Misplaced Pages

Talk:Barack Obama: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:31, 20 April 2009 editWikidemon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers36,531 edits →There is no section on his citizenship!: patience, usually← Previous edit Revision as of 22:37, 20 April 2009 edit undoChildofMidnight (talk | contribs)43,041 edits →There is no section on his citizenship!: tweakNext edit →
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 388: Line 388:
:::Can we just start deleting these from now on? Delete it and put FAQ #5 in your edit summaries. ] (]) 22:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC) :::Can we just start deleting these from now on? Delete it and put FAQ #5 in your edit summaries. ] (]) 22:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
::::I'll comment on your talk page, but in general it's usually best to explain patiently and ]. ] (]) 22:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC) ::::I'll comment on your talk page, but in general it's usually best to explain patiently and ]. ] (]) 22:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::Oh it's under the "show" button for the "Public image of Barack Obama"? Well that makes prefect sense. Is that the 6th or the 7th template? And as you've been so good to point out, it's also in the talk page archives. Why didn't this reader just look there? imagine these people coming here fo find an article about Obama. And they don't even seem to appreciate that we've gone to the trouble of producing Faq #5. I mean it's not like we have a password that has to be used in order to access it. Some people are so ungrateful. It's almost like they expect us to have a list of Obama article subjects so they can find what they're looking for from a single see also link. The NERVE of some people. ] (]) 22:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:37, 20 April 2009

Click to manually purge the article's cache

Skip to table of contents

Template:Community article probation

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Barack Obama article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
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, 84Auto-archiving period: 5 days 
Featured articleBarack 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 4, 2008.
In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 12, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
August 18, 2004Today's featured articleMain Page
January 23, 2007Featured article reviewKept
July 26, 2007Featured article reviewKept
April 15, 2008Featured article reviewKept
September 16, 2008Featured article reviewKept
November 4, 2008Today's featured articleMain Page
December 2, 2008Featured article reviewKept
March 10, 2009Featured article reviewKept
In the news 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
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
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.
WikiProject iconBiography: Politics and Government
WikiProject iconThis 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
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance).
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
? 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:
  1. Efforts by established single-purpose accounts to introduce such poorly-sourced content will be summarily deleted.
  2. 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.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Barack Obama article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
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, 84Auto-archiving period: 5 days 

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

Template:Pbneutral

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Barack Obama. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Barack Obama at the Reference desk.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

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

Religion

Citizenship

Full name

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

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

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

Where is the archive on Ayers? 68.5.11.175 (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Should we select one from this list? ↜Just me, here, now … 19:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Any of those should do. I do wonder why the Ayers topic is not included in the "Discussions". Admins getting censor happy?Miker789 (talk) 02:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Did you miss the whole WND invasion? They spammed the page and we even got mentioned on Drudge and Fox News for having "whitewashed" the article. Soxwon (talk) 02:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Where did the discussion on Teleprompters go? I don't believe that was finalized.Miker789 (talk) 02:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

FAQ question 9 is inaccurate

I accept lots of sentences, but that sentence has raised many red flags for me, lets see: "Q9: This article needs much more (or much less) criticism/controversy."

You can search for that, but you find zero hits. In the current article there is no criticism/controversy about Obama. Kordon Bleu (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I forget when and the final count but at one time I looked through the article and found 14-16 pieces of information that would be considered negative, some of which (e.g. Reverend Wright, Tony Rezko) were significant controversies and one which is a fairly harsh criticism in the black world ("not black enough"). The FAQ question is correct in noting that the editors of this article have reviewed ever single significant detail in the article multiple times and feel that it presents an appropriate, neutral, factual description of Obama's life and career, and are therefore not eager to look at the article from the point of view of balancing it to have either more, or less, criticism or controversy. It tends to be unproductive for we editors as a whole to look at things in terms of whether they are too positive or too negative, and when editors start disputing that, there is usually little to be gained. Wikidemon (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
In order for an article to retain FA status, it must (according to 1b of WP:FA? an article must be comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. ::Your statement " are therefore not eager to look at the article from the point of view of balancing it" is incorrect. An article must be balanced.Smallman12q (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The article has earned and kept FA status through at least two FA reviews while FAQ#9 is in place. We have several hundred thousand reliable sources, enough to fill hundreds of books, and must choose. The article is already at full length so giving more detail to one thing means giving less to another. Facts have been included or omitted here based on concerns of relevancy, sourcing, weight, and explanatory value given the summary nature of the article. Choosing facts on the basis of balance is not a requirement on FA or anywhere else, although WP:WEIGHT speaks to the need for balance in covering minority opinions. Neutrality is the real operating principle behind NPOV, not balance. The two are sometimes friends, sometimes enemies. Balance is an elusive goal. Exactly how negative or positive should we be -- 40% negative? 20% negative? What does that even mean? Should we balance out all the presidential articles so that Obama comes off exactly as favorably as George Bush? Richard Nixon? Abe Lincoln? Vladimir Putin? So that we give equal time to Obama and his critics, e.g. every time he wins an award we give his rivals a chance to respond? That would all take this article down a rabbit hole. Anyway, my response to the question was to point out that the FAQ correctly notes the community's consensus on the matter, not to try to defend it. It would take a significant change for people to decide that we should try to re-balance the article or even look at it from the point of view of balance. Very little good, and a lot of angst, has come from past attempts to push that. Wikidemon (talk) 23:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The whole point is that information here, positive or negative, should ideally mirror that presented in reliable mainstream sources. I think this article does that quite well. Merely because some blog reports some random opinion of Obama (good or bad) does not mean we need to give it representation in this article. Facts and reported analysis on Obama included in this article need to be given due weight comparative to those facts and reported analysis representation in reliable sources; and that also means that if something does not merit inclusion by a preponderance of reliable sources, it does not merit inclusion here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
What about a disambiguation page for all of the Obama articles: Barack Obama coverage or Articles related toBarack Obama. Then there could be a single see also to that page. There seems to be lots of interest in some of the more peripheral issues regarding Obama's life and political career and I wonder if there isn't a better way to point people in the right direction and let them know that these issues are covered, just in a different place. Yes I know there are categories, but I don't think it's enough as the same questions are being asked time and again. When I see that it indicates maybe we're not doing something as well as we could be. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The same questions are only asked time and time again by anti-Obama folks, however you decide to frame it. You are essentially suggesting we reinvent categories just for Barack Obama - presumably so we can give more prominence to Ayers/Wright/Birther nonsense. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I see that ChildofMidnight has decided to completely ignore this discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I've nominated the new "disambiguation" page for deletion. I believe it attempts to reinvent categories, is a misuse of a disambiguation page, and serves no useful function not already served by normal Misplaced Pages mechanism (such as blue links, templates, and the aforementioned categories). -- Scjessey (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Canis est obvius niveus domus

I see that the pooch story has made it to the article, with a brief edit war ensuing. I'd like to propose that the dog is excluded from this article on the basis that it isn't really biographically relevant. It seems to me that it is more appropriate to one of the child articles. Perhaps Presidency of Barack Obama or even Family of Barack Obama. Bear in mind that the canine belongs to the Obama daughters, not the man himself. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested, the White House blog has more on the dog, including two high-resolution images that someone could upload to the Commons if they see fit: Meet Bo -- Scjessey (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I really agree with Scjessey. The little doggy is trivial and should be moved to a sub article.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
As do I, which is why I reverted the edit including the little guy in the first place. QueenofBattle (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of what they say about it, we're not going to keep it. The pooch will no doubt acquire his own article lickety split. But with us telling editors that there is no place for certain issues in the article, I don't think we can justify giving house room to the puppy dog. Anyone for Checkers?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Dog info is perfect for the Family of Barack Obama article as suggested above, but really has no place here (unless the dog plays an important role in the health care debate or gets the Israelis and Syrians to sign a peace treaty or convinces Obama to switch parties or something). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
At last, something I can agree with with you all. The puppy is trivial, unless there is precident to add it based on other presidential articles, but I doubt it.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be wide agreement that this dog won't hunt so I think we can let sleeping dogs lie, but as a point of comparison and for future reference I will mention that the famous Millie - who even wrote her own book! - does not appear in our article on George H. W. Bush. That seems appropriate to me and probably worth remembering if this ever comes up again, maybe during the dog days of summer or something when there's nothing better to talk about.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is this considered a featured article?

I am wondering why, given the extreme controversy, this article is still labeled as a featured article.

I thought that if there was even one objection to content, an article was immediately removed from 'featured' status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.5.171.254 (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

They need to be reasonable objects, relating to the Featured article criteria. Claiming that this article is biased because it doesn't include such and such controversy that no reasonable media source accepts as valid is not a reason for it to be removed as featured, as evident from the numerous featured article reviews that can be seen at the top. Grsz 01:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Clearly there has been no media coverage of opposition to Obama's spending plans, for example. We like to embrace a see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil philosophy here on Misplaced Pages. Anyone who disagrees is a right-wing radical nut-job. Even trying to provide accessible links to coverage of criticisms or controversies is a good indication of nefarious activity. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, got a comfy perch on your soapy box there, CoM? To the IP editor, the "extreme controversy" is a matter of opinion. "I don't like it" isn't quite sufficient to knock an article out of featured status. Tarc (talk) 03:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a process for reviewing the quality of featured articles and having them delisted if the content is judged to no longer meet "featured" status. As you can see from the "article milestones" at the top of the page, three of these reviews have been undertaken in the last 7 months. Apparently on each occasion the decision was made to keep the article's featured status. That strikes me as a lot of FA reviews in a short period of time, but if someone seriously wants to question the featured status of this article that is the way to go about it. I don't think this current discussion here serves much purpose. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
It was tried recently and I think the request to even consider revoking FA status was rejected. So it seems to fall into the "what's the point" category at this time. It doesn't say much for the FA process, but that's another can of worms. It's possible arbcom will reign in some of the worst obstructionists and POV pushers on this page, so we can improve the article and at least have it link to notable criticisms and controversies if they aren't included here. But I'm not holding my breath. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Like you? Besides, we do link to some nortable controversies: we link to the Rev. Wright controversy as part of talking about his religious background. Stuff about Ayers is in the presidential campaign article, and is kept out of this article solely because it was ultimately not important to the campaign. And the Muslim rumours and conpsiracy theories are held by such a minority that they don't deserve coverage on Misplaced Pages, end of (and we don't cover the former, IIRC). Sceptre 05:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The "Royal We" and his opinion. lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.184.141 (talk) 08:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know the particulars, but if the recent request to reconsider FA status was rejected it may have related to the fact that there were two other ones in the 6 months prior to that.
And to C of M, you really should try to be a bit more patient about including criticism (i.e., patient for much longer than one can hold one's breath). Obama has not even reached the 100 day mark of his presidency. It's almost certain that, in the long run, the main way in which this article will incorporate criticisms will relate to his performance as president (three years from now, issues like Rezko and Ayers will almost certainly be trifling matters and largely forgotten by most Americans). We're just not far enough in at this point to be able to write a good section that evaluates his presidency, including criticisms. That will change obviously. As time goes on, the section on his presidency will necessarily include a fair amount of criticism, but in a balanced manner reflecting the level of coverage in secondary sources (e.g., if Obama's approval rating stays incredibly high and the balance of media stories about him are positive, that will need to be reflected in the article - if not then that will be reflected).
As time goes on and the section on his presidency necessarily expands, I will certainly object to efforts to whitewash notable criticisms. Right now in my view it's too early to be worried about that, and I must say that C of M and many other (often anonymous) editors who rail against the iniquities of this page do themselves no favors by making conspiratorial references to "POV pushers" and a "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil philosophy" (whatever that means). I encourage those editors to take a longer view of the process here and be patient as we work in more information (good, bad, and neutral) about Obama's presidency in the weeks, months, and indeed years ahead. Like all articles this is a work in progress, and the section on the presidency will look a lot different six months from now. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

criticism section

I've already read the new article about Bo Obama, the dog of the president's family. Believe or not there is a disputation and criticism section on that page. It's shame that on the much larger priority page on Barack Obama there is 0 critics. Duálszerver (talk) 06:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, if you can't see the ironic sociopolitical statement about our culture that there would be a criticism section about a dog, no matter who he belongs to (though of course especially because he belongs to a president), then I don't suppose you'd see the point in any response to your lamentation. But at least you've read that article. Abrazame (talk) 07:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
How dare you criticize the Messiah? This is Wiki. lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.184.141 (talk) 08:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Concrete proposal for adding in a bit of criticism

Many of the detractors of this article (such as the new editor Duálszerver in the previous section) offer complaints but little in the way of reasonable suggestions to make the article more balanced, in their view. So let me offer a suggestion.

The current section on the presidency is understandably short, but the obvious thing to add next is something about the budget. The House and Senate both passed budgets at the beginning of the month, and in the near future (maybe starting next week - I'm not sure) those will have to be reconciled into a final version which Obama will then sign. I think this event will be worthy of inclusion in the article (at least for the time being - as his presidency moves on we almost certainly won't discuss every budget in this biographical article). I think what we can also discuss at that point is some of the objections to the budget. For example, while I personally find them largely incoherent and more than a little bit ridiculous, the recent "tea party" protests were clearly partially directed at what the protesters see as excessive spending on Obama's part. I think that's worth mentioning, perhaps along with grassroots efforts in favor of Obama's budget (which were not covered as fully, and perhaps not especially effective in the end).

Overall I would see this as being two or three sentences which would discuss: 1) The basics of the budget that eventually passes; 2) Some general objections and probably a quick mention of the 2009 Tea Party protests; 3) Also maybe a brief mention of efforts in favor of the budget, or perhaps some general polling data on how Americans felt about it at the time it was passed.

It will probably be a week or two before we can put something like this in place and it would need to stay short, but I think it would be an appropriate addition to the section on his presidency at this point in time. I think without question the most notable criticism of Obama right now relates to government spending and the debt, and I think it would work well to mention that in the context of whatever budget eventually passes. We should have secondary sources galore covering these topics in tandem with one another in the near future. Any thoughts? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Assuming the budget passes, as roughly anticipated, three sentences on the matters seems like two sentences too much. There is a lot of legislation being proposed and pushed by this administration. A budget is certainly very important in that list, but unless something special happens around this legislation, it's not more than a sentence of relevance. After all, every president, in every year, signs some budget: that fact in itself isn't of special biographical significance; and what significance it has is closer to the "Presidency of" article. LotLE×talk 07:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The exact length is definitely negotiable, but this particular budget is of somewhat greater interest in my view because: A) It comes at a time of enormous economic crisis and thus is seen as particularly important, the best historical analogy would be to some of the measure in the early New Deal; B) It's quite ambitious and a relatively radical departure from budgets of the last few decades; C) A protest movement was organized partially in response to the budget and received significant media attention, which is not at all common when it comes to budgets.
So overall this is not just "some budget" - it's a major milestone in Obama's presidency to date and thus I think a bit more discussion than normal is warranted. Note that I would expect this to change with the passage of time - i.e. two years from now any mention of the first budget in this article would probably be significantly reduced and possibly eliminated. But for now it's just as if not more important than anything else he's done as president.
I would note that another possibility would be to tie a sentence or two on the budget to some mention of the admin's actions with respect to the banks. In my view both of these, separately or certainly taken together, are more important than the admittedly very important $787 billion stimulus bill, and we already have four sentences on that. Maybe we should work on stripping that down a bit and adding in material on the budget and the banks, though really I don't think it hurts to expand the presidency section at this point (particularly once Obama hits the hundred day mark - which I believe will be on April 30th - and some more evaluative-type pieces start appearing in the press). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
While I certainly agree that most of those at the tea parties were anti-Obama, they clearly had no real idea who was to blame for what is happening. Their protests were ostensibly about taxes. As such, it might rate a mention in an article about taxes, about the bailout, about the deficit, about government spending, about the economic crisis. It's a stretch to even add it to an article about Obama's budget, as we are currently operating under George W. Bush's final budget, which he signed around February 2008 to cover what they call the "fiscal year" that runs from October 2008 to September 2009. It's either deluded or disingenuous to think Obama's to blame for current conditions. It's arguably premature to criticize a budget that is only slightly more than George W. Bush's last budget yet includes the cost of the war in the first year the budget is in effect, when Bush's budgets relied on emergency supplementals like the one Bush's budget forced Obama to request this past week.
There were protests against the Iraq war (and Bush for pushing for it) all over this country in 2003, and an unprecedented series of protests and demonstrations during the Republican National Convention in August 2004, when half a million people marched past Madison Square Garden the day before the convention and maybe a third of that demonstrated the following day, with diminishing numbers each day of the convention. The NYC Police Commissioner declared there were a million protesters that week, in one city. Yet such massive turnout in one place doesn't appear in the George W. Bush article or in the Presidency of George W. Bush article. Why? Because it clearly didn't affect the man or his actions as president. While it was inconsequential to him, it wasn't inconsequential to history (although of course he had a second term), and it is mentioned in the RNC article and in greater detail in 2004 Republican National Convention protest activity.
If these teabag-toting anti-taxers' misunderstandings about who is to blame for their 2008 taxes ultimately has some effect on what Obama does about taxes going forward, then it might rate a mention in the Presidency of Barack Obama article, though it might be hard to prove its causality and in any event would still seem more appropriate for an article about his tax policy or his budget. Of course, those in those crowds who seek only to diminish his political capital (I hate that phrase) aren't exactly being constructive in getting him to do what they claim they want and radically change the financial system as he's vowed to do.
