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)

Creating (yet more) links on the page

A number of organizations that Obama was involved in or acted on the board of directors for don't have hyperlinks. Example, the Center for Neighborhood Technology. I think it would be beneficial to give people access to that kind of thing, and most of them have either their own webpages or wikipedia pages, so why not link to them? Unfortunately because of the (necessary) lock on the page, it's difficult to add those links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealintomorrow (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 21:35, 4 March 2009.

Why isn't he called "Barack H. Obama"?

Like Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, James A. Garfield, Chester A. Arthur, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and so on? 203.211.75.108 (talk) 07:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Pure stylistic choice, as far as I can tell. George W. Bush employed the middle initial primarily to distinguish him from his father. The others did it because it mainly because it sounds good (compare "John Kennedy", "John F. Kennedy"). Dcoetzee 05:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan & Bill Clinton aren't called by their middle names. We name articles by the most common usage. Barack Obama is more common than Barack H. Obama. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 05:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Quick, without peaking, name the middle initials of Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, or James Madison. I can't do it, but I'm sure some editors can. However, in any case, the simple fact is that different presidents (or those who write about them) have made slightly different choices about which parts of their names to use most commonly. Obama happens to be one with "middle name/initial usually omitted." LotLE×talk 05:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

None of those presidents had middle names.TomCat4680 (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Wilson did. It was Woodrow. It's of course not uncommon that people use their middle name as their first name Nil Einne (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

And, in a practical sense, there's no Barack W. Obama or Barack Q. Obama out there he's likely to be confused with. PhGustaf (talk) 05:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Just as an aside, many early presidents, including Abraham Lincoln, did not have middle names at all. Tad Lincoln (talk) 06:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, imagine how silly we would look if we had "Jimmy E. Carter" and "Bill J. Clinton". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I would also point out that prior to W. George H.W. Bush was generally referred to simply as George Bush AFAIK. Even nowadays, I suspect if you say George Bush people are more likely to assume you mean H.W. then W. Nil Einne (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I cannot find sources, but the answer is simply the stylings in cycles. Notice that Grant, Hayes, Garfield and Arthur all served in the same historical clustering as post Civil War presidents, and that the other five you mentioned succeeded each other in a similar cluster of time. GW was to differentiate between his father, much as we do John Quincy Adams. Keegan^talk 07:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

2 "References" sections

Shouldn't the one containing the {{reflist}} tag be called Notes per WP:CITE and for both consistency and accessibility. It does not make sense to have them both named the same thing. I didn't want to make the change without discussion. Calebrw (talk) 05:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed it to Notes and References. I don't see where this would have been a controversial change... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It was originally called notes. Some editor changed it without bothering to ask or to look and see that there was a separate section called "references". I thought I had reverted, but it seems that it didn't work for some reason. Tad Lincoln (talk) 05:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Calebrw (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Occidental College

Does it really matter that he didn't graduate from there? He spent half his undergraduate career there. Why discount it just because it wasn't where he spent his final years? I don't think there's anything wrong with being inclusive here. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:15, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)

Everyone please stop reverting the article. Telling others to discuss the issue in your edit summary doesn't make it okay. Discuss the issue here yourself or shut the hell up. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:57, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)

According to the Alma mater article, that term applies to "the university or college from where a person has attended or graduated." Under that definition, Occidental College should be mentioned in the Infobox. SMP0328. (talk) 04:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. And by the way, Equazcion, I edited this passage ONCE. That is nowhere near WP:3RR, in spirit or in reality. So the next time you crawl up on a high horse and decide to call someone out in an edit summary, it might be smart for you to get your facts straight. And I have now done #2, as this user's revert was clearly done in bad faith as an exercise in point-making, rather than in the spirit of improving the article. Tarc (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I was in error when I warned you of 3RR. That having been said, 3RR isn't absolute. You're not supposed to edit war in order to get your version of the article instated, but discuss instead. And there was absolutely nothing bad-faith about my edit. There's no need for accusations. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:22, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)

