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 16:28, 31 December 2013 editDave Dial (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers13,118 edits Action stated in previous edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 20:54, 31 December 2013 edit undoJoeSperrazza (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers16,945 edits →Village pump idea lab: Allowing old discussions to be rehashed on purpose to help include new editors: Close - not appropriate for this articleNext edit →
Line 171: Line 171:


== Village pump idea lab: Allowing old discussions to be rehashed on purpose to help include new editors == == Village pump idea lab: Allowing old discussions to be rehashed on purpose to help include new editors ==
{{hat|Close - not appropriate for this article}}

At ] I've looked at an interesting forum post from a user who argued that by ''not'' allowing old discussions to be rehashed (I used ] as an example) (and I think ''without new evidence'' would apply here!): "They are bored and unable to pay attention and unable to have the same discussions--which made the people talking a cohesive group--with newcomers so no one feels like they belong." and he argues that's how many ] groups declined into being "stale and intolerant" At ] I've looked at an interesting forum post from a user who argued that by ''not'' allowing old discussions to be rehashed (I used ] as an example) (and I think ''without new evidence'' would apply here!): "They are bored and unable to pay attention and unable to have the same discussions--which made the people talking a cohesive group--with newcomers so no one feels like they belong." and he argues that's how many ] groups declined into being "stale and intolerant"


Line 185: Line 185:
::I think we can safely close this discussion now. It is clear from the replies here (and at the Village pump) that the idea is going nowhere. -- ] (]) 13:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC) ::I think we can safely close this discussion now. It is clear from the replies here (and at the Village pump) that the idea is going nowhere. -- ] (]) 13:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
:::Agreed. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 14:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC) :::Agreed. --] <sup>'']''</sup> 14:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
{{hab}}


== Should Obama be part of Wikiproject Socialism? == == Should Obama be part of Wikiproject Socialism? ==

Revision as of 20:54, 31 December 2013

Skip to table of contents
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

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:
  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.


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
March 16, 2010Featured article reviewKept
June 17, 2012Featured article reviewKept
October 22, 2012Featured 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

Template:Vital 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).
WikiProject iconBarack Obama (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
WikiProject iconU.S. Congress High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis 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.
WikiProject iconIllinois High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis 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.
WikiProject iconHawaii Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis 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.
WikiProject iconKansas Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis 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.
WikiProject iconChicago Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
TopThis 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.
WikiProject iconAfrican diaspora Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis 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.
WikiProject iconPolitics Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis 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.
WikiProject iconAfrica: Kenya Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Kenya (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconSpoken Misplaced Pages
WikiProject iconThis 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.
WikiProject iconUnited States: District of Columbia / Presidential elections / Presidents / State Legislatures / Government Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. State Legislatures (assessed as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).
More information:
/ 
Note icon
This article has been selected for use on the United States portal.
Note icon
This article has been selected for use on the Illinois portal.
Note icon
This article has been selected for use on the Chicago portal.
Note icon
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.
WikiProject iconNew York (state): Columbia University Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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)
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Columbia University (assessed as High-importance).
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Template:Stable version


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 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Sad week (meta-discussion)

Close per WP:TPNO "The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article."
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This has been a sad week in the Misplaced Pages community. Here on this page a major argument got cleanly deleted as though the facts it presented had never been posted, and then another person came along and unilaterally declared the active discussion closed, compressing it with an archive tag.

But that isn't the sad part. People do messed up things all the time. The sad part is that each and every person who saw what had happened just stood by and didn't do anything about it.

Misplaced Pages may not be a democracy, but it is very sad to see signs of it becoming a fascism. The only tool these active editors are missing is the power to delete change history. Me imagining that all of the bystanders would like to give it to them makes me shudder. Each and every one of you have tacitly cast your votes.

Acroterion, your vote was active - demonstrating that you will revert a small vandalism, yet stand by the larger destructive action. So concurrently, there is a small part of me that wants to say thank you, while a much larger part is wondering... "What The Fox?!"
(applicable to all here, along with you)--Tdadamemd (talk) 02:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Acroterion (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
<reads history of this page> Ah, the bastardy discussion. Sorry, I'm not this talkpage's mommy, and I don't appreciate backhanded accusations of fascism-by-omission. You failed to gain consensus and were given suggestions about a more appropriate place for the proposed content. That's all that happened. Acroterion (talk) 03:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
This editor has repeatedly been warned about the active sanctions on this article, and has chosen to ignore the advice given and argue repeatedly, attacking editors who disagree. Action by an uninvolved administrator is suggested. JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Village pump idea lab: Allowing old discussions to be rehashed on purpose to help include new editors

Close - not appropriate for this article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

At Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Allowing_old_discussions_to_be_rehashed_on_purpose_to_increase_editor_participation.3F_.28So_newcomers_can_get_a_sense_of_inclusiveness.29 I've looked at an interesting forum post from a user who argued that by not allowing old discussions to be rehashed (I used Barack Obama as an example) (and I think without new evidence would apply here!): "They are bored and unable to pay attention and unable to have the same discussions--which made the people talking a cohesive group--with newcomers so no one feels like they belong." and he argues that's how many Usenet groups declined into being "stale and intolerant"

Would anyone mind taking a look? WhisperToMe (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I once read, in WP:TALK if I remember correctly, that we are encouraged to copy discussions out of the archive when the current talk page could benefit, and I think FAQs grew out of that being much less workable. EllenCT (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Stunningly misguided as it applies to this article. We are a group of volunteer encyclopedia editors, not a suicide squad. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
What exactly do you mean by that?!? EllenCT (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
You want to make Misplaced Pages more like how Usenet used to be? That's an absolutely abhorrent idea. Don't you realize that sites like YouTube and news sites are trying to get rid of trolls, socks and battles, by making people who post comments use their real names? This is supposed to be an online encyclopedia, not a Usenet group. So when articles reach a certain point, they have less activity because there is less information to provide readers. It's unbelievable to me that someone would want to turn article Talk pages into a "Freeper" gone wild Usenet alternative. That is not what Misplaced Pages is supposed to be about. As Misplaced Pages has obtained more and more articles, and grown to the size it is now, there is bound to be a natural decline in activity because more articles have been finished. The amounts of web hits haven't decreased, they have increased. If Misplaced Pages hopes for more articles, there are ways to achieve that. One is to encourage editors to write about local issues and people. You can bet that the answer is not to encourage more battlegrounds for anonymous trolls, but hey, at least people can see what some people want to turn Misplaced Pages into. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Agree 100% with Dave Dial & Wikidemon on this. As one of the long-time lead editors of this article, sometimes more active sometimes less active, I've seen far too much time wasted on this kind of thing. We are not here to provide a place to alleviate boredom. We're here to maintain and update a featured article with extremely high view count for obvious reasons. So, in a word, NO. Tvoz/talk 08:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I think we can safely close this discussion now. It is clear from the replies here (and at the Village pump) that the idea is going nowhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. --NeilN 14:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Should Obama be part of Wikiproject Socialism?

This isn't happening. BLP applies to everything on Misplaced Pages, including categories and projects. Gamaliel (talk) 05:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

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.

I know that "socialism" is equivalent to "communism" in the U.S., but by international standards, any left-leaning politician is a socialist. I've seen that just about every other even nominally liberal politician is part of this wikiproject, so I ask: if Tony Blair (hardly a far-left politician) is part of WikiProject Socialism, then why should Obama be excluded? 78.70.153.159 (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Because Wikiprojects don't work that way. They aren't categories...--Somchai Sun (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
"...but by international standards, any left-leaning politician is a socialist." I just scanned through the articles of my country's "liberal" leaders. None of them were part of this project nor would I expect them to be as none of them espoused economic policies associated with socialism. --NeilN 23:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
If the members of that project decide to include him for whatever internal reasons they may have, fine. That's not endorsing or approving, just saying that it's not really our business here what happens over at that particular Wikiproject. Also, not if it affects this article in any way. Any addition that would have the affect of associating Obama with socialism would be unencyclopedic and as such a disservice to readers. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
What makes Obama left-leaning? From the point of view of those of us on the left, he's at best middle of the road. RNealK (talk) 04:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
In politics, simple labels are for simpletons. HiLo48 (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:V and WP:REDFLAG reminder

Any assertion that someone who has the ability to grant pardons, secretly if need be, is the product of bigamy or statutory rape would need to be sourced to at least one WP:SECONDARY peer reviewed academic legal journal article with reputations for fact-checking and accuracy. Whether Obama is a "bastard" or not is impossible to source because illegitimacy law was abolished by the Supreme Court in the 1970s, without any provisions for grandfathering, so to speak. If there are no such sources forthcoming in the next few days, I propose that this section be archived as a de facto public political figure character assasination attempt. EllenCT (talk) 14:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see them from the next couple hours from Tdadamemd (and not some laughable Google results link) as I removed his unsourced assertions about five hours ago with a warning he had to provide sources. Failing that, I will remove that section and if he again restores it, report him to WP:ANI. --NeilN 14:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
This is a case where simple facts can be utilized to silence the tinfoil-wearing conspiracy-mongerers. According to Report of the Age of Consent Task Force, issued by the Hawaii Attorney General's Office in 2003, between 1925 and 1973 the law prohibited males from having sexual contact with a girl under 12 or sexual intercourse with a girl under 16. Thus, Miss Dunham was well over the age of consent in the state of Hawaii in 1960. Tarc (talk) 14:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I've deleted the portion of this that was a cut-and-paste duplicate / copy of a thread that's been archived by the bot, something that runs against WP:TALK and messes up the archives. The editor proposing this stuff has contentiously re-posted BLP violations and just ridiculous stuff that's been deleted three times already — talk about Obama being a "bastard" and his mother being the victim of statutory rape. The editor is at WP:3RR at this point and has violated discretionary sanctions if those still apply. The proposal is fringe-y and was soundly rejected back in mid December. This whole thing is a mess and a distraction and needs to be mopped up. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Given that Tdadamemd has portrayed an unsourced highly-contentious assertion as a statement of fact (one that was disproven) I would support the above section be deleted or at the very least, hatted and archived. --NeilN 15:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
In light of Tarc's evidence about the inaccuracy, I concur. Even if the bigamy issue could be impeccably sourced to a first-rate law review article, it isn't something that Barack had any control over and clearly has had minimal personal impact on him and his achievements, so it would only be appropriate for his father's article. But if it can't be sourced to a law review article, it's clearly just bluster and has no place in any encyclopedia, even Conservapedia if they still exist. EllenCT (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Even if this was accurate it would be much more relevant to his father's article (and no that is not an endorsement of adding it there). I believe that since the rape claim has been proven wrong, and that the bastard claim has been rejected on more than on occasion (rejected by everyone but the proposer) we should close both sections and drop the issue--174.93.163.194 (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Categories: