Obama's date of birth and college information that it can be objectively disposed of by the importance criteria. Contino (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC) To my knowledge we've never had a successful concicse proposal anywhere in the encyclopedia for deciding in advance what the exact criteria are for whether content should be included in an article. So I doubt it can be done here. Instead, the decision is made on a case-by-case basis via a mix of many content policies, guidelines, essays, and principles, plus sound editorial discretion. Things must be reliably sourced, neutral, not of undue weight, relevant and significant, and in the right place. They should educate the reader, be written at a level accessible to an interested lay reader, give a better encyclopedic understanding of the subject matter, avoid offering opinions and argumentation, be structured and in prose form where practical rather than a directory or collection of facts, avoid "in universe" descriptions, etc. I doubt any rule would dissuade truly partisan or biased editors, it would simply give them some new rule to construe the way they want. The best way to go about it, for all the rest, is not to think in terms of information being biased or not (unless it is over the top), but rather whether it helps tell the story of Obama's life and career, which is what the article is about. Wikidemon (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Actually, it is probably best if I make all the decisions around here. What's in or out will, henceforth, be on my say-so. Editors wishing to get their biases in to the article can PayPal me a bunch of money. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC) I can't believe that we are unable to agree on a simple criteria. The easiest criteria would be that each section heading must be the most important section headings possible and that every subject in each section must be the most important that exists. If we oppose this, then is it possible that we are not objective? For example, Obama's early life is described. If you propose something that is more relevant than what exists then it sticks. If it is less relevant than it will be the first to go. For example, Obama's math grades are far less relevant than what there. It goes (it's not even there now). Obama's date of birth and parents are far more important that the date of his parents wedding. This doesn't mean that the wedding information goes. It only means that if the article grows too big in 10 years, we will abide by the prioritizing of information. We should all agree in principle that eventually when the article gets too big, we will prioritize what is included by comparatively considering each topic/sentence. If we can't agree on this, then we should stop all editing until we can agree on such basic, non-controversial principle. Contino (talk) 20:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC) I'll bet there are literally thousands and thousands of BLPs on Wikipedia. I would imagine that of all of them, this would be the very last one where everyone would be able to "agree in principle" to anything. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC) So then it could mean that you or I can insert information which isn't as high priority? If you don't agree to this simple prioritizing idea, then I have doubts of that person editing. It's just like opposing murder. If you support murder, you have no business in Wikipedia. Contino (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC) I certainly hope it's not a case that Scjessey seems to suggest; that there is no consensus to keep things of high priority and not have low priority topics in this article. If that is the new lack of consensus, then there will be disorder because the GM CEO info goes back in. I only agree to not having it because it's low priority compared to other stuff. If we can't agree on prioritizing stuff, it should go back in. Let's reconsider Scjessey's idea. Contino (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC) What makes the forced resignation of the GM CEO a "high priority" in regards to Obama's biography? It certainly isn't the first government forced resignation of a CEO and it isn't going to be the last. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC) I am not aware of any other forced resignations? What are some? Contino (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Should have checked here before I answered on my talk page, but the Bush Admin forced the CEOs of AIG, Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae to resign as a condition of their bailouts. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC) (after ec) - Just to be clear about this, on a scale of 1 to 10 where 10 is the most important and biographically-relevant, the GM CEO stuff rates at roughly minus 800. It would, of course, be a gross violation of WP:WEIGHT to even breathe a whisper about the auto industry or AIG bonuses or anything else that is the populist-outrage du jour. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC) What Wikidemon says here is precisely correct. The only thing I'd add is that for a Featured Article, as this is, we also need to have "engaging, even brilliant" writing. (So, for example, a paragraph of four sentences, each starting with "He", needs to be rewritten even if we reach consensus on the content.) And as for the GM CEO resignation - no affect on Obama's life story, so no relevance to his biography. If circumstances change, we re-evaluate. Tvoz/talk 21:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Unanimous passage: Proposal of 30 March 2009: After some initial, what seemed to be oppposition by Scjessey, it now appears that there is 100% acceptance of my proposal that inclusion of an edit is a result of prioritizing the content and proposed content of the article. Therefore, if something of very low priority will not be included and things of high priority must be included. Commentary: What this means? Right now, nothing. My guess is that something like his date of birth is of the highest priority. Something which is trivia is of low enough priority so that it does not appear in the article. Contino (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Hmm? I'm not sure I see where there was a !vote on such a proposal. Heck, I don't even see where anyone is agreeing with you. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC) This was all rather confusing. Grsz11 22:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure what this is all getting at - this is not the sort of proposal subject to consensus and passage. Article content is subject to consensus. Content standards and editing procedures are subject to policies and guidelines far removed from this page, and cannot be overturned locally. Wikidemon (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC) "cannot be overtuned locally." ? This proposal just reinforces current guidelines about prioritizing information that is included and not having trivial stuff, that's all. Nobody should oppose it because then you're supporting the inclusion of trivial stuff. You can be silent now but if you aren't silent, you're either supporting or opposing the proposal. It seems as nobody opposes the proposal, which is the way it should be.Contino (talk) 22:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC) It's not a proposal. It's how things always were. Grsz11 22:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC) If by "reinforces" that means the so-called proposal doesn't change anything, then it's moot and moot matters are nothing to be approved or disapproved. If "reinforces" means changing anything, then I see no purpose in reinterpreting existing policies and guidelines as they might apply to this page, so I neither support nor oppose, nor am I bound as an editor to follow, such a scheme. I prefer not to edit by "prioritizing" the importance of various things, if that means ranking them on a scale from most to least important. Rather, including things in any article is a subtle mix of whether information is encyclopedic in nature, timely, ephemeral, related to the subject matter, instructive to the reader, well-sourced, neutral, placed in the right article, etc. So we take each content proposal as it comes. That is not at all a statement in favor of including trivial matters. Wikidemon (talk) ← Just in case anyone isn't clear about the above claim of "unanimous passage", I don't see that anyone here has agreed to any "proposal" at all, nor do I think it is at all likely that consensus will be reached to institute some new set of rules when the old ones work just fine. Contino, I think it's time to move onto something else. Tvoz/talk 23:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Everyone seems to agree on the proposal, even Grsz11's comment "it's how things always were". Wikidemon says that if it just reinforces things (which it does), then it's not necessary. Now Tvoz seems to express opposition. If this is truly the case, then Tvoz is opposing what everyone else agrees to. This should be a simple, "I agree" or "it seems like the way we have always done things". I'm not sure why there is so much resistance. Unlike what Tvoz said, "the old ones work just fine", doesn't work when we simply re-state it like I did and there is then opposition. Unless Tvoz clarifies, this proposal goes down as an no opposition except for Tvoz. Again, the proposal (paragraph 4) can be summarized as major items should be included, trivial items should not. The most major items have the highest priority. Truly, nobody can be serious if they oppose that. Contino (talk) 00:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC) First of all, you aren't reading for comprehension, everyone DISAGREES with you. Secondly, see WP:NOT, this isn't a democracy. Soxwon (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Oppose Grsz11 00:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Oppose is not clear. Is it opposing Soxwon? If it is opposing my proposal, which is simply a layman's summary of what Wikipedia is all about, then there is some serious disagreement about basic Wikipedia principles. Contino (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Stop it. As everyone who has commented has said, there is no need to restate basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Continuing to pursue this is disruptive, and pointless. Tvoz/talk 00:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Agreed. This is process for process's sake and not at all fruitful. All of this is already longstanding Wikipedia policy. We don't engage in anything remotely resembling altering or restating said policies for individual articles; they're policies for a reason. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Then now Tvoz seems to agree with Wikipedia principles. Basically, I was stating in layman's terms, "this is what Wikipedia rules seems to be". You can ignore the comment, that's fine. Or you can say "That's true, I agree." I certainly hope you don't say "I oppose these Wikipedia principles" which was what Tvoz originally seemed to say but now says there's no need to restate it but not to discuss this anymore. What should have been just a few lines of uncontroversial text has really mushroomed! I think this is finally settled. Nobody disagrees with what is really just a lay person's re-stating several Wikipedia principles in everyday language. Contino (talk) 00:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

2004 Senate Campaign

Little sparse with respect to Jack Ryan's withdrawal. Didn't he have Obama followed and also have some embarrassing aspects of his behavior made public during a divorce? Ikilled007 (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

These are matters for Jack Ryan (politician), and would seem to have no relevance here. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and the relevant information is available at the article the section is summarizing here: United States Senate election in Illinois, 2004. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 17:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Insulting Text

When I go to the article when not logged in, it says, after his name, "(aka the retard who is screwing up this country)". When I'm logged in, the text disappears. I tried multiple times. What is going on? Zzez1919 (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)zzez1919

That's because someone just removed the inappropriate content. Check the article history.Nonamer98 (talk) 19:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I did revert it after reading this, so not sure what was going on. CTJF83Talk 19:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If it's still there for you, you may need to clear your browser cache. Wikidemon (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible Marxist ?

I supppose he could be of the Groucho variety but I doubt it
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There have been many reliable sources that have noted how Obama’s childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a communist (CPUSA member). In his books, Obama admits attending “socialist conferences” and coming into contact with Marxist literature. Obama’s socialist backing also goes back at least to 1996, when he received the endorsement of the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) for an Illinois state senate seat. Why are none of these issues addressed in the article? By the way, I don't even think they are bad - as I'm a Marxist myself. 137.52.151.215 (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC) So we want candidates in office who have no contact with ideologies but those we are comfortable with? And besides, where is the proof it had a significant impact? Soxwon (talk) 01:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Indeed. I suggest we close down all libraries so that people do not "come into contact with Marxist literature" - one whiff from Das Kapital, and you turn into Pol Pot. 48 channels with 50% Big Brother and 50% reruns of American Idol should be enough for anybody's intellectual stimulation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC) I definitely think we need to go back to burning books. Especially books on witchcraft, like Harry Potter. And anything about mushrooms. Mushrooms are gross. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC) I don't know man, Simon Cowell can be too deep for me sometimes, and Ryan Seacrest is like a well of wisdom with no bottom. Soxwon (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC) If you really are a Marxist, then you know better than anyone that Obama isn't one. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC) (OD)Just to sum up what everyone's saying above, if a reliable source exists showing Obama is a Marxist, feel free to bring it up. Otherwise, it's original research. Dayewalker (talk) 03:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC) To several of the previous commenters (before Dayewalker and Wasted Time R) - read back over your replies. Are they helpful in any way? No, of course not. This talk page already has enough problems from folks who come here with wild accusations, conspiracy theories, or irrelevant minutiae about Obama's life. We don't need to add to that problem with snarky replies which waste everyone's time and don't bother to address the question asked. Perhaps the anon user is just pushing a POV, or perhaps they are just making what they see as a legitimate point. It saves time if we just assume the latter and answer the above with something like the following: While it is clear that Obama has come into contact with Marxist or socialist ideas in the past, there is no indication that he ever (now or in the past) self-identified as a Marxist. As most college students who study liberal arts (as Obama did) come into contact with at least some Marxist theories, that fact is not really worth mentioning in Obama's biographical article. Nor is the fact that a minor, outside-the-mainstream political party once endorsed him for office particularly relevant as this is a fairly common occurrence in American politics. And fact that Obama as a youngster knew someone with radical politics is not relevant unless it can be demonstrated that said person decisively influenced Obama's own politics, which it has not. I know the drive-by commenting on the talk page can get frustrating, but when you start talking about Pol Pot, mushrooms, Harry Potter, and Simon Cowell in your replies, it's safe to assume you're not replying in a constructive way.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Sorry. I was just getting all caught up in the spirit of the moment. I meant no disrespect to the... er... Marxist. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC) My response was meant in all seriousness. The gulf between actual Marxism and the U.S. Democratic Party (which Obama fits comfortably within) is wider than an ocean. An actual Marxist would know that. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC) My apologies, the first answer did in fact address the question at hand, the second was simly snark. Soxwon (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC) My comment was not directed at everyone and probably should have been more specific (I had neither Wasted Time R nor Soxwon's first comment in mind). It's really not a big deal, I just worry that the stressful nature of this page sometimes causes folks to (understandably) bite when certain types of questions are asked. It's the kind of thing we all can (and do) fall prey to at times so I just wanted to draw attention to that. Questions about possible Marxist (in the academic sense) influences on Obama are not completely off the wall, though as I said above it's really not worthy of coverage. And of course there is, lamentably in my view, a large gulf between Marxian ideas and the views of Democrats like Obama as WTR says. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC) The initial "question" posed by the anon was not done in a good-faith effort to improve the article or contribute to the encyclopedia. This was a single post by an IP resolving to Nova Southeastern University, hardly a hotbed for Marxist movements, so take that claim with a grain of salt. WP:BITE does not apply to obvious trolls or vandals. This should have been closed up long before reaching this point. Tarc (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC) I agree. "Possible" Marxist? I mean, c'mon, has there ever been any doubt? ;-) Someone can go ahead and collapse/delete/archive this now. --Ali'i 14:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Strange code

Why do I see

{{#ifeq:sysop|sysop|

at the top of the article? Mike R (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see it. Is it at the very top? tempodivalse [☎] 19:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's gone now. It was right above the hatnote. Mike R (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Lede

I understand that the introductory paragraphs are written in summary style, but that is not carte blanche for excluding reference to a reliable source. The statement in question is "...as an underdog and then won the primary with broad support that surprised campaign watchers and raised his profile." So, where are the reliable sources that say he was an underdog and that his victory surprised campaign watchers? We should either get it in the body of the article or take it out of the lede. Also, what "campaign watchers" are we talking about? QueenofBattle (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted this discussion here as it's already covered above, but the question still remains. QueenofBattle (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Dubious category inclusion in Former Atheist and Agnostic.

He is in the cat of Former Atheists and Agnostics. Do we have a ref for this ? Given we have 221 references it seems somewhat of a glaring hole. Non-theism isn't these two (heck Agnostic isn't even remotely close to Atheism but that is another issue for this cat hat rack). Ttiotsw (talk) 08:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

There is certainly implicit evidence for atheism and/or agnosticism (these two terms overlap, but are not synonymous), but I am not aware of any explicit statement or a supporting reliable source. I am generally against "category creep" of any kind. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No there isn't. Given the mountains oc citation regularly hauled out to deflect the crypto-muslim drive by edits, we know full well he's a christian. ThuranX (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The category is "former", not saying it belongs, just noting. Tom (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. He was not always a Christian. This is something he came to later in life, after a childhood relatively free from religion. Like I said, this is implicitly understood from his own writing. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it's something you INFER from his writing. What he implies without overt statement would require later over statements from him to clarify for citation here. ThuranX (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I never suggested that he should be described or categorized in this manner. I merely stated that (a) one could imply a form of atheism or agnosticism from his own writing, and (b) I hate category creep. Your responses indicate that I might be suggesting this was somehow okay, when it plainly is not. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

So in conclusion, it is an unsupportable category inclusion. Everyone is born a non-theist or in a sense of the word an atheist but we don't usually stick everyone into this category by default unless they have explicitly claimed that they are an atheist (or agnostic) at any time. Unless someone can give an explicit reference to where Obama has claimed this then it is conjecture on our part and given WP:BLP we must remove all information unless it is supportable. Therefore I'm removing the cat. Ttiotsw (talk) 02:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone already done that ! Seems like as good a consensus as any then.Ttiotsw (talk) 02:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Bill Ayers

There doesn't seem to be any coverage of the Bill Ayers Election Controversy. It seems a bit odd as this was a major point of attack from the McCain campaign, whatever its merit. (I was told that this article didn't have anything on Wright or Ayers due to "liberal bias", I came along to disprove this, I'm rather disappointed to be proven only half right).

Are there BLP reasons for not mentioning Bill Ayers in this article?

JASpencer (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes there are. WP:BLP specifically discusses "guilt-by-association", which is what the Bill Ayers thing amounted to. You will find that the talk page archive contains many, many discussions about this matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It is contained to one or more of the many sub articles out there. Tom (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Could anyone point me to the talk pages? JASpencer (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

At the top right of this page, you will see the talk page archives. There is a search box. If you type in "Ayers" and click search, you get about eleventy-billion results to peruse. Well maybe not quite that many. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

article not written very well

I've looked at the archives and find that there is a lot of fighting. The article says that it is under article probation.

What they actually mean is that editors can be under probation by editing the wrong way.

What this article actually needs is real article probation, that is, the article is so poorly written for a high profile article that it should be under probation. (compared to low profile articles, like G-7, it's not that poorly written)

I don't have the desire to join the bickering. Every section needs a lot of work.

Just picking some sections at random...

1. Presidency section. This is doesn't summarize the presidency well. Granted that it's hard to write a good summary of an evolving presidency. However, "The theme of the inauguration was "A New Birth of Freedom", commemorating the 200th anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln.[135]" doesn't belong in such short summary. I see someone has a reference to prove it's true but that doesn't mean the idea should be included. It sounds to me like an advertising agency's press release or talking point.

2. The Presidential Campaign is longer than it should be. For example, "At the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado, Hillary Clinton gave a speech in support of Obama's candidacy and called for him to be nominated by acclamation as the Democratic candidate.[116][117]" This detail is really just formality and not an important point in his biography. I can think of other details that are more important to the biography of President Obama than this.

One trouble that I see is that there is too much hostility that I don't want to write something that much to fight. I'm not going to spend time fighting over a single sentence even if the sentence doesn't belong. G7error (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your valuable insights. Strange that it has been given featured article status, given the problems you have identified, but someone with such an extensive editing record is bound to know best. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

With that kind of sarcasm (last sentence), no wonder nobody wants to help out. FYI, I have written many articles professionally. But I see that my point has been proven. People with expertise are chased away due to fighting or, as I didn't predict, sarcasm and criticism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by G7error (talk • contribs)

What do you expect? This is a featured article, considered to be one of the finest examples of articledom on Wikipedia, and you just came along and trashed it with some pretty bizarre claims about it sounding like an advertisement. You even suggested that the endorsement of former First Lady and primary challenger Hillary Clinton was "not important". -- Scjessey (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You are not exactly helping matters by coming here to lodge a complaint against other editors. Most of the trouble here has come from fake accounts and people who come to gripe rather than edit. So when you post a weakly thought through gripe about editors being unsympathetic from an account of dubious legitimacy, of course you are going to confirm your own point. If you truly want to help, take that chip off your shoulder and try to actually do so without antagonizing others. If you don't, just stay away. We do not need you to announce your reasons here. Wikidemon (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Come on people, don't bite. The editor raises some perfectly legitimate points and gets only sarcasm and accusations of having a chip on his shoulder? That's a great reflection on the community. How about welcoming valid criticism and working to improve the editor's opinion of the project by attempting to answer his complaints rather than giving him the "well, it's an FA" response. Just because the article is among the best Wikipedia has to offer doesn't mean it is the best it can be. Mfield (Oi!) 19:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

What valid criticism? The article talk page is not the place to entertain complaints about other editors or the state of Wikipedia. The editor clearly came here with a chip on his (or her) shoulder, something that is utterly not productive. I'll add, a patronizing attitude. That passes on some websites, but thank goodness for our standards of civility and constructive editing, not here. It is not our job to defend the community from each person who comes here to cast aspersions. Wikidemon (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the anon. Furthermore, many of his points are proven by the inappropriate responses to his content focused comments. This article stinks. It has lots of irrelevancies. It isn't balanced. It's the result of bitey POV warriors taking over and attacking anyone who dares point out or correct problems. An effort was made to revoke FA status, and even that was attacked. So there we are, stuck with a crappy embarassment of an article, but it gets a star in the upper right hand corner. Woo hoo! ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Please cut it out, COM. You know better than that. If there are no objections, I'm going to close this thread. If you have a complaint about other editors take it to an appropriate forum - AN/I or the ongoing arbitration case.Wikidemon (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I object. I think all the soap boxing and personal attack responses should be removed. And a discussion of the content should be engaged in. That's how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Your comment has nothing to do with the article or content and you should remove it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No it is not your job to defend the community but your responses to a newbies question will seal their impression of the project and whether they hang around to contribute. There's no need to take the editors comments about the state of the article personally, often newbies have not understood the reasons for things being a certain way. Valid criticisms are his points 1 & 2, which could easily be answered courteously without recourse to sarcasm. The editor may well have significant experience in writing, probably in different media to this, and the kind of answers he received are a poor reflection on the community. If you can't see that then step back for a while and put yourself in the shoes of someone with no wikipedia experience giving an honest assessment of what they see. I felt embarrassed enough by the responses to comment and that should tell you something (and I am a sarcastic person myself). Mfield (Oi!) 19:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

(rawr! 2 edit conflicts) I disagree with your point that the article is badly written,especially with the points you brought up.Point 1 gives a little bit of story about the day the president got inaugurated,before going into his actions as president.Seeing how the president is hmmmmm BLACK Abraham Lincoln is pretty important for people of his race after all,Lincoln did help to give Obama the chance to become president of the USA.On point 2 you say it is longer then it should be, however there is no guidleine or rule that say ad article should only be XX lines long ,Clinton giving his support for Obama is a big deal when it came to the presidential campaign because it showed that Clinton was behind him and she asked for her supporter to also get behind him, because after all.... without Clinton's supporters Obama would have not won.

The reason the contributors to this article are responding to you this way is because, we constantly get users ( mostly new ones ) that come out of nowhere and accuse us of putting unimportant stuff into the article or not putting stuff they think is important,or us trying to push one of many views into the article.When you say the article is biased or the article is bad you are also saying the contributors wrote a biased or bad article.Also if you won't fight to get your side heard if course it wont be heard<obviously fighting is not the way to go , but if you wont put the energy behind what you want to add to the article chances are it wont be added, don't just state a point and then leave it for others to solve.Thank you Durga Dido (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Dido makes some sense, a fresh change from the mud slinging against me. However, the fire is just too hot for further discussion.G7error (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict X2) In substance this new thread is a put-down of editors on this page for supposedly creating a bad article by being hostile to improvements, which is a rehash of any of several dozen similar threads from early March. If the editor sincerely and thoughtfully examines what really caused the hostility he would see that it comes from new (and many fake) editors trying to push fringe political agendas. The editor describes two specific content matters but immediately and repeatedly says these are not an attempt to improve the article, but rather are chosen "at random" to support the claim about what is wrong here. Antagonizing the locals in a condescending tone is not a terribly thoughtful way to approach any community or any problem, and particularly not an article on probation on Wikipedia. Complaining about persecution, mud slinging, etc., are not a constructive response to being called out on it. I can understand that many people want to save face, and won't exactly apologize after being called out. But it is a mistake to humor that or give it sanction here. WP:BITE regards hostility to newbies who make innocent mistakes. It does not preclude being firm with people who come here to complain. The concern voiced by Scjessey that the account is a WP:SPA and possible WP:SOCK is reasonable. Nevertheless I think Scjessey's sarcasm was unnecessary, and provoked the new editor to go in the wrong direction. One of the burdens of trying to be a responsible editor on an article with as much disruption as this one is to try to maintain a decorum even in the face of antagonism. Wikidemon (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

THE WHOLE ARTICLE NEEDS WORK. It is unbalanced. It contains irrelevancies and trivialities. This editor made specific recommendations and was met with hostility and soap boxing. Status quo on this article, excuses not withstanding. Only one editor so far could be bothered to deal with the substance of the issues raised. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Stop with the ad hom criticism and be specific of where you think the article needs work, CoM. Suggest your changes specifically without all of this baggage. thanks, --guyzero | talk 21:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Guyzero, it's not possible to have a reasonable discussion here when there is so much bad faith, soap boxing and personal attacks. Look at the orginal comment that included specific recommendations (that have been mentioned numerous times before) and look at the responses. Only one editor has been willing to discuss the article content, the rest have engaged in soap boxing and meta discussions. Until the talk page guidelines and article probation for this article is properly enforced, discussing and making the major improvements that are needed is impossible. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Except that plenty has been done in this article and on the talkpage of this article on all sides of every POV for many months. I agree that we could have started the conversation better with this new editor, so hopefully he'll give it another whirl without all of the additional commentary that his thoughts won't be accepted -- this was an unfortunate self-fulfilling prophecy. We need to focus on the content, right? But your ad hom claims of POV warring and soap boxing are simply not borne out by you just stirring the pot and claiming it. Please, either go to ArbCom or ANI or RFC or wherever with diffs and make your case or accept the reality that if a someone has a content idea that is presented in good faith, without edit warring, and without a ton of unnecessary commentary, that it generally goes well for everyone. Again, I agree we should've welcomed this editor better, but you are making generalizations that you either need to prove in the appropriate forum or stop disrupting by making them. thanks, --guyzero | talk 03:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's not beat about the bush here. The OP came out of nowhere to trash a featured article. This happens all the time, and it always turns out to be a POV-pusher or a sock puppet of same. Claims of "advertising" and "not important", along with inappropriate comments about editor hostility clearly indicate a familiar agenda. 99 times out of 100, it's just more of the same. How are we supposed to AGF under those odds? And it doesn't help one little bit when editors from the lunatic fringe come in and fan the flames. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

That someone disagrees with another does not an "editor from the lunatic fringe" make. Attempts to exert ownership over the article by claiming that anyone who raises a question or brings up a discussion point (even if it has been brought up "eleventy-billion" times before) is somehow evil or fringy, is clearly against the spirit of AGF. It does not matter if someone has made 20,000 edits or six edits; everyone has a right to participate, edit freely (given they follow Wiki's rules), and ask questions on the talk pages. Maybe it's time for a multilateral break? I suggest this part of the discussion be archived, and the entire article probation be removed, so that editors can freely edit without the fear of being reported for "trashing a featured article" that is under probation. This might also help to reduce the unusually hostile environment surrounding edits to this article. QueenofBattle (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted comments

I just noticed that one of the editors here deleted some comments I made earlier in the discussion,[53] some of which I have inserted in updated form after what I thought was an edit conflict. I cannot endorse the timing or thread them properly given that further discussion has occurred, but here they are. The first was a warning to ChildofMidnight to stop using this page to make accusations against other editors.

My comment is fine. Please stick to your own editing rather than trying to pick a fight here. If there is a specific editor you wish to accuse of soapboxing or personal attacks, there are forums available for such pupose. You have not stated a reason to keep this thread open, and I see no value at all to continuing this. Accordingly I will likely give everyone a chance to review and comment, and then close it within a few hours. If you or anyone else wishes to make an actual content proposal, you are free to do so in a new section. Wikidemon (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The second I added in updated form at 20:49, 4 April 2009, above. The conversation started out with a bad premise and is in my opinion wholly unproductive - it degenerated from there. May we please close / archive it. Again, if anyone has a complaint about other editors there is a place for that. If anyone wants to make specific suggestions or proposals to improve the article, please start a new section on that free of any incivilities directed at other editors. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

←Your comments were deliberately deleted by ChildofMidnight, who reminds me of BryanFromPalatine for some reason. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with talk page guidelines. Particularly for an article on probation and already subject to Arbcom proceedings (where Scjessey and Wikidemon's improper actions have been discussed), it's totally inappropriate to soap box and make personal attacks. If you don't want to comment on the article and its contents you shouldn't be here. Removing your comment that had nada to do with the article was appropriate. Your creating a new section to re-add it is inappropriate. This entire section should be removed and you should be topic banned for your ongoing improper behavior here in violation of numerous guidelines. Please refrain from soap boxing and making personal attacks in the future. Article talk pages are to discuss the article and its contents such as citations and possible additions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I just have to say this, although I am bound to cop a load of crap for it, but that is such bullshit, CoM. Almost all of your edits in the political arena, since you created your account on election day, have been made with a strict agenda in mind. POV-pushing, edit-warring, editing or deleting other people's comments, name-calling, meat puppetry, soap boxing and misrepresenting others is your modus operandi, which makes your holier-than-thou claims of "improper behavior" on the part of others a shocking conceit. You just cannot come here and lecture people on soap boxing by... well... soap boxing! Administrators need to take long, hard look at your behavior and see how it stacks up with BryanFromPalatine, because you are definitely doing the same stuff he did. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It'd be in the best interests all-around if established editors do not remove the comments of other established editors, especially those with whom one is having a contentious discussion with. Remove only vandalism (e.g. "Obama sucks XYZ!" or the the patently, blatantly obvious soapboxing disruptions by WP:SPAs. Tarc (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

For the record, my edits are not under any reasonable question in the ArbCom case. COM's grandstanding here with yet more aggressive false accusations against me and other established editors is most harmful to the collegial environment on this page. Again, can we please close down this discussion and carry on any reasonable content proposal civilly in a new section? I will ask for some help on AN/I to do that if nobody here is willing to put an end to this. I should have closed the discussion down in the first place on Tarc's theory, and think that any neutral party enforcing article probation would have done the same. But, as the subject of unwarranted attacks like this, my article patrol efforts have been cast in the limelight, however unfairly. I will also seek to add ChildofMidnight as a party to the arbitration case and, to be fair, Scjessey as well. Dispute resolution is the proper place to take complaints about other editors, and right now behavioral disputes are before Arbcom. Wikidemon (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I support removing everything in this Deleted section thread. The disruptive comments should have been left removed and the new personal attacks and disruptive comments should also be removed. They don't have anything to do with the article and continue a pattern of inappropriate behavior. Can I remove this thread so those of us who are here to improve the encyclopedia and to work on article content without disruption can do so? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Is Obama Irish?

It has been added to the list of categories to which this article links that Obama is of . According to this article, this claim is based on Obama's great great great grandfather. Is that enough to consider Obama to be an Irish American? SMP0328. (talk) 03:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)