Tarc, in restoring the reference to Occidental College in the Infobox, referred to its removal as a "bad faith edit". I don't agree with that description. While I agree with the restoration, I believe the removal was in good faith. Whether "alma mater" included Occidental College was not clear. SMP0328. (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I was specifically referring to Equazcion's edit, not the newbie's. The former was made to make a point about a (wrong) assumption about 3RR. Not about the subject matter itself. Tarc (talk) 05:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It was an attempt to put a stop to the edit warring, not to make a point about 3RR. As someone relatively uninvolved I thought it might do the trick. If I were an admin I would've protected the article instead, but since I'm not, this seemed like the next best thing. There's nothing bad-faith about that. You'll notice I actually reverted to the version I disagree with. Besides which, if you think continuing the revert war based on the subject matter is somehow more proper, I'd say you're mistaken. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:37, 7 Mar 2009 (UTC)

The best way to put a stop to the edit warring is simply not to edit it again, but to come here and discuss it. While it may be irking that editors put in their edit summaries: "please discuss in talk page first," it means just that. Why not discuss it before elevating the issue to a revert war. While WP:BOLD may mean at times go on in and fix what you see wrong, it also means that maybe it might be better to bring it to the talk page first and discuss it. Sometimes what you see wrong may not actually be wrong in the first place, or is a product of a long running argument that led to a consensus version. Changing things because you, as the editor, want to see it differently is not a good excuse to change things and can even be argued as just trying to make a WP:POINT. Brothejr (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Palin attended FIVE different colleges for her B.A. alone, but the only one listed is the University of Idaho. Why? BECAUSE THAT'S HER ALMA MATER. Your alma mater is not "any school you attended", it's WHERE YOU GRADUATED FROM. I cannot find a single other Wikipedia page, besides Obama's, that features a school that person DID NOT graduate from as their "alma mater." It's ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.111.52 (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Technically, an alma mater is anywhere you attended. Graduation is irrelevant. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Technically, that doesn't matter. The only places traditionally considered "alma mater" and the once places recorded in this spot on someone's Wiki page are where they graduated from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.111.52 (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I Agree 72.207.65.76 (talk) 07:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama spent two years each at Occidental and Colombia. They were both important to his education and both deserve mention in the infobox. I bet Occidental considers him enough of an alumnus to ask him for money. PhGustaf (talk) 07:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

For those arguing for one college equals one Alma Mater, then how about this real life example: A person goes into a program where they first start out in one college for two years. Then they finish their last two years in a different college graduating with a bachelors degree. After a couple more years they attended a third university and attained their master degree. Finally they went to a fourth university and graduated with a doctorate. They technically graduated all four colleges, receives alumni mailings from all four colleges, and thinks fondly of all four colleges. Which is their Alma Mater? (I personally know this person and I've heard of hundred and hundreds of others doing the same thing.) Brothejr (talk) 09:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Facts about Barack Obama

Resolved

 – And we are done here. If you have something to add that in some what relates to the article, and isn't a crackshoot from WND or the Drudge Report, feel free to post a new thread below. This is not a general forum. seicer | talk | contribs 03:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Why is wikipedia not allowing edits that question Obama's eligibility? It has been widely reported from many news sources and there are several court case at various levels of the legal system ranging up to the supreme court. Further his associations with Rev. Wright and Ayers are not allowed to be posted. Why is wikipedia allowing a whitewash of history? These are relevant to the historical account. Facts are facts no matter how inconvenient they may be to someones ideology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pt1604 (talk) 00:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an easy one: Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Things that violate WP:BLP aren't "allowed" - otherwise, if you can find citations from reliable sources, it is allowed. But if it can't be properly cited...then it can't be in there, simply put.  Frank  |  talk  00:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The Chicago Tribune isn't a reliable source?

Read Wikipedia's standard: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

Guess what? Reliable sources have been used and it's still being edited in a tainted way. The entry should be flagged until bias is removed (bias from anything critical about Obama on his page)

Now, read what else Wikipedia demands: Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors.

Does this apply to Obama or not? As the entry currently is displayed, bias is clearly showing by censoring ANY and ALL entries that may show controversy or negatively toward the President.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlwitness (talk • contribs)

There's an article about his campaign that goes into attempts to paint him with guilt by association. There's also an article that covers all of those frivolous court cases at some length. Those articles have been out there for months, and anyone who knows how to spell "Barack" can find them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. This is an ongoing controversy. It is quite easy to verify the truth, from most notable news sources, that this is, in fact, an ongoing controversy. So, again, why no mention of the controversies in the article? 69.248.3.210 (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, if such material is added to the article, I recommend any such material be put into a new section. That way, it will be easier to integrate into the article. SMP0328. (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the neutrality tag, because this discussion is ongoing. I've seen this discussion over at Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. As long as at least one editor believes the article violates NPOV, that tag must stay. SMP0328. (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you point to this ongoing discussion? And no, NPOV tags should be used when disputes cannot be resolved. A single editor complaining about an article does not validate tagging. You've got to have actionable issues with the article. Guettarda (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It makes no sense to apply NPOV when the info about Obama's ineligibility controversy is verifiable by linking it to Chicago Tribune, a reputable newspaper. If anything, it seems that leftist bias of an editor is preventing a discussion about a very important issue. It is hard to believe that one biased part of leftist "machine" can murder our quest to get to the full truth.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lokietek (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia does in fact have a lot on this subject Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories. Do the fringey theories merit inclusion in the main article? They do not. IronDuke 01:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I propose implementing the solution to a similar problem at the Sixteenth Amendment article. I tried doing it, but was reverted. SMP0328. (talk) 02:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Because it gives undue weight, i.e. undeserved dignity, to a fringe theory that the courts have already rejected. WND and others are desparate to keep it alive. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It's clearly fringe material, on the far outer edge of the campaign period blog attacks. Not a single serious reliable source ever reported either questions surrounding his birthplace, or the "natural born citizen" rule, a legitimate claim. The few that reported it at all simply said that somebody made the claim, and the few lawsuits that were filed were not by reputable plaintiffs and all were summarily dismissed. The fact that fringe litigants file frivolous lawsuits against the president, and that partisan publications take up the cause, is not a significant issue in the life of a sitting president. If it were significant the reliable sources would cover it. Most issues that even get a few words of mention have hundreds of reliable sources to establish weight - things that take up paragraph have thousands to tens of thousands of articles. Wikipedia does cover the fringe Obama theories in depth in its own article. But space is limited here in the main article about Obama, and we do not have room for every conspiracy theory people care to believe on the subject. Wikidemon (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct. It is on Wikipedia; we do not censor. However, a Presidential article is long and we can't have everything in it. Since the Kenya thing has little to no factual basis, we place it in its own article.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute?

The page is tagged, but I can't find any active discussion here. Am I missing something? Guettarda (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

See the above discussion. SMP0328. (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The tag is totally frivolous, and every question the original tagger raises is answered elsewhere. I have posted a complaint about that conservapedia/conspiracist drive-by at WP:ANI. This article is under probation for a good reason. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe the citizenship issue belongs in the main article. The conspirary theories page is appropriate for that. However, references to the Ayers & Wright controversies absolutely belong in there. These were major issues during his campaign and eventually became some of the most prominent arguments against electing him. If that is constantly edited out this article will continue to be in violation of Wikipedia NPOV guidelines KK5000 8 March 2009, 19:58 (EDT)

So why isn't any negative or critical information allowed on the Obama page? As the previous poster stated, Ayers and Wright were legitimate election controversies. If Wikipedia censors only from the left, it is useless as a source.

Those aren't bad points, but they're wrong from a Wikipedia point of view. We have stuff -- lots of stuff, on for example Wright: See here. The point being, yes, there are all sort of wonderful negative things one could cram into this article (and also any other majot politican's article) but there simply isn't room, and it isn't nearly relevant enough to make the cut for the main article. I mean... Ayers? Seriously? That's a footnote in the campaign article, let along the main BHO article. IronDuke 02:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where Ayers was a "footnote" in the campaign. Maybe on MSNBC. Ayers & especially Wright were covered extensively by the mainstream media. I am not saying an entire section needs to be dedicated to them, but getting a ban for merely adding them to the article when they should clearly be mentioned suggests zealotry on part of the admin. KK5000 9 March 2009, 02:48 (EDT)

Comments that Wikipedia is a whitewash

This page if for good faith, civil questions and comments aimed at improving the article. Gripes about Wikipedia's supposed political bias, article whitewashing, censorship, etc., are unhelpful. However, rather than adding fuel to the fire by deleting them or closing discussions at this point, I suggest we just move them all to this section and let people discuss it here. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

And yet as long as you separate ALL criticism from Obama's page, you are CENSORING his main page. Compromise: Why not have an entry entitled Criticisms and list all of that there? It appears that wikipedia is carrying obamas water. Pleanty of the "critics" claims about bush are STILL on his wikipedia page yet if you dare bring these you on obamas page you are banned? Shamefull. In fact why not just redirect the entire page to the whitehouse main page? Exactly. Why not remove anything critical of Bush while you're at it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlwitness (talk • contribs)

Then why not give it a subset in the outline entitled Criticism or whatever you wish? You seem to have plenty of room for negative information concerning President Bush on his main page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlwitness (talk • contribs)

This article is clearly a whitewash. I am not some partisan hack with a dog in this hunt either. I am an expat political atheist who can read. All of the censors should be ashamed of themselves. The Wright issue was one of the most discussed issues of the campaign. It's not even mentioned here. In fact there's not a single non-positive element mentioned in this entire article unless you count the mention of his smoking and that's not necessarily negative. It's as though the Obama campaign wrote it. Shame. Ikilled007 (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your first contribution in three months. The article is factual, not positive or negative. Had Obama done something negative of note, let's say being arrested for drunk driving or the like, to be sure it would be in the article. As he has not, we just stick to the facts.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. You are censoring it. And the internet has found out. NewsBusters and Wnd.com are running articles about the removal of the ties to Wright and Ayers. I'm really getting sick of the constant Liberal bias on everything I have to look at on a day-to-day basis. This is a blatant violation of the rules and banning users for 3 days after attempting to add referenced material on the Ayers and Wright connections is too. Enough is enough. --Justin Herbert (talk) 03:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Squawk! Another WND mindless-parrot heard from. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Your selective editing has extended ad infinitum into cyperspace, your credibility for all to seriously consider has now reached critical mass. read it here: http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114

Furtive admirer (talk) 03:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If you actually believe what you read in that rag, you should go back to your college and demand a refund for having produced an ignoranimous. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This is fun. I'm really hoping Rush picks up the story; these drones are so mindless and so pathetic. The marching morons.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned from an article linked from the DrudgeReport, Wikipedia is accused of censorship. When I look at the two pages (Presidents Bush and Obama), that accusation seems accurate. There is a statement on Pres. Bush's page that states "Many accusations have been made against the administration[120] for allegedly misinforming the public and not having done enough to reduce carbon emissions and deter global warming.[121]" If this is OK, then why can't Pres Obama have a sentence "Many accusations have been made against President Obama that [insert accusation here, see rest of Talk for examples]." There are accusations. Fact. Those accusations have been reported by reputable sources. Fact. Is it a fact that Wikipedia staff are bias? LinuxSneaker (talk) 03:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no doubt. But as the staff are administrative only, and volunteers all over the world edit the encyclopedia, it doesn't really matter. Oh, I forgot to mention their "bias". They are all very big Yankee fans. Have a nice day!--Wehwalt (talk) 03:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Great reply. As an attorney, you deflect the conversation without answering the question. You've done way more editing then I - do you recommend (as a volenteer, not as a lawyer) that Pres Bush's or Pres. Obama's page get fixed? LinuxSneaker (talk) 03:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

We recommend that you go back to your fellow parrots at WND, and tell them we're tracking all of you down, which is why the page remains unprotected at this point - so you will all expose yourselves. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Clearly you two are unbiased! Everyone who notes the whitewash must be a Limbaugh listener. What are you, the Obama SS? Your responses here are not helping with credibility. Ikilled007 (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• There is nothing factually incorrect with the story. It is a true representation of the events on this page. The fact remains is this: It takes 3 Admins, working in unison, to squelch any/all changes to any article on Wikipedia. You make up any excuse you want, then have your buddies swoop in to agree with you; claim a 'consensus", then ban, ban, ban. The word is out. We know you're liberally biased. We are not stupid.64.53.138.18 (talk) 04:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
• You people must be crazy, suggesting a criticism section for Barack Obama. Nobody is allowed to criticize him, how could you not know this? Bush's WP page is allowed to contain controversies and criticisms because he is a Republican, but how dare you suggest that reasonable criticisms be included. The Wright and Ayers controversies were a major part of the Presidential campaign but they may not be included because they may make Obama look bad. I thought everybody knew this. WP editors: YOU HAVE BEEN EXPOSED!. - http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114 24.187.128.136 (talk) 03:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

is that Barack Obama?

a) yes

B) NO

Case closed, you propagandizing shill.

76.243.106.37 (talk) 07:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia's alreadly low credibility is sinking like a torpedoed submarine. 76.243.106.37 (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

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

President Obama's Oratory Skills

Cultural and Political Image

I recommend an addition to the second paragraph of this section starting “Many have argued that Obama is and adept orator on par with other renowned speakers…” While this paragraph goes to great lengths to mention President Obama’s oratory skills, it does not address his use of Teleprompters. While it is expected that he would use it for state addresses, his constant use of them for small trivial appearances begins to question his oratory skills. There have been a few occasions were the Teleprompters had failed and the President was criticized for less than spectacular speeches. I would recommend adding the following after the first sentence of the second paragraph:

However, President Obama has also been recently criticized for the constant use of Teleprompters.

I would also recommend adding the following references:

Moesbob (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps add to the teleprompter article? This article is intended to set forth the facts concerning Obama, not criticisms, not supports. Just the facts, sir.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

How do the editors here respond to this? http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114

Hi, if you read this talk page, you will see several discussions that touch on it. There is also a discussion going on at WP:AN/I. Please feel free to join in, but if you do, please sign your posts. Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I would respond that it is biased, unreliably sourced, fringe nutjobbery that has no place in an legitimate encyclopedia such as this. Tarc (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What, the teleprompter question? Anyway, teleprompters can be fun. I recall when LBJ was droning on through one of his boring speeches when he suddenly started to repeat himself - something had gone wrong on the teleprompter, and he had to improvise. One of the funnier moments in a Presidency that pretty much lacked in humor. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

I think we should add some sort of special talk header at the top of the page informing WND propagandists that their website cannot and will not be used as a reliable source for whatever claims they want to add to the article. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 03:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Is WorldNetDaily ever considered a reliable source? If not, then I don't see what good adding such a header only to this article would do. SMP0328. (talk) 03:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, for WP:SELFPUB, in their own article, they can be. Not for anything else. I don't think a header will work. These people are intent on enlightening us as to their views.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggest IAR and semi protection of talk page

I'm aware of the policy that both an article and a talk page should be protected simultaneously. Due to the heavy vandalism of this talk page, suggest we IAR and semi protect this talk page anyway for a limited period, say 72 hours.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a strategy in play, referenced on WP:ANI, to let as many of these lunatics as possible expose themselves here, so that the checkuser case can cast as broad a net as possible. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Are Wikipedia Admins like Bugs allowed to resort to name calling? 64.53.138.18 (talk) 05:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If I am an admin, then I am allowed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The talk page is the place for IPs and new users to point out errors on a semiprotected article. Sometimes they make good points, albeit not so much today. But I'm not in favor of disabling that feature. Now, if we could sell tickets to the talk page while the WND zoo is around... PhGustaf (talk) 04:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think what Bugsy meant was Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barrack Obama. I'm all for cracking down on sockpuppetry, but the downside of leaving the page unprotected for that purpose is having to revert anti-Obama/Liberal/Wikipedia rants and other types of vandalism almost literally every five seconds, which is a real pain in the ass to do. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 04:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Maybe the user who requested leaving the shields down (was it Wikidemo?) should be consulted to see if he's got enough fish now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, who died and appointed me Wiki-dictator? It was just a suggestion. There are people around here who know a lot more than I do about CU and how to manage article melt-downs. But yes, I think we've had enough fun watching this. If there's sockpuppetry I'll bet we will find it at this point. If not, I think playing whack-a-mole with a swarm of dittoheads is not going to help the encyclopedia, and it will only give the dittoheads more to complain about. Wikidemon (talk) 05:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have posted it on the request for protection page. I asked for semi-protection. That should put the breaks on the IP's and the redlinks, anyway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection is warranted in this extreme case. No comment on the content of t6e article other than that it isn't as balanced as it could be. Enigma^msg 05:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think protecting might just give them something else to shout about - they do love a potential conspiracy. Better to just quietly revert and not create another cause. Mfield (talk) 06:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it may be moving beyond the scope of checkuser at this point. As the Good Word trickles down from the WND/Drudge queen bees down on to the unwashed masses, it is likely going to be different people with the same agenda. There's already a topic over at the FreeRepublic ("Wikipedia Scrubs Ayers and Wright From Obama Biography", can't link directly) about this and how to hit protected pages. Tarc (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

De-collapsed FAQ; collapsed internal questions to make more adhd friendly

Since it's pretty clear that a lot of people are seemingly unable or unwilling to read the FAQ when it's collapsed, I've gone ahead and de-collapsed it, but made it quite a bit less space-consuming by collapsing the answers, leaving only the questions as headers to collapsible sections. Hopefully this will help a bit more. --slakr^\ talk / 05:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

That's much better. It does take up a lot more vertical space, but that horse is out of the barn already, and people are more likely to read it if they can see which questions are addressed there. — Gavia immer (talk) 06:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Skydiver99

sectioned off from the preceding section for readability --slakr^\ talk / 06:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There isn't one mention of Ayers or Wright on this page, which is patently absurd. There are people more capable of fixing this than me, so anyone with the stones feel free to give it a whirl. Skydiver99 (talk)

Frankly, this whole page reads like a member of Obama's staff wrote it. There is absolutely NOTHING whatsoever regarding criticism or negative campaign coverage, and it is capped with a section extolling his virtues as a public speaker. Seriously? This is bad even by biased standards. Skydiver99 (talk)

Then grow some "stones" and fix it yourself. Don't just drive-by and complain, that doesn't help anyone. Dayewalker (talk) 06:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

And please make sure you have read the right articles including Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign,_2008 and Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008 as that is where information on the campaign that you can't find is located. Mfield (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of what happens to users who dare to modify Obama's page in any way that isn't visibly positive to him: they get banned. Honestly, does dishonesty on a forum such as Wikipedia ultimately serve the pro-Obama cause? All that does is establish certain supporters of his as unscrupulous. One way or another, dishonesty ultimately sabotages all that employ it, because the truth gets out.

Now, am I saying that it is an objective fact that Obama is bad? No. I'm saying that this entry is squeaky clean and actually reads like an ADVERTISEMENT for him. His press people couldn't improve on it as it. That's just wrong and violates the spirit of Wikipedia. Skydiver99 (talk)

You do realise that there's an entire article on the Wright controversy, and another article on the Ayers controversy, and another on the citizenship issue? That there are well over 200 articles in and its subcategories? Wikipedia articles are relatively short. Obviously we can't get every detail of every bit of trivia into the main article. You realise that, right? Surely you aren't just spouting off without looking at the facts? Guettarda (talk) 06:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

And BTW, there are ZERO mentions of Wright and Ayers on his presidential campaign pages, even though both received serious media attention. Skydiver99 (talk)

You mean apart from Barack_Obama_presidential_primary_campaign,_2008#Impact_of_Rev._Jeremiah_Wright and this whole article Jeremiah_Wright_controversy? Mfield (talk) 06:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(strange comment moved - Wikidemon (talk) 08:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC))

? Not sure what you mean but this is a biographical article about the man himself. Thing is we have other articles too, lots of them, on all sorts of topics, all edited by lots of people from diverse backgrounds. We are like a big book with lots and lots of pages. And we have links you can click on to get to other topics. It's amazing really. Mfield (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The Ayers issue was a tiny blip, at the very end of the campaign. It had no impact of the opinion polls, and barely existed outside of Sarah Palin's speeches. The Wright issue was relatively big for a short space of time, and it's covered. Guettarda (talk) 06:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion that fringe controversies be treated uniformly

First of all I want to say that I don't think there's any question of President Obama's American citizenship. Also, in light of a recent and unfortunately controversial return to the discussion tonight, that my suggestion not be grouped with other since-archived proposals on the basis of redundancy. I am suggesting that either a brief mention or section be included on Barack Obama's main entry, or similar references be removed from articles that serve as paralleling examples. It was suggested elsewhere that the conspiracies compare to long-since refuted fringe theories regarding such things as the JFK assassination and the September 11 attacks and that their validity would share a similar fate. Yet, both conspiracies are documented -- albeit briefly -- on the main Wikipedia entries of these subjects. The September 11 attacks article has a small section referencing the theories. The John F. Kennedy assassination has a section referencing conspiracy theories. Even John F. Kennedy's main article mentions conspiracy theories in brief. These are much more publicized 'fringe theories' that have also been scrutinized to a much greater extent than this controversy, but which are given their place amongst the modern historical compilation on Wikipedia. In those terms, the question of Obama's citizenship is relevant enough to merit a mention on his main page, if only to redirect, as the other examples do, a reader to a more critical discussion -- and most likely refutation. To treat this case differently is indeed hypocritical, and only supports the claim that it's an example of politically biased censorship. That is what I have an issue with, because I would rather Wikipedia not fall under such negative perceptions. These are our Wikipedia Commons, and our knowledge-base, and while they should be dedicated first and foremost to the truth, an omission of historical elucidations serves only to deprive it. --Dan Lowe 06:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm reluctant at all to respond to a discussion that begins with a claim of hypocrisy, bias, and censorship. Each article stands on its own, so I'm not going into those other articles in any depth. Occasionally, conspiracy theories are relevant and important enough to the subject of an article to deserve a brief mention. Usually not. There are many of them in the case of Obama - he is a Muslim, he is gay, he is a fraud, he didn't really graduate from Harvard or serve on the law review, he is really a citizen of X (name four or five countries). The established editors who have worked on this page have made the same decision as nearly every unbiased respectable source that attempts to summarize Obama's life and career, namely that various fringe conspiracy theories do not add sufficiently to a telling of Obama's life story to be worth a mention in an article of this length. These decisions were not made lightly or in secret - the entire history of the process is transparent and available in the talk and article page archives. Over the course of many months dozens of editors evaluated, debated, and reviewed thousands of mainstream sources. The truth is that these sources do not give much weight to the theories. You can find spotty coverage here or there, but nothing on the order of the other key points we hit in the article. Giving undue weight to minor fringe matters would degrade the quality of the encyclopedia, as would succumbing to the ridiculous accusations of opportunistic partisans off wiki. They have been throwing mud at each other for a living. Now they see Wikipedia as a useful target. We hold the line on our standards here. We cover them all, just not on the main page where any mention would be out of all proportion. Wikidemon (talk) 08:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Editors and administrators are suppressing dissent.....this is a very troubling trend

I don't think all the name-calling is helpful here. We really should be rising above all that.

Having said that, I compared the articles on the previous 4 presidents with this one and any objective observer can readily see that Obama is being treated differently. Unlike those other presidential articles, there is practically no discussion of any of the controversial issues surrounding Obama here. (Don't believe me? See the articles on Clinton and GHW Bush to compare/contrast.) Certainly these controversial topics warrant their own articles, but complete censorship of any mention of these controversies or link to the ancillary articles in the main article damages Wiki's reputation, making this article look like a fluff piece and leaving the controlling administrators wide open to NPOV charges. One of the underlying principles of Wikipedia is that we should be writing these articles from the standpoint of consensus, and clearly consensus is lacking in the way this article has been handled.

I find it troubling when I see negative references to Wikipedia's credibility making their way into the media. It is important that we maintain NPOV in Wikipedia. But no matter my (or your) personal opinion of Obama, the most important point of these discussions is not the content of the article, rather it is the way that differing opinions are being handled by certain factions in the Wiki community. I find it VERY disturbing that questions about the conduct of certain administrators and editors and their NPOV or possible lack thereof are being swept under the rug without a meaningful discussion. The (quickly) deleted comments by a previous poster were unnecessarily inflammatory, but I must agree that certain editors involved with this article seem far too willing to use the "memory hole". Discussion?: yes! Consensus?: yes! NPOV?: yes! Blatant censorship?: I know what my answer is; what is yours?

(Now we get to wait and see how long this discussion topic lasts before it, too, is deleted!) NDM (talk) 08:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have modified the heading here. If you want your contribution to stand you should honor the letter and spirit of article probation and WP:TALK generally, which is to use this page for suggesting improvements in the article. Crying censorship is not a suggestion for improving the article. If any editor's behavior troubles you there are appropriate forums for that but not here. With that out of the way the article is just fine. It is a reasonable, balanced treatment of the significant matters relevant to Obama's life and career. Of course it can be improved. Any article can be improved. But we'll have a hard time maintaining any reasonable discussion until all the ruckus dies down. Obama has not been President for very long, and there are (despite what partisans would wish to say off Wikipedia) simply no scandals or controversies of a magnitude comparable to those involving Bush, and particularly Clinton. Nobody is sweeping anything under the rug here. These pages are all in the open, and these matters have been discussed to the tune of hundreds of pages, each hundreds of thousands of bytes long. Wikidemon (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon: you have completely missed the point of my posting. Please reread it. I am not talking about "Criticism of Obama", as you have taken the liberty to label my posting. As the heading at the top of the discussion page states clearly: "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." I am also not talking about any individual editor's bias or behavior. I am talking about a longstanding institutional bias within Wikipedia which is rearing its very ugly head here in this article, that of a perceived "progressive" bias among the administrators by many of the editors.

Your "modification" of my heading of this section seems to go a bit beyond the pale, especially when you state that "crying censorship" is not appropriate here. It appears that you have just done some censoring yourself. I have undone your revision of the heading, since it does not directly relate to the content of my posting. I would ask that you not modify it again, but instead limit your comments to the substantive issues that I raise vis a vis the conduct of certain factions within the Wiki community.

The fact that "these matters have been discussed to the tune of hundreds of pages, each hundreds of thousands of bytes long" clearly indicates that the Wikipedia community does not enjoy consensus about how the administrators have been handling this issue, determinations of "consensus" by the administrative fiat notwithstanding. It seems clear that Wikipedia administrators can expect to continue to hear the protests from many of the editors as long as these heavy-handed tactics continue, and as long as they continue to label the bona fide dissent that continues to rage in regards to this article as "consensus". NDM (talk) 10:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Comparison to standard/policy of George W. Bush Article

The article on George W. Bush seems to mention, albeit briefly, at least one controversy that arose only in the context of Bush's campaign for the presidency:

"Critics allege that Bush was favorably treated due to his father's political standing, citing his selection as a pilot and his irregular attendance."

It doesn't seem consistent to insist that all negative/controversial items that arose during Obama's campaign can ONLY be mentioned in articles about his campaign. Am I mistaken? Lawyer2b (talk) 09:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no such insistence, and that is not the outcome. However, if something was mostly or entirely a campaign issue that did not significantly affect the person, his career, or even the campaign, it is hard to argue that it is important enough to include in the summary biographical article. On first hearing, Bush's military career seems to fit that but this is the Obama article, not the Bush article. If you want to improve that article I suggest you go there directly and address it as a matter of article quality, not a measure-for-measure attempt to make each politician's article equally positive or negative.Wikidemon (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. In Employment Law, the term "disparate impact" has been used to describe policies implemented by employers which, while facially (consciously) do not purport to discriminate, nevertheless end up with "disparate impacts" on various groups. Even if Wikipedia does not CONSCIOUSLY practice a liberal bias, in my experience there is a strong argument to be made that "policy" and attitudes such as those being exhibited here result in a "disparate impact" on non-liberal points of views. Lawyer2b (talk) 10:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory article

Folks might want to have a look at the recent edit history of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. I don't know if I'll be reverted again, but I have to go, and besides I'm at my third revert, although I think it's pretty clear that this stuff meets WP:FRINGE and that the overall consensus here is that it is, indeed, a fringe approach. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No Mention of Wright

While the policy in A5 (not mentioning "fairly minor issues [that had] no significant legal or mainstream political impact) would seem to keep any mention of Obama's citizenship controversy out of his article, I don't think the same can be said for his association with Reverend Wright and the church where he preached. Those had both significant and mainstream impact. Does someone disagree? Lawyer2b (talk) 09:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It's probably worth somewhere between two words and a sentence, as a matter of proportionality. It currently has a sentence, but in a footnote. If moved back into the main section it should be posed in a way that focuses on the relationship to Obama, and his decision to leave the church in light of the controversy, as opposed to focusing on Wright himself or the relatively modest campaign issue. However, it may be difficult to achieve any kind of consensus for a little while here given the editing issues.Wikidemon (talk) 10:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggest waiting a couple days for the wnd and drudge trolling to die down and then posting a proposed edit here for consensus discussion. cheers, --guyzero | talk 10:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

No NPOV tag?

How can anyone assert with a straight face that "Editors are NOT currently in dispute concerning points of view expressed in this article"? As long as these "discussions" rage here on the talk page -- specifically concerning the balance/neutrality of the article -- how can the NPOV tag be inappropriate? Opelio (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. Lawyer2b (talk) 09:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Given the recent disruption, and concern over the legitimacy and intent of a number of the edits, this is not a good time to be considering this. Let the dust settle, see who is truly interested in improving the article, and we can consider it then. However, I do not see that a viable argument has been raised that the article has bias problems or that editors who have participated to any significant degree in the article believe there is such an urgent problem.Wikidemon (talk) 09:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please remove this tag?[4] And please don't re-add it. There is little constructive discussion at the moment, and what is here is a mess. If we get past the sudden influx of suspicious editors, and external assaults on Wikipedia, and can't resolve this after going through the appropriate discussion and dispute resolution channels, then at least you have an argument for it.Wikidemon (talk) 10:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)