I agree with Bigtimepeace: notably held criticism with real merit arises about every president, and when it rises to the level of inclusion in the man's biography, it should go in. For example, there is some criticism I've been hearing by legal experts and constitutional scholars that Obama is coming dangerously close to being negligent in looking the other way on the issue of the investigation of terrorism and other war crimes on the part of the previous administration. Does that belong in the article yet? No. Because Obama hasn't yet made a definitive decision one way or the other. Putting it in the article at this point would be getting out in front of the story. That people have alleged such things against George W. Bush for years hasn't even made it into his article, much less what Obama or whatever branch as would have jurisdiction has yet to do about it in his second month in office. Duálszerver notes that there is "controversy" about Obama's dog. What do you think the reaction would have been had a shelter dog damaged something in the White House? There are certain things that any president simply could not win. There are certain things this (black) president simply cannot win with a certain vocal segment of society. Those two categories are not terribly relevant to a brief bio here, even if our hyper 24-hour news cycle with various slants screams it at us all night and all day. We should focus on what a president could reasonably be expected to get right, or not completely screw up, and the notable and important criticisms that truly affect the country, the man or both.
Protests against fiscal policy, taxes, government support of corporate interests et al are routinely a part of, for example, the G-20. (These people are usually considered communists or anarchists.) That it happens this year on tax day seems more a delayed reaction to the events of the past eight months, two years, eight years, thirty years, depending on how astute your awareness of the issues is—or, perhaps it merely dates back to January 20th or November 4th. It's clear that Republicans and Fox News commandeered a libertarian issue in an effort to reignite the populism of their vanquished party after so many years of corporate cow-towing. Taking all these elements into account, excuse the pun—Reagan's deregulation, the Gramm/Bliley/whomever bill of '99 (signed by Clinton), the last 8 years of Bush's massive spending and further deregulation climaxing in the recession, the stock market crashes, and the unprecedented bailouts, followed by an awareness of how free those Socialist Europeans are about demonstrating, I'm not surprised that someone decided to do so here with regard to fiscal issues; I'm just a little surprised and saddened to see it be the types of people who hit the ground running on hate for the brand-new president. We basically ignored that faction after Bush became president, and after 9/11 we galvanized behind him hoping he would be able to make the sweeping changes we needed to make us safer here and track down the perpetrators abroad. (Whatever happened to that part?) It's ironic though hardly surprising that some of those who were most patriotic at that time, willing to stumble into expensive wars and the like, are the first to turn that patriotism against their president the moment he's not a Republican. (Imagine if it had been a "she".) This, even though the same resolve for sweeping changes and tracking down criminals and changing laws and accruing some (hopefully temporary) costs are also a part of this crisis. Abrazame (talk) 08:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. Well a lot of that was a bit off topic (more political analysis than opinion about the article) but you make your point in the first couple of paragraphs. I personally agree with you that the protests were rather incoherent - but that's a personal political opinion and really has no relevance here at all. They happened, and clearly the big complaint coming out of these protests (in addition to complaints about taxes - which was the really incoherent part) related to government spending, including the proposed budget, but also of course the stimulus, TARP, etc. The fact that we are still operating under G.W. Bush's budget or that Hank Paulson gave us TARP is irrelevant - we don't get to judge whether these protests makes sense or not, we just decide if they are worthy of a mention in the article (most of your comment speaks to the former point).
And please understand what I'm proposing here because I don't think it's especially radical at all. A neutral sentence or two about the budget (maybe combined with some discussion of the bank plans Geithner put forward), and then some phrase like "a number of groups and individuals objected to what they saw as Obama's fiscal irresponsibility - objections which led in part to coordinated "tea party" protests around the country." Not that exactly but something like that, probably even shorter, and probably in tandem with a mention of those who hailed the budget as a good thing. I think we're getting to the point where we need some more detail about Obama's economic plans, and in mentioning that we really need to say something about the reaction to them. Mentioning the tea parties seems an easy way to get at the criticism, but if there's another way to do that I'm open to it.
And again I don't think we should do anything with this yet, I'm just starting the discussion now in anticipation of a final budget being passed in the near future. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I think any proposal that cites as its justification that the article should have more (or less) criticism is basically DOA. Content proposals should be based on normal content questions: is the material verifiable, reliably sourced, relevant to the topic, neutral, etc." If so we can consider it according to other content measures. If not it does not pass the threshold. But testing content according to whether it is positive or negative to the BLP subject is simply not a legitimate criterion. Wikidemon (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I framed it poorly, but the justification for what I am suggesting is not that the article "should have more criticism." Articles of course have to be NPOV and cover a given topic as fully as possible (within the limits of an encyclopedia article) which is the "justification" for my proposal if that's how we want to phrase it. I don't think there's a particular problem with NPOV right now as many are suggesting, but I do think the section on Obama's presidency needs some expansion to cover his current economic and budget policies in a bit more detail, and as part of that I think NPOV dictates a mention of some criticism of those policies since, at this point, that's where the heaviest criticism of Obama has been.
I hope that clarifies the rationale behind this proposal (if not I can try to clarify further) and if so I'm hoping Wikidemon and others can comment on the substance of what I'm proposing - i.e. should we add a few sentences about the budget/bank plans/etc. with a quick mention (in some form) of some criticisms (and perhaps some accolades) for these policies? If a proposal like that is truly "DOA" then we have a major problem here, because that kind of stuff (if not exactly what I'm proposing) is going to have to end up in this article eventually. The section on the presidency is going to get a lot bigger over time, and it's going to be a mix of good stuff, bad stuff, and neutral stuff. I'm proposing a very small step in that direction. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
That's the problem when some (mostly new) people come to the article and propose us to add certain criticism to the article, mostly the requests are only requested to be added because according to the person there is not enough criticism,I think Wikidemon means that those kind of proposals are DOA.If we add criticism just for the reason of their being not enough,we lose the other points that say what should and shouldn't be in the article stuff like, reliability and weight.We will add criticism to the article but they will have to pass criteria to be added to the article.To the three points you brought up early on about how important the budget is, I agree with you on a and b but i can't agree with you on c or with any of the people in the TEA parties protesting against wasteful spending by buying 1 million teabags...Durga Dido (talk) 11:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Personally I think that it should be brought up merely as a way of showing that the Obama administration has seen (not responsible for but has seen) some of the highest quality entertainment since Carter got attacked by a rabbit. But in all seriousness, there is another thing that is missing: Castro's reaching out to Obama (or is that still too new?). Soxwon (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ow yeah, that is definitely a big thing,especially seeing as Castro's seem like they want to help,Fidel asking what they can do for Pres Obama and now Raul saying he is willing to talk about everything human rights, political prisoners and press freedom.However I think we should still wait a little bit, and see how serious both sides are to address this issue and to see how far this actually gets.I personally am very happy with what both sides are saying.Durga Dido (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I can definitely see something about Cuba ending up here in the not too-distant future, but perhaps we can try to stick to the original topic for this section for now? Discussing Cuba or other possible foreign policy additions might be best done in a new section, though I tend to agree with Durga that we might want to hold off for now.
I can't say that I'm impressed by the overall quality of the responses to this proposal so far (incidentally I'm not remotely "new" to this article if that's what was being implied, and even if I were that's neither here nor there - folks who edit here regularly have become way, way to jaded in my view, though that's somewhat understandable given the constant attacks from SPAs). Durga Dido does not agree with including criticism of the budget/spending a la the tea parties but does not explain why. Just saying "I can't agree" is not really sufficient for an objection - why do you think that particular criticism (or something similar, I'm not wedded to putting the tea parties in, it just seemed like an obvious way to go as a way to quickly mention criticism of fiscal policy) does not belong in a more detailed discussion of Obama's economic policies? Soxwon makes a joke so I have no idea if that editor is serious about bringing in the proposed criticism or not. If other editors can hold off on the tea party jokes that would be terrific, and instead I'd love to see more direct responses to the suggestion here if possible (as, for example, LotLE did above).
Just for the record since questions of political loyalty seem to be an ongoing and unfortunate undercurrent on this page, I voted for and still support Obama on the whole (I'm well, well to his left - and probably well to the left of just about everyone who edits here - so the kind of criticism I have of him has nothing to do with what the the "tea party" folks are complaining about). I'm not proposing mentioning the tea parties or some similar criticism of his economic policies because I want to make Obama look bad or am on some POV mission, rather I think we should start expanding the presidency section a bit within the next two or three weeks and it makes sense (in my view, and in light of the need for a neutral point of view) to include the most notable criticisms of those policies up to this point simply because those criticisms have been widely covered in secondary sources (100 times more than "teleprompter usage" or other nonsense that has recently graced these talk pages). I'd appreciate it if editors here could put aside all of the unending past shenanigans on this page and evaluate this proposal in the spirit in which it was intended - improving the article. I'm fine if folks disagree with it, but I'd like to see policy based rationales for that disagreement and/or alternative proposals. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I definitely haven't seen any evidence that the tea-party "protests" rise to the level of any biographical significance whatsoever for Obama. Anti-tax griping is pretty routine, and the fact that Fox News managed to pretend the routine event was some new and widespread sentiment is something that will be forgotten in a couple weeks. The budget itself is really nothing special. It's a slight increase from the last administration's budget, and it shifts spending priorities to a moderate degree. Other than tax-day stunts and political pandering, the right one sentence to add once the budget is signed is just along the line of what I say in this paragraph: "Obama's first budget represented a moderate N% increase from GWB's final budget, with the largest increases/decreases in ." Perhaps a clause could go in there about Obama actually accounting for the war spending as part of the budget, rather than the GWB deception of making it "special expenditure." LotLE×talk 19:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree broadly with what LotLE says. I'd like to add, however, that it probably makes more sense to have this discussion at Presidency of Barack Obama, which is a more appropriate venue for this sort of thing. If (in due course) this turns out to be both biographically and historically significant, then perhaps we can look at summarizing whatever went into the other article in this one. Bearing in mind this is a summary style article, in most cases the content of this article should only be briefly summarizing something that exists in another, assuming it follows WP:BLP appropriately. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec with Scjessey, replying to LotLE above) Well I do disagree with your assessment of the budget, and I think most secondary sources do as well (it's much closer to being an LBJ-style budget than anything we've seen in decades). I think it's a significant departure from recent spending practices (not as much as I'd like to see certainly, but significant in comparative historical terms). However that's not a huge deal so we can leave that to the side I think.
Your basic idea for a sentence works for me. I'd like to see it paired with some discussion of the bank policies (which are extremely important, obviously, and again we have four sentences on the stimulus which in the long-run is less significant than the budget or the bank stuff). I do continue to think that some mention of criticism (and support) for all these policies is warranted - nothing has provoked a stronger reaction among politicians and the general public so far and we should reflect that in the article. Editors are rejecting a mention of the tea party but as I said I'm not beholden to that. I could see a sentence along the lines of "Concerns were raised by congressional Republicans and other critics that Obama's fiscal policies increased the national debt to an unacceptable degree, while others saw them as necessary measures to stem the short-term economic crisis and as wise investments in future economic growth." Better worded than that but something along those lines, obviously we could heavily footnote it and maybe therein would be a good place for a link to a general article news article on the tea protests. Would something like that work? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Bigtimepeace I did not mean you in the new user and I was being serious although i can believe that it may have not seen so partly because of the last especially because of my last sentence.With the two reason you brought up to show why you wanted to include the sentence int he article I don't have any objections.For me personally it would not make a difference if it was in it or not.The part about DOA I was trying to point out it doesn't really help your point if you say they reason you want something included is because there isn't enough criticism or praise.IF something is to be added, it should be added because it helps the article, not because there is no mention of it or because the other view isn't represented.So if it is important and as important to other stuff in the article it should be included.The same thing goes for reliability.Bigtimepeace I also don't mean you in particular about trying to push a certain issue or trying to push it in bad way,and I don't mean to say the only reason you want it is to add some criticism. I was saying why i thought WD said the proposal was DOA, I know your trying to help because I have seen you help us before. Durga Dido (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I like the sentence you gave Bigtimepeace, however I would see if there is a way we could say some of the critics were from he public and so it seen that it was not from critics that would have criticized Obama no matter what he didDurga Dido (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

How could this article be featured?

I'm quite surprised. How and when Obama's article has featured? Without controversy/critics section this is a little interesting and raising many red flags. Multiplyperfect (talk) 23:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If this wasn't your first edit ever on Misplaced Pages, you would know. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you could re-read what you asked before here. Grsz 23:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


Obama deception

The obama deception movie has attracted the attention of more and more people. Is it possible to have a mention about it on the page? There are 31 entries on google news, from mainstream news sites: http://news.google.com/news?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22obama+deception%22 A few are informative, and many negative, but still, I believe it is worth to have it mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Echofloripa (talk • contribs)

There is absolutely no possibility whatsoever of this "movie" being mentioned in this biography. It might possibly find it's way into other articles, such as Alex Jones. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
That's correct, fringe documentaries about major political figures, of which there are many, do not belong in their biographical articles and that's really all there is to say about it. And Echofloripa, don't dump random links into this or any other talk page - this is your one and only warning about that.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, the link wasn't suppose to end up there. 194.74.151.201 (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Caption

Why delete? I keep on adding an explanatory caption to this infobox, which is one of its parameters, and some users keep on deleting it. I have no idea why. Captions are useful for understanding what it is you are seeing and in the case of a human whose appearances changes over time, it is necessary. There is a reason why this parameter exists, and I don't understand why it shouldn't apply to this article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Captions are not generally used for those photographs. See other presidential articles. Tad Lincoln (talk) 05:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I find it distracting and irrelevant to note in the caption of a recent photograph of a person what year the photo was taken. If it is a particularly old photo, or there is something else in the context that is not apparent on viewing, a caption would be helpful, but then it would not be a great photo for the infobox. If anyone wants to know more about the photo they can click on it and see the image page. Wikidemon (talk) 09:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

FAQ

{{editprotected}} Can someone add this question under the FAQ, probably under article mechanics?

Why is this article featured?
The three featured article criteria often used to justify this question are 1b, 1d, 1e: comprehensiveness, neutrality, and stability. These three are intertwined: people think it is not comprehensiveness because it misses out some controversy, which also makes it biased in some way; or people think that to ensure it is comprehensive, we must sacrifice its stability. However, the article's 100KB-plus size means that we need to use a summary style, which means that controversies that are not ultimately important to Obama's biography are not dealt with in the biography, but in one of the sub-articles. With regards to the question of the stability criterion: instability, in the context of featured articles, is defined as "content changing significantly from day to day". The featured article criteria do not discourage minor updates during a presidential campaign or a presidency; indeed, the article John McCain was promoted during his campaign.

Thank you. :) Sceptre 06:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Can I leave a day for this suggestion to gather consensus? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I suggest a little more discussion, and some improvement in the wording. Is this really raised frequently, and is it really a question? It seems to have been asked twice by the same editor, perhaps to criticize the article as not being negative enough rather than actually suggest anything. The question of adding criticism is already addressed in other FAQs. Further, there may be a process problem using a FAQ to defend the article's FA status, because FA quality is something to be determined by FA review rather than announced by the article editors. A more humble approach would be to describe when the article achieved FA status and was reviewed, and simply note that those doing the review at the time felt that it met the criteria. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I've declined the editprotected request. The article is not fully-protected (it is only semi-protected). - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well it wasn't a request for Barack Obama, was it? It was for the FAQ. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
What FAQ? And why is the request here? Ah, I see. Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ. The editprotected request should only be added once there is consensus for the change. Given that you're apparently watching it, there is no need for the tag. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
(e/c)Sorry Rjd, I think my comment was a bit snarky and I just came back to reword it but I see you've already replied :) The FAQ is at Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ and is fully protected. Sceptre orginally (and ingeniously) originally put the request at Barack Obama/FAQ, but this obviously could not stand as it was in mainspace, so I moved it here. I can't think of a more appropriate place to put the request. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There have been multiple snipes against the FA status for months; including this might defray only a half or third of such trollings, but any reduction in the noise would be a default improvement of the S:N ratio here, which can only be welcome. ThuranX (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no section on his citizenship!

There is a controversy surrounding this man's citizenship, that if true, would bar him from holding the presidency. Obama has not released a vaild birth CERTIFICATE (which is different than a CERTIFICATION) and this article makes absolutly no mention of it. Oh, but it is a minor issue... No it isn't! he just has teams of lawyers working to keep everyone silent! There should be a mention, if only one sentance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.254.77 (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ at the top of the page, question 5, for a quick answer to your query. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
This has already been discussed many, many times before. Feel free to check the talk page archives. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
In addition, if you go to the bottom of the page and click the "show" button for the "Public image of Barack Obama" article, you will see a link to the article referenced in FAQ #5, citizenship conspiracy theories. Wikidemon (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Can we just start deleting these from now on? Delete it and put FAQ #5 in your edit summaries. ThuranX (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll comment on your talk page, but in general it's usually best to explain patiently and WP:AGF. Wikidemon (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh it's under the "show" button for the "Public image of Barack Obama"? Well that makes prefect sense. Is that the 6th or the 7th template? And as you've been so good to point out, it's also in the talk page archives. Why didn't this reader just look there? imagine these people coming here fo find an article about Obama. And they don't even seem to appreciate that we've gone to the trouble of producing Faq #5. I mean it's not like we have a password that has to be used in order to access it. Some people are so ungrateful. It's almost like they expect us to have a list of Obama article subjects so they can find what they're looking for from a single see also link. The NERVE of some people. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Categories: