Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:37, 18 April 2014

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on November 4, 2013.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84

Special discussion pages: Article probation, Incidents Historical diffs, Weight, Race

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Template:Community article probation

faq page Frequently asked questions To view the response to a question, click the link to the right of the question. Family and religious background Q1: Why isn't Barack Obama's Muslim heritage or education included in this article? A1: Barack Obama was never a practitioner of Islam. His biological father having been "raised as a Muslim" but being a "confirmed atheist" by the time Obama was born is mentioned in the article. Please see this article on Snopes.com for a fairly in-depth debunking of the myth that Obama is Muslim. Barack Obama did not attend an Islamic or Muslim school while living in Indonesia age 6–10, but Roman Catholic and secular public schools. See , , The sub-articles Public image of Barack Obama and Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories address this issue. Q2: The article refers to him as African American, but his mother is white and his black father was not an American. Should he be called African American, or something else ("biracial", "mixed", "Kenyan-American", "mulatto", "quadroon", etc.)? A2: Obama himself and the media identify him, the vast majority of the time, as African American or black. African American is primarily defined as "citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa", a statement that accurately describes Obama and does not preclude or negate origins in the white populations of America as well. Thus we use the term African American in the introduction, and address the specifics of his parentage in the first headed section of the article. Many individuals who identify as black have varieties of ancestors from many countries who may identify with other racial or ethnic groups. See our article on race for more information on this concept. We could call him the first "biracial" candidate or the first "half black half white" candidate or the first candidate with a parent born in Africa, but Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source which reports what other reliable sources say, and most of those other sources say "first African American". Readers will learn more detail about his ethnic background in the article body. Q3: Why can't we use his full name outside of the lead? It's his name, isn't it? A3: The relevant part of the Manual of Style says that outside the lead of an article on a person, that person's conventional name is the only one that's appropriate. (Thus one use of "Richard Milhous Nixon" in the lead of Richard Nixon, "Richard Nixon" thereafter.) Talk page consensus has also established this. Q4: Why is Obama referred to as "Barack Hussein Obama II" in the lead sentence rather than "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr."? Isn't "Jr." more common? A4: Although "Jr." is typically used when a child shares the name of his or her parent, "II" is considered acceptable, as well. And in Obama's case, the usage on his birth certificate is indeed "II", and is thus the form used at the beginning of this article, per manual of style guidelines on names. Q5: Why don't we cover the claims that Obama is not a United States citizen, his birth certificate was forged, he was not born in Hawaii, he is ineligible to be President, etc? A5: The Barack Obama article consists of an overview of major issues in the life and times of the subject. The controversy over his eligibility, citizenship, birth certificate etc is currently a fairly minor issue in overall terms, and has had no significant legal or mainstream political impact. It is therefore not currently appropriate for inclusion in an overview article. These claims are covered separately in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Controversies, praise, and criticism Q6: Why isn't there a criticisms/controversies section? A6: Because a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praise and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article, per the Criticism essay. Q7: Why isn't a certain controversy/criticism/praise included in this article? A7: Misplaced Pages's Biography of living persons policy says that "riticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." Criticism or praise that cannot be reliably sourced cannot be placed in a biography. Also, including everything about Obama in a single article would exceed Misplaced Pages's article size restrictions. A number of sub-articles have been created and some controversies/criticisms/praises have been summarized here or been left out of this article altogether, but are covered in some detail in the sub-articles. Q8: But this controversy/criticism/praise is all over the news right now! It should be covered in detail in the main article, not buried in a sub-article! A8: Misplaced Pages articles should avoid giving undue weight to something just because it is in the news right now. If you feel that the criticism/controversy/praise is not being given enough weight in this article, you can try to start a discussion on the talk page about giving it more. See WP:BRD. Q9: This article needs much more (or much less) criticism/controversy. A9: Please try to assume good faith. Like all articles on Misplaced Pages, this article is a work in progress so it is possible for biases to exist at any point in time. If you see a bias that you wish to address, you are more than welcome to start a new discussion, or join in an existing discussion, but please be ready to provide sources to support your viewpoint and try to keep your comments civil. Starting off your discussion by accusing the editors of this article of having a bias is the quickest way to get your comment ignored. Talk and article mechanics Q10: This article is over 275kb long, and the article size guideline says that it should be broken up into sub-articles. Why hasn't this happened? A10: The restriction mentioned in WP:SIZE is 60kB of readable prose, not the byte count you see when you open the page for editing. As of May 11, 2016, this article had about 10,570 words of readable prose (65 kB according to prosesize tool), only slightly above the guideline. The rest is mainly citations and invisible comments, which do not count towards the limit. Q11: I notice this FAQ mentions starting discussions or joining in on existing discussions a lot. If Misplaced Pages is supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, shouldn't I just be bold and fix any biases that I see in the article? A11: It is true that Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and no one needs the permission of other editors of this article to make changes to it. But Misplaced Pages policy is that, "While the consensus process does not require posting to the discussion page, it can be useful and is encouraged." This article attracts editors that have very strong opinions about Obama (positive and negative) and these editors have different opinions about what should and should not be in the article, including differences as to appropriate level of detail. As a result of this it may be helpful, as a way to avoid content disputes, to seek consensus before adding contentious material to or removing it from the article. Q12: The article/talk page has been vandalized! Why hasn't anyone fixed this? A12: Many editors watch this article, and it is unlikely that vandalism would remain unnoticed for long. It is possible that you are viewing a cached result of the article; If so, try bypassing your cache. Disruption Q13: Why are so many discussions closed so quickly? A13: Swift closure is common for topics that have already been discussed repeatedly, topics pushing fringe theories, and topics that would lead to violations of Misplaced Pages's policy concerning biographies of living persons, because of their disruptive nature and the unlikelihood that consensus to include the material will arise from the new discussion. In those cases, editors are encouraged to read this FAQ for examples of such common topics. Q14: I added new content to the article, but it was removed! A14: Double-check that your content addition is not sourced to an opinion blog, editorial, or non-mainstream news source. Misplaced Pages's policy on biographies of living persons states, in part, "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims." Sources of information must be of a very high quality for biographies. While this does not result in an outright ban of all blogs and opinion pieces, most of them are regarded as questionable. Inflammatory or potentially libelous content cited to a questionable source will be removed immediately without discussion. Q15: I disagree with the policies and content guidelines that prevent my proposed content from being added to the article. A15: That's understandable. Misplaced Pages is a work in progress. If you do not approve of a policy cited in the removal of content, it's possible to change it. Making cogent, logical arguments on the policy's talk page is likely to result in a positive alteration. This is highly encouraged. However, this talk page is not the appropriate place to dispute the wording used in policies and guidelines. If you disagree with the interpretation of a policy or guideline, there is also recourse: Dispute resolution. Using the dispute resolution process prevents edit wars, and is encouraged. Q16: I saw someone start a discussion on a topic raised by a blog/opinion piece, and it was reverted! A16: Unfortunately, due to its high profile, this talk page sees a lot of attempts to argue for policy- and guideline-violating content – sometimes the same violations many times a day. These are regarded as disruptive, as outlined above. Consensus can change; material previously determined to be unacceptable may become acceptable. But it becomes disruptive and exhausting when single-purpose accounts raise the same subject(s) repeatedly in the apparent hopes of overcoming significant objections by other editors. Editors have reached a consensus for dealing with this behavior: Efforts by established single-purpose accounts to introduce such poorly-sourced content will be summarily deleted. On the second such attempt, the source in question will be immediately reported to the reliable sources noticeboard for administrative assistance. New editors who wish to engage in discussions on previously rejected content are encouraged to ensure that their sources do not violate any of Misplaced Pages's policies and sourcing guidelines. Other Q17: Why aren't the 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns covered in more detail? A17: They are, in sub-articles called Barack Obama 2008 presidential campaign and Barack Obama 2012 presidential campaign. Things that are notable in the context of the presidential campaigns, but are of minimal notability to Barack Obama's overall biography, belong in the sub-articles. Campaign stops, the presidential debates, and the back-and-forth accusations and claims of the campaigns can all be found there.

	Barack Obama is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
[REDACTED]	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 4, 2008.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 12, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted August 18, 2004 Today's featured article Main Page January 23, 2007 Featured article review Kept July 26, 2007 Featured article review Kept April 15, 2008 Featured article review Kept September 16, 2008 Featured article review Kept November 4, 2008 Today's featured article Main Page December 2, 2008 Featured article review Kept March 10, 2009 Featured article review Kept March 16, 2010 Featured article review Kept June 17, 2012 Featured article review Kept October 22, 2012 Featured article review Kept A news item involving this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on November 5, 2008. Current status: Featured article

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance). Barack Obama (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Barack ObamaWikipedia:WikiProject Barack ObamaTemplate:WikiProject Barack ObamaBarack Obama Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. U.S. Congress High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) person(s). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Illinois High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Hawaii Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaii, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hawaii on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HawaiiWikipedia:WikiProject HawaiiTemplate:WikiProject HawaiiHawaii Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Kansas Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Kansas on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KansasWikipedia:WikiProject KansasTemplate:WikiProject KansasKansas Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Chicago Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. [REDACTED] African diaspora Mid‑importance [REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Africa: Kenya Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Kenya (assessed as Low-importance). Spoken Misplaced Pages This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: District of Columbia / Presidential elections / Presidents / State Legislatures / Government Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. State Legislatures (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance). More information: /  This article has been selected for use on the United States portal. This article has been selected for use on the Illinois portal. This article has been selected for use on the Chicago portal. This article has been selected for use on the Hawaii portal. Template:WikiProject CD-People Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York (state): Columbia University Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Columbia University (assessed as High-importance).

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Jose Antonio Vargas (September 17, 2007). "On Misplaced Pages, Debating 2008 Hopefuls' Every Facet". The Washington Post. Alison Stewart, Rachel Martin (April 3,2008). "'Round the Clock: Obama, Clinton Wiki-Warfare". The Bryant Park Project, NPR. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Brooke Gladstone, Bob Garfield (April 4, 2008). "Editors in Chief". On The Media, NPR. Eve Fairbanks (April 9, 2008). "Wiki Woman". The New Republic. Jesse Brown (April 10, 2008). "Hillary's Wiki Defender". Search Engine, CBC Radio One. Tom Foreman (April 11, 2008). "Misplaced Pages Wars". This Week..., CNN. John J. Miller (April 21, 2008). "Liberal Web". National Review. Kelly Heyboer (May 28, 2008). "Clinton's entry in Misplaced Pages has a watchdog". The Star-Ledger. Paul Murnane (May 28, 2008). "NJ Man Appoints Himself Misplaced Pages Watchdog". WCBS Newsradio 880. Noam Cohen (November 9, 2008). "Updating a Reference Site on the Fly". The New York Times. Adrian Bridgwater (January 22, 2009). "Obama Misplaced Pages page under possible security attack". ZDNet. Aaron Klein (March 8, 2009). "Misplaced Pages scrubs Obama eligibility". WorldNetDaily. Joshua Rhett Miller (March 9, 2009). "Obama's Misplaced Pages Page Distances President from Wright and Ayers". Fox News Channel. Mark Coleman (March 10, 2009). "Barack Obama 'receives preferential treatment on Misplaced Pages', report claims". The Daily Telegraph. Noam Cohen (July 19, 2009). "Misplaced Pages May Be a Font of Facts, but It's a Desert for Photos". The New York Times. Staff (August 17, 2009). "The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph.

Template:Stable version

Cultural and political image

Regarding the sentence that says: "According to November 2013 polls, Obama's average approval rating fell to 41%, thus setting a new low for the president." This seems a bit out of place the way it is in this section. Wouldn't it make more sense to put this right after the sentence talking about his poll numbers after his second inauguration? The rest of the section details his image in foreign countries, so the sentence seems kind of wonky the way it is now. Twyfan714 (talk) 03:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting Facts

Barack Obama was born the year of the first freedom ride and was two years old when Martin Luther King gave his I have a dream speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.165.48.129 (talk) 09:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

So was my mother as they are the same age >3 months apart. Doubt my mother or Obama will remember MLK's speech from that time. Somchai Sun (talk) 10:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, even if he was old enough to remember the speech it would not be very relevant for an article about Obama as a person.--70.49.72.34 (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

No Critical Views Allowed

I just spent an hour skimming the Wiki articles of each president the US has had. These articles typically refer to actions, responses, and policies of the president, along with a description of how these events were received by the public, and how the president's popularity was affected. Notably, the article on Barack Obama is missing any information about the critical response many of his actions have received. This article reads like a campaign website, listing all of his "achievements" along with far too many legislative details, with little information about the history of how these things happened, or what resulted from them.

Of note, the section on the 2010 midterms is a single sentence, and omits any mention of WHY Obama was so unpopular in 2010, and about how his 2010 legislative policies were received. The section on the 2012 elections omits any mention of HOW he won the election, or what sort of campaign message he was leveling against his opponent. The section on "health care reform" mentions far too many legislative details (that could easily be gleaned by reading the page on PPACA), while omitting any mention of what sort of criticisms were leveled against the policy, how it has affected Obama's popularity, or how the implementation of the new health care system was handled.

Furthermore, there is no mention of the IRS targeting scandal, the Benghazi scandal, the many court cases against Obama's executive overreach, the fact that Obama was held in contempt by a federal court, the fact that Obama created the largest and most intrusive domestic surveillance operation in human history, his racially-motivated comments and policies, or the fact that he has been so widely and openly criticized as a totalitarian, a socialist, a fascist, and other labels for authoritarian philosophies. These types of facts are a major focus of the articles for previous presidents, and were certainly a dominant component of the page on George W. Bush during his presidency.

The level of president-saluting sterilization in this article is positively Orwellian. TBSchemer (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

As an example of this Orwellian cleansing, I included a series of polls showing that Obama is "the most divisive and polarizing president in history" in the first-term legacy section, and the change was rapidly reverted by Tarc. This leaves the section as a paragraph of praise from academics, with little general-public polling data. The reversion can be viewed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Barack_Obama&diff=603081323&oldid=603080058 TBSchemer (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Far too much of your own politics is on display in those posts for your comments to be considered in any way as objective and constructive suggestions for improving the article. HiLo48 (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh I've tried to point out the many flaws in this article over the years and to no avail. I hope you have better luck than I did, or better than the countless accounts that have been blocked or banned over the years for pointing this out as well. JOJ 02:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

If someone came here with a clearly neutral point of view and made explicit, non-POV suggestions for improving the article, they might get somewhere. That is not the case with this thread. HiLo48 (talk) 02:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, your dislike of people's politics is not an argument. If you can't respond to his points you don't need to respond. —Designate (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

You have no idea what my political views are, and that's precisely how it should be. During the most recent presidential election campaign I was attacked by supports of both major candidates as being a supporter of the other side. I was proud of that. TBSchemer's political views are far too obvious. HiLo48 (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any reasonable objection to the inclusion of this poll or not? TBSchemer (talk) 02:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, this page is for discussing the article. He's discussing the article. You're discussing him. There's no policy that requires people to pretend not to have opinions and there never has been, so your complaints belong in another forum. —Designate (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I object to most opinion polling most of the time. People generally only want them added if they think they support their political position. The only way in which they could ever be included, IMHO, is when the precise question(s) that were asked are listed, and no editorial interpretation is made of the results. That's clearly not the case here. I suspect that the word "polarizing" was never part of the poll. As an example of misinterpretation, it could be argued that Republicans hated Obama because he was doing such a good job it made it harder for them to get rid of him. I actually don't know. Do you? So, if you must include polls.... Present the question(s). Present the results. And stop there. Better still, ignore mid-term polls. They prove nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

But if you object to most opinion polling, then doesn't that mean you also object to the polls of academics that already comprise the entire section we're discussing? Would you rather have that whole section removed? What about the need to describe the public response to the president's most influential policies, as is done in all the articles for every previous president? TBSchemer (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be happy to see most of that polling stuff gone. It looks like cherry-picking anyway. If you can find a very well run poll that truly describes the public (Which public?) response to the president's most influential policies (How will you decide which they are?), maybe we can discuss its inclusion, but only in the way I described above. Precise question(s) listed. No editorial interpretation. HiLo48 (talk) 03:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Give me a break. The edit was clearly a partisan WP:POV edit. Designate, you should take your own advice. We are not, with Misplaced Pages's voice, making the claims that TBSchemer wants in the article. Orwellian sterilization.....Come on now. Dave Dial (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

So you refuse to have any critical views included in the article on Barack Obama? You want the page to remain a discussion of how many accomplishments Obama has achieved, and how many people he has insured, and how good were the intentions of his bailout, and how many university professors he has impressed, with no mention of the results of his policies, the public response, his impact on partisan polarization, or any of his many scandals? The article, as it stands right now, is horribly WP:POV, representing the views of those who voted for the guy, while selectively omitting the facts understood by those who didn't. TBSchemer (talk) 04:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

So does anyone here have an interest in seeing this article become more of a historical account and less of a campaign page, or am I the only one? TBSchemer (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I reject your assertion that the article reads like a "campaign page". I think part of the problem here is that you seem to want to shoehorn ficticious, non-existent "scandals" and right-wing garbage into the article:

• The IRS "targeted" all political groups equally, as is part of their remit.
• Benghazi was a tragedy, not a scandal. Everything was done that could be done, and there was no coverup.
• "Executive overreach" is a right-wing canard. Obama has exercised his right to issue executive orders on far fewer occasions than recent presidents (including Bush).
• "The largest and most intrusive domestic surveillance operation in human history" was created by George W. Bush.
• What racially motivated comments/policies?
• He's been "openly criticized as a totalitarian, a socialist, a fascist, and other labels for authoritarian philosophies" only by low information voters (morons, basically) and right-wing ideologues. You can seemingly conflicting labels like "weak" and "dictatorial" to this ludicrous list of yours, if you wish.

All of these are simply nonsense, and including such limp-wristed garbage in this article would make Misplaced Pages into a laughing stock. There's already a wiki to satisfy your needs, and I respectfully suggest you take this stuff to there instead. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing fictitious about the events I'm describing. They were all widely reported in plenty of reliable sources.

• The IRS targeting scandal was factual enough to get its own Misplaced Pages article. If it's good enough for Misplaced Pages, it's good enough for Misplaced Pages. So why do you refuse to allow these crucial facts about Obama's presidency to be placed on Obama's Wiki page?
• The Obama administration "knowingly misled the country" about Benghazi, according to the reliable sources cited on the Benghazi scandal Wiki article. Why shouldn't such a significant event in his presidency be included on his page?
• Executive overreach, like taking us to war in Libya without Congressional approval, like changing by decree the legislatively-established dates of implementation for Obamacare, like the plethora of unconstitutional actions he has taken while in office. Why shouldn't such significant, abuses of power, recognized by the Supreme Court, be mentioned on this page?
• The Patriot Act did not apply to US citizens. Obama's version of the PRISM program spies on everyone. Even if you dispute this version of events, why shouldn't the fact that Obama has operated the largest domestic surveillance program in history be included on this page?
• Racially motivated comments, like those on Trayvon Martin, or his new race-based preferences program.
• Really? I think in light of all of the above, the fact that Obama has been widely, and quite accurately criticized as a totalitarian is quite relevant to his historical identity.

So why are you against including these facts in an article that's supposed to represent a neutral view of the history of Obama, and not just the cleansed version that his campaign staff want the world to see?

TBSchemer (talk) 03:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you know anybody who thinks Obama is OK? HiLo48 (talk) 03:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course. TBSchemer (talk) 05:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

@TBSchemer Let me address your comment point-by-point as before:

• The IRS "scandal" got a lot of coverage, so it warrants a Misplaced Pages article; however, it has absolutely nothing to do with Barack Obama or the office of the Presidency. The head of the IRS at the time of the "targeting" was a Bush appointee. And, in fact, the only group that failed to win tax exempt status as a result of the additional focus was a progressive group.
• There is no "Benghazi scandal" Misplaced Pages article. You have linked to what we call a "malicious redirect". There was no scandal, and no misleading of anyone. The so-called "reliable source" you quote was Stephen Hayes (Dick Cheney's biographer) writing in the neocon Weekly Standard, and so we can safely ignore his radical right-wing opinion piece for the trash journalism that it is.
• Again, your "abuses of power" claim is not backed up by any reliable sources, and the notion is generally considered to be ridiculous by any thinking person.
• You obviously have no understanding of what the Patriot Act is. And PRISM was launched by the NSA in 2007 under President Bush.
• Obama's comments about Trayvon Martin were not "racially motivated", as you persist on calling it. And calling the My Brother's Keeper Task Force a "race-based preferences program" smacks of racism to me. The White House is simply trying to address the problem of disadvantaged young black men getting into trouble. Other programs exist for other demographics, but you are strangely silent on those.
• Perhaps you should read Totalitarianism. You will see that is bears absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to Obama or his Presidency. That is just ridiculous right-wing bullshit from the conservative lunatic fringe.

Clearly you are only here to promote an agenda, which regular Wikipedian's frown on. This article does reflect a neutral point of view, and editors go to great lengths and considerable effort to make sure of that. Perhaps you don't actually understand the concept of neutrality. In what universe is blaming Obama for the activities of the independent IRS "neutral", for example? It isn't about finding the political center, or trying to balance out the good with the bad. It is about reflecting what is covered in a preponderance of reliable sources in appropriate weight. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• The IRS scandal happened in the Executive Branch controlled by Barack Obama, and was partially handled by Barack Obama, until he began stating that "there is no there there." Tell me, were the scandals in the administration of Warren G. Harding relevant to his presidency? If so, then why shouldn't the scandals in the Obama administration be relevant to Obama's presidency?
• There was indeed a Benghazi scandal. The wiki article I linked you to describes how Susan Rice ended up lying to the entire country about the Benghazi tragedy, turning it into a scandal. Are you in denial about these facts reported in reliable sources?
• Your No True Scotsman fallacy rings hollow here. The search I linked you to digs up unconstitutional actions by this administration reported by CNN, ABC, CBS, NPR, FOX, National Review, Washington Times, Huffington Post, The Guardian, Politico, Reason, Washington Post, and more. Yet, not a single one of these unconstitutional actions so much as gains a mention on this wiki article. Are you going to try to claim that all of these sources are unreliable? The complete absence of ANY of this information on the wiki page for Barack Obama is a complete WP:POV disaster. If you can't see that, then you do not seem interested in presenting a neutral view of history.
• I repeat myself: Even if you dispute this version of events, why shouldn't the fact that Obama has operated the largest domestic surveillance program in history be included on this page?
• You're saying it's racist to point out that a race-based program is racist? Are you insane? Are you being paid by OFA to spread their lies or something? I'm done responding to these demagogic personal attacks.

You very clearly have NO INTEREST in WP:NPOV, and only seek to maintain this article as a campaign site. Anyone who has followed this conversation can see that very clearly. Whether you're a paid campaign official, or are just a fanatical partisan, your opinion has been noted, and it will be ignored from here on out. Strikethrough: TBSchemer (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

TBSchemer (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

As a new[REDACTED] member and as someone who unfortunately read this chat, I can see very clearly that your ideology has compromised your ability to edit, TBSchemer. 1st Corinthians 11:9 (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

As a new[REDACTED] member, you can be forgiven for the error, but in the future, please discuss how to improve the article, rather than trying to ascertain the ideology and character of the editors. TBSchemer (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• ________

The POV problems with this article are serious and real. If any editors are interested in having a truly civil discussion about the POV problems with this article, please do so here, and refrain from personal attacks. WP:PERSONAL TBSchemer (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• To start with, shouldn't there be some mention here of the many actions by the Obama administration that have been ruled unconstitutional? Isn't it a POV issue to report only favorable court rulings, and none of the unfavorable ones?

Please discuss here. TBSchemer (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

No, cutting across all of the President's actions from the point of view of the frequency that courts find against them on constitutional grounds is a filter that is beyond the scope of this article. Setting aside the question of what it means, if true, there just doesn't seem to be anything at that level of meta analysis that stands out as particularly noteworthy. Court rulings that affect major Presidential policy initiatives, such as the one on Obamacare, probably do pass the threshold on an individual basis. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the fact that Obama continues to operate the largest domestic surveillance program in human history be mentioned on this page? Isn't it a POV issue to exclude this important, and well-established fact?

Please discuss here. TBSchemer (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Obama isn't operating it, it seems to be the province of the NSA and to some extent other agencies. Obama's involvement if any and his take on it may be relevant in the long run but it seems to early to tell - Wikidemon (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

"You very clearly have NO INTEREST in WP:NPOV, and only seek to maintain this article as a campaign site. Anyone who has followed this conversation can see that very clearly. Whether you're a paid campaign official, or are just a fanatical partisan, your opinion has been noted, and it will be ignored from here on out." - Actually, one could say this could also apply to you TBSchemer. Heck I'm neutral here and try not to have an opinion on Obama (Although the birth place/religious conspiracy theories are complete and utter garbage!) but it's basically a 1v1 argument of people with different views. You're never going to agree, so just stick to policy and procedure here. If you think there is a serious issue here, take it up on another board here or something where it can be looked at with greater scrutiny. --Somchai Sun (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The NSA is an executive branch agency controlled by Barack Obama, correct? TBSchemer (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The NSA operates under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense, and reports to the Director of National Intelligence (currently James Clapper). Obama's control over the NSA is no different from Obama's control over any other government agency. While the executive has some control over the department, oversight comes from Congress. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

After calling me racist, Scjessey, your input is not welcome. Strikethrough: TBSchemer (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there anyone else who objects to the fact that the NSA is an executive branch agency controlled by Barack Obama? TBSchemer (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do for the same reason as Scjessey. You are just wanting to push your pov agenda and are grasping at straws. Also remember we build a consensus and Scjessey is allowed to comment as much as he likes. Or will you listen to me when I would tell you, your input is not welcome here anymore? If the answers is no, then you know why it does not Jive. If the answer is yes, then consider yourself being told now. NathanWubs (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no interest in having this discussion with Scjessey, who demonstrated he is only interested in demagoguery when he accused me of racism (aren't such insinuations a direct violation of WP policy?). TBSchemer (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC) Strikethrough: TBSchemer (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The executive branch that Barack Obama was elected to control has everything to do with Barack Obama. The president controls the executive branch through executive orders and political appointments. If anything in the "Domestic Policy" section beyond his signatures is relevant to Barack Obama, the fact that he is running the largest domestic surveillance program in human history most certainly is. TBSchemer (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Just my two cents: If George W. Bush can have, "Some pundits labeled Bush 'the worst president ever'" in his article without there being much of a fuss, then Obama should at least have more info on criticism. Either that, or if people don't want to include criticism (which it seems like most people here are wanting) then that should be taken out of Bush's article. My point is that Misplaced Pages should not have a bias on either side, and we need a balancing of this kind of thing in order to ensure that. Having a political debate on this talk page doesn't solve anything. You may agree or disagree with the criticism leveled at Obama, but that's no reason to keep it out. The sentence could say, "Obama's critics assert...yada yada yada" to be clear that they are others' opinions. Again that's just my opinion. Oh and one more thing: please let's try and be civil to one another. Resorting to personal attacks does nothing but hurt people's feelings. Twyfan714 (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

This discussion topic is repeated periodically, and is referenced in the FAQs: it's not encyclopedic to add criticism just for the sake of adding criticism or trying to "balance" things. Balance is not the same as neutrality, in fact it's the opposite of neutrality because it's a deliberate attempt to inject more of one POV versus another. The very idea that a politician should be made to look no better or worse than a counterpart from a rival American party, is not aligned with the function of an encyclopedia. Might as well balance the pros and cons of Jesus and Buddha, or Mick Jagger and Paul McCartney. Having this discussion once a month is tolerable even if it never goes anywhere. People are sensitive because this discussion used to come up every several days, in a hostile way, often from fake accounts. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Yet, populating an article with praise, while omitting any facts that were highly criticized is not neutral at all. A neutral view would include the fact that Obama runs the largest domestic surveillance program in human history. A neutral view would include the fact that Obamacare tanked his approval ratings. A neutral view would include the fact that the original Obamacare website launch was plagued with technical problems that were not resolved until months later, necessitating a 4-month extension of the enrollment deadline. These are not matters of opinion- they are simple facts that are known by people of all political colors, even if some want to bury it under the rug. TBSchemer (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The Obamacare website having technical problems has nothing to do with Obama himself. So if you would want that included you should go to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act[REDACTED] page to do so. Or are you going to pull Obama his responsibility even further till the point that if you litter a candy wrapper on the street its Obama his fault? NathanWubs (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The executive branch that Barack Obama was elected to control has everything to do with Barack Obama. The president controls the executive branch through executive orders and political appointments. If anything in the "Health Care Reform" section beyond his signature is relevant to Barack Obama, the failure of the website most certainly is. TBSchemer (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

From your limited understanding of government, it would seem that you think President Obama is actually King Obama the First, with absolute power over everything. The reality, due to America's fucked up political system, is that President Obama only has limited powers when it comes to legislation. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I have already referenced executive orders and political appointments as the means by which the President controls the Executive Branch. Are you disputing that these mechanisms exist? If you are, then you should be more concerned with every article on a previous US president, as each one references actions by the executive branch as matters under the control of the president. TBSchemer (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

102 years ago, more than 1,500 people died when the RMS Titanic hit an iceberg and sank, and yet the liberal media have never held President Obama accountable for this failure of leadership! -- Scjessey (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Let me know when the RMS Titanic becomes an office of the current executive branch. Until then, this is nothing more than hyperbole. TBSchemer (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Legacy of first term / Evaluations of first term

In the previous thread, there was a proposal agreed upon by at least two people to remove this section entirely, on the grounds that it consists entirely of cherry-picked polls, and polls are difficult to represent fairly in a WP:NPOV way. Do we have consensus on this proposal? TBSchemer (talk) 04:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

No. HiLo48 (talk) 04:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Why not? I thought you were the one who initially argued that polls probably shouldn't be in the article? TBSchemer (talk) 05:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Why not? Because I'm sick of your shallow, POV ridden misrepresentation of sources, and now me. I said "I'd be happy to see most of that polling stuff gone." You now say that I've agreed with you to remove this section entirely. There is a significant difference. HiLo48 (talk) 06:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Which polls would you keep, and which would you throw out? TBSchemer (talk) 06:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I can envisage this section being improved slightly, but certainly there is no consensus to remove it entirely. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Because, as demonstrated in the previous thread, you are only interested in promoting Barack Obama's image and throwing accusations of racism against all who mention inconvenient facts about him. TBSchemer (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Strikethrough: TBSchemer (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I will welcome input from other editors on how to make this section WP:NPOV. Simply, please refrain from WP:PERSONAL attacks. Don't throw around accusations of racism. TBSchemer (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

These are my thoughts:

• Perhaps the section itself should be deleted as Misplaced Pages:Too soon? I recognize that essay (not even a guideline) refers to articles as a whole, but I think it could apply to this section.
• It seems very difficult, without the benefit of more time and reliable work by historians, to judge the 1st term of a sitting president without having to present contrasting views. I'm sure reliable sources could be found to juxtapose the points presented in that section. Is that really what we want in this article? I.e., one subsection with reliably sourced positive statements, and another with reliably sourced negative assessments?

Regards, JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yea, I think that section could probably just be removed for now. Wait for a more historical look and add detail then. Perhaps there is another article that can be added to now, but I don't really care enough to look around. Besides, it was just added a few days ago, without discussion. Dave Dial (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It does seem both premature to talk of the legacy, and also stale to cover the first term in isolation. The polls there are weak, Presidential legacies are usually not determined by vote. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it's a bit anachronistic to record the legacy of a president who remains in office. I would be fine with removing it. On the other hand, since the intention of that section seems to have been to list several opinion polls, would it be worth trying to convert that section into a general "Public Response" section? Perhaps, this section could cite sources that describe how various policies and events in Obama's presidency affected his polling among various groups. TBSchemer (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest deletion. Not only is doing so easiest, but, from a practical perspective, your proposal would involve a lot of drama with low results. As I noted in my initial comment, if I understand your proposal, we'd end up with a two-subsection section, one with "Public Response - Negative" and the other with "Public Response - Positive". This answer seems as premature as what's there now, as well as not encyclopedic. JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems like the consensus position is to remove this section. I have made the change. TBSchemer (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm certainly OK with the change. I would have done so myself, but was going to wait a little longer. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Much too soon to delete this section on the basis of one user's consent. There are at least 5-6 editors who emphatically disagree with you concerning this section in the four (4) sections above. Nor have you answered one of the basic issues which is If all of the presidents who have completed at least one full term of Presidency all have a Legacy subsection, then why are you singling out Barack Obama and excluding him from having one? FelixRosch (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The change was made after 4 editors expressed agreement, and nobody had yet put forward any reasons to disagree. I don't think George W. Bush had a "Legacy" section while he was still in office. Still, if we do include a legacy section for the Barack Obama article, it needs to include more than just favorable reviews from a limited set of academics. For instance, the polls demonstrating that Barack Obama is the most polarizing and divisive president in US history, as well as his job approval ratings are crucial for the sake of accurately and neutrally framing Barack Obama's place in history. As it stands right now, this section represents a very biased POV. TBSchemer (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The section seems neutral enough to me, however in this case a discussion over its neutrality would be prudent as the section is new. As per George W. Bush, he did have a similar section under the subheading of "Public Views and Perception", as can be found in diffs including this one from September 2008 (and earlier). It is not an indexed subtitle so you'll have to scroll down to it. So there is precedent. Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't a neutral section also include job approval ratings, as well as exceptional records, such as the fact that Barack Obama has been demonstrated to be the most polarizing president in US history? TBSchemer (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

TBSchemer - I have a hypothetical for you to think about. If someone who hated Democrats and hated black people, and was obsessed with proving Obama was a really bad man, and who could write in a manipulative manner, came here and wanted to get some negative stuff in the Obama article, it's likely that they would write a lot of similar stuff to what you have written. That would mean that those whose goal is truly NPOV would immediately become suspicious. Now, I will assume good faith and say I don't think you are such a person, but can you see how your posts are beginning to look? HiLo48 (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, do you believe that a neutral article about a human subject necessarily has absolutely zero negative stuff in it? It's just all positive stuff? Is that what you're claiming is neutral? TBSchemer (talk) 00:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Try to think about this from the perspective of someone who comes to this article looking to learn about Barack Obama. With the article as it is now, are they going to learn why 40% of the country admires him? Probably. Are they going to learn why 55% of the country hates him? Not at all. From this article, they probably wouldn't even realize that anyone disapproves of his policies, let alone a solid majority. That is a clear sign of an article with serious WP:POV problems. TBSchemer (talk) 01:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

TBSchemer - While I will keep trying hard to assume good faith, I don't believe you came here to learn about Obama. Pleased drop the façade. HiLo48 (talk) 11:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I said. Please reread what I wrote. TBSchemer (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

You're trying to create a false balance. In fact, what you're doing is exactly the same as what Fox News does, when it claims to be "fair and balanced". In a hypothetical situation where 50% approve and 50% disapprove of an article subject, you would try to make sure 50% of that article is positive and 50% is negative. Such a false balance completely ignores why people approve or disapprove, and it also ignores the context of that approval/disapproval. That is why we let reliable sources guide us as to what level of weight should be applied, and not stupid polls. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Gallup is a reliable source, cited elsewhere in the article on Barack Obama, as well as in the articles on every previous US president. Please address these facts rather than repeatedly leveling personal attacks against me. TBSchemer (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not personally attacking you. I am rebutting your arguments. If you see rebuttal as a personal attack, that is your problem. Gallup is a source of POLLS, not a source of CONTEXT. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Falsely attributing motives to me is a personal attack. Please restrict your discussion to the article content, and avoid addressing anything you think you know about me, about my beliefs, about my philosophy, or about my motivations. I linked to Gallup's press release which discusses context. I also provided a Washington Post article that discusses the same data in context. Do you dispute that these are reliable sources? TBSchemer (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Without getting into the apropriateness of having polls, or which poll should be used, I just want to explain that I changed the section heading because to me it seems like a bit of an exaggeration to use the word "legacy" for describing opinion polls about a president who is still in office. A "legacy" implies a lasting and significant consequence of something, not simply popularity. There is an unfortunate tendency to overuse the word "legacy" in wikipedia, but I found this usage to be particularly egregious. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, that seemed a bit much. As I have had a comment on my Talk page about this discussion, I want to reiterate that I think the section should be removed, or maybe moved over to the presidency article. If moved, I don't think it deserves it's own section right now, as BHO is still in office. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• While it doesn't matter to me if the section is kept or not, while it is here it should be accurate. I have adjusted the part about polarization to match the actual facts in the Washington Post article, which clearly indicates that President Bush was more polarizing in the fourth year of his first term. Also, the article gives the numbers context, as regards the overall polarizing political environment in the US--not just in the public's views on the White House. If the polarization numbers are there, they should be neutral and contextual. Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your constructive edit. I think your correction helps give a more complete historical picture. TBSchemer (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

You should have just removed it. In essence, you are rewarding TBSchemer for refusing consensus and inserting the biased, out of context, section he has attempted to insert before. One should not reward editors who edit war, especially when they are edit warring against such obvious consensus. Dave Dial (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I won't revert you if you choose to remove it, and similarly have no interest in trying determine whose POV is neutral or non-neutral here. The best way of moving forward at this point may be an RFC on the subsection in general so the efforts of all editors involved is less scattered and more formal. That said, an RFC could occur with the polling material removed from the text beforehand (and likely should given the balance of feelings on this talkpage) or with them still there; and I am not claiming an RFC is necessary given that balance of feelings that the additions are likely not appropriate. It just may be easier that way. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I will revert and I a propose that an RFC is indeed started, to have an actual consensus. NathanWubs (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Dave Dial, there have not been any reasons put forward on this talk page to selectively exclude the information I have included through my edit. I would not object to deletion of the entire "Evaluations of First Term" section, though another user has denied consensus on that solution, reverting the deletion. By all means, please continue to discuss whether the "Evaluations" section belongs in this article at all. But until consensus has been obtained for that proposal, I do think the recent edits to the section have improved its neutrality. Regarding these edits, no editor has yet put forward a reason why the Gallup polls do not belong in that section. The entirety of the discussion over those edits has been a series of personal attacks against me, without any discussion of the content. If you have a (non-personal) reason why this content should be excluded while the other polls of academics should remain, please describe your objection. TBSchemer (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

You don't get to override consensus because you don't like the reasons given. The fact is, your comments here and your attempts to add "balance" to a section are all too familiar. Trying to add extreme claims like Obama is "the most polarizing president in US History" over and over and over is getting very old. Anyone can look at the sources cited and know right away the claim is false. It states right in those sources it isn't true. Add that to the fact that the polls only go to 1952, it's absurd to try and add that to the article. And then making the claim of "Orwellian cleansing", while making outrageous claims here, along with "55% of Americans hate Obama", "Obama is a Totalitarian racist that is using executive powers to mislead the country", and you want other editors to believe you are here to improve the article? No, your comments have forced me to ignore you. That is a Talk page choice for long time editors. To ignore obvious POV editors that want to disrupt Misplaced Pages with their outrageous claims. So do not take people ignoring you as proof of anything other than they are tired of your antics. Dave Dial (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts:

• The section is not well written. In addition, per my prior comments, it is best deleted.
• In terms of either Policy or Content, I don't see anything substantively better or worse about the text added by TBSchemer than the the text already there. I think it should be restored by whoever last deleted it so we can have a base version to discuss. I will not be reverting it myself.
• I did not agree with TBSchemer's removal of the section after just a few days discussion per WP:DEADLINE, but I did agree with the removal per my prior comments.
• I urge editors to stop WP:EW and discuss and wait for consensus. If that takes an RFC, so be it. But two wrongs (albeit minor) don't make a right. That TBS deleted the section a little early did not necessitate instant reversion and Sturm und drang. It could have been discussed as is, and when WP:CONSENSUS met, the section restored (if so decided) or left alone. Similarly, there's no reason to revert his latest addition in a big hurry vice just discussing it.

Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:DEADLINE/WP:CONSENSUS I reverted once, and I have certainly not been "edit-warring" or causing any other trouble on this article. If the editors who have been involved in a slow-moving edit war over this continue, the page will be fully protected. We don't want that. I should say that I'm not a fan of the section either, but believe a re-write would be better than a total deletion. --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

You are right maybe my revert was a bit prematurely. It could have happened after an RFC. However I reverted in good faith. There has been no consensus reached by TBSchemer he just assumed that silence is consensus to his edits. Its not. The silence from most editors after refuting his claims several times over has a reason. For me its the pov pushing and the mis-interperation of sources even after they have been explained. This speed revert is also because Tbschemer has done this before deleting the section without consensus, which is nicely put by Hilo at the beginning of the this discussion. Also I was not planning to WP:EW if my revert was reverted I would not go ahead and revert it again. I will let it rest until a RFC is started. If not then I will just move on till there might be something else noteworthy discussed on this page. NathanWubs (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Whether the section is kept or gutted / deleted (which I favor), the business about being the second most polarizing President is POV, unencyclopedic, and on the face of it, pretty absurd. If this only goes back 50-60 years you can't claim that it's an absolute rank, and there have only been about 10 presidents in the period. Being the second top out of ten of anything is just not a useful factoid. The claim that people claiming allegiance to each of the two major parties are split disproportionately about a thing makes that thing "polarizing" is just bad logic, and quoting pundits on the meaning of polls is pretty useless in terms of getting anything meaningful out of it. It's probably true that this reflects that the parties are more partisan than ever before, but being partisan about a thing and the thing being polarizing are two different things. First, there's the matter of cause and effect. Second, just because two parties are both fighting over something doesn't actually mean that they are "polarized", meaning that they have a different, opposing and incompatible worldview. The Dodgers fans may hate the Yankees fans and the Yankees fans may hate the Dodgers fans, but there's no polarization, they're both baseball fans. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Tags

The procedure for tagging an article with "pov" or whatever has, IMO, been followed correctly; a user brings a concern to the talk page and tags the section or article as warranted. What's bad is either "drive-by tagging" (no discussion) or "badges of shame" (tags left for months). Neither has happened here, so just discuss above and carry on, pls. Tarc (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

See the above discussions. The user posted the tags after they were unable to find support for their POV; tagging in this instance could be seen as trying to circumvent the results of those discussions via bringing doubt to the validity of the article. I see that as inappropriate. Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe it was followed correctly. The statements by the editor show extreme POV, and when they could not get consensus on the Talk page, they added the tags. That's not really how it's supposed to work. Dave Dial (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well I have no interest in joining the edit-war fray, but it could be seen as this user trying to attract a wider audience into the discussion, which is kindof a purpose of tagging as well. Should this sort of thing ever someday escalate to another Arbcom, just keep in mind that every action made is open to scrutiny. We're all in the public eye here. Tarc (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Point taken. As it is a BLP, my only interest here is to make sure improvement tagging isn't abused and talkpage discussions are used. I have no opinion on the content of this article. Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, you're certainly right about the scrutiny and ArbCom cautions. I have no interest in edit warring over this either. Although each of the talking points the editor in question has brought up has been discussed Ad nauseam on this, and other, Talk pages. Not as much as the Religion/Birth/Race FAQ pointing discussions, but almost. Dave Dial (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Obama's race.

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

Obama is bi-racial or mixed race. He is neither from Africa nor is he black or white.

Correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.252.198 (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Your comment was deleted before with the suggestion you look at the talk pages. We have been over this forever and a day. Please look through the archives too see what has been discussed and why obama his race is listed as it is. If you then still have a suggestion, then make a suggestion backed by some reliable sources. NathanWubs (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Near the top of the page is a section titled Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ). Click on the link "" to the right of that heading ,and you should find your answer. HiLo48 (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The 44th and current President or president of the United States

I changed "President" to "president" in the opening sentence "Barack Hussein Obama II (/bəˈrɑːk huːˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə/ ; born August 4, 1961) is the 44th and current president of the United States, and the first African American to hold the office." My edit summary mentioned the WP:JOBTITLES example of "...sworn in as the 38th president of the United States..." The change was reverted, capitalizing President, with the edit summary: "That is a reference to Obama being the current occupant of the office of President of the United States."

While the second part of the sentence ("the first African American to hold the office") refers to the office, the first part refers to the job, as evidenced by the adjectives "44th and current". There has only been one office of the President of the United States, which is capitalized, while there have been many presidents of the United States, including the 44th and current one, President Obama. (Just to be clear, I mean political office, not a physical office). WP:JOBTITLES, part of MOS:CAPS, gives the similar usage of "the 38th president of the United States". It's also in keeping with the style of major US newspapers (e.g., NY Times, LA Times, USA Today, Washington Post). It's a bit confusing, because it varies on usage: "Barrack Obama is the president of the United States", "Barrack Obama holds the office of President of the United States", "She introduced President of the United States Barrack Obama". I'd suggest using lower case, in keeping with MOS:CAPS guidelines.

Agyle (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Selected anniversaries (November 2013)
• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class biography articles
• FA-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Top-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• FA-Class U.S. Congress articles
• High-importance U.S. Congress articles
• WikiProject U.S. Congress persons
• FA-Class WikiProject Illinois articles
• High-importance WikiProject Illinois articles
• FA-Class Hawaii articles
• Mid-importance Hawaii articles
• WikiProject Hawaii articles
• FA-Class Kansas articles
• Mid-importance Kansas articles
• WikiProject Kansas articles
• FA-Class Chicago articles
• Top-importance Chicago articles
• WikiProject Chicago articles
• FA-Class African diaspora articles
• Mid-importance African diaspora articles
• WikiProject African diaspora articles
• FA-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• FA-Class Africa articles
• Mid-importance Africa articles
• FA-Class Kenya articles
• Low-importance Kenya articles
• WikiProject Kenya articles
• WikiProject Africa articles
• FA-Class United States articles
• Top-importance United States articles
• FA-Class United States articles of Top-importance
• FA-Class District of Columbia articles
• High-importance District of Columbia articles
• WikiProject District of Columbia articles
• FA-Class United States presidential elections articles
• Top-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• FA-Class United States Presidents articles
• Top-importance United States Presidents articles
• WikiProject United States Presidents articles
• FA-Class US State Legislatures articles
• Low-importance US State Legislatures articles
• WikiProject US State Legislatures articles
• FA-Class United States Government articles
• Low-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• United States articles used on portals
• WikiProject United States articles
• FA-Class New York (state) articles
• Low-importance New York (state) articles
• FA-Class Columbia University articles
• High-importance Columbia University articles
• WikiProject Columbia University articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press