Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 65
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Barack Obama. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 60 | ← | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | → | Archive 70 |
Obama admits delay on Guantanamo
Currently in the article: "ordered the closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp "as soon as practicable and no later than" January 2010." Yes, but there is a change, read: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8366376.stm Add: "Barack Obama has for the first time admitted that the US will miss the January 2010 deadline he set for closing the Guantanamo Bay prison." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.0.95.27 (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe this is relevant to the Presidency of Barack Obama article, but we really need to get away from dropping every development of his presidency into his BLP. QueenofBattle (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) Agreed. What Obama declared in his first days is still relevant to the "First days" section. The slippage of this date will not actually happen until January 22, 2010. By that date, presumably there will be some official news on the trials of the detainees, on the preparations to hold prisoners elsewhere, and on revised plans for the closing of the detention facility. At such time as this is news about something that has actually happened or a formal change of plans and not mere speculation—even correct speculation "admitted to" by the president—it's not relevant to an encyclopedia that is based on the past and not the future. At such time, it will be presented in his biography only as is appropriate to that biography, i.e. this is more about his presidency than him as a person. We might write at such later date as we know how this actually wound up playing out that Obama took delays in stride, or that Obama ultimately overcame Congress' resistance, or that Obama was blocked from keeping this promise as a result of X or Y and the result, as in so then he responded by finding another solution, or so then he responded by forcing their transfer to the U.S. even before a suitable place here was prepared for them, or because of this he resigned the presidency and became a porn star.
- The point isn't he said X but X+2 happened, it's the relevance to him as a person. The wheels have been turning all year toward this, it wasn't a forgotten promise. If I tell you I've got reservations to fly in on the red eye and spend the whole day with you, and then a combination of bad weather and problems at the airline cause my flight to be delayed, so I'll be getting in a little later than I expected, it doesn't say anything about me. If, instead of simply making other plans for breakfast and keeping your cell nearby to hear the new ETA, you start thinking less of me and telling everybody I say one thing and do another, that says something about you. Abrazame (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ditto. Frank | talk 02:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
For me your comments raise many red flags. You write that this is not relevant here, but in this case why you mention the close of Guantanamo in the main article? Or the good news should be included here, the bad news is somewhere else, like in presidency etc. pages whose visitor's frequency is much lower. I think that it is very important, because Guantanamo, like Afghanistan's and Iraq's war is a symbol in Obama's life, especially after receiving the Nobel peace prize —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.0.95.27 (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'd be inclined to think there is no great harm in a clause stating that in November 2009 Obama stated that the deadline would not be met. Whatever the consensus of editors thinks is right is right. No big deal.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- We could save space by cutting out "as soon as practicable". Just excess verbiage now.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- In two successive sentences you miss both the editorial and situational points. To the editorial: threshold for article inclusion isn't "no big deal". Encyclopedias are for big deals, the bigger the deal of the article subject the bigger the deal the threshold for inclusion. To the situational: "as soon as practicable" is now more relevant—not less so—than "one year from now". You do get that, right? One year wasn't practicable, but we're still moving toward the goal and the recent announcement of the trials is the most significant indicator of that? Abrazame (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- I would say that it goes to the person, not just the policy. However, I'm not inclined to argue about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- What "it" do you mean as going to the person? Abrazame (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- It's certainly nothing that Obama did or didn't do that is delaying the situation. When you look at it, it's understanding considering that there's nowhere to put both the guilty and innocent detainees currently held there. Europe won't take the innocent ones like they said they would, the American people hardly want to try them, let alone put them in their prisons. It's probably relevant to describe this whole situation, in the Presidency article of course. Grsz11 02:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, we do currently address it at Presidency, though it seems the section was edited to remove some of the content explaining the delay. I've restored the material, which was sourced to the same ref at the end of the paragraph that sources all the other material therein. I've also amended it to note that trials are now scheduled, some in military and others in civilian courts. Sharp trick that, removing the reasons for why something has been delayed and then trying to blame someone else for it. No wonder everyone from anons to admins are confused. Abrazame (talk) 10:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have replaced the paragraph in the Presidency article about the "reasons" with the following text to aid in resolving this. I tried my best to pare it down to the facts as we know them (via the RS) and keep it on Obama's presidency:
- Actually, we do currently address it at Presidency, though it seems the section was edited to remove some of the content explaining the delay. I've restored the material, which was sourced to the same ref at the end of the paragraph that sources all the other material therein. I've also amended it to note that trials are now scheduled, some in military and others in civilian courts. Sharp trick that, removing the reasons for why something has been delayed and then trying to blame someone else for it. No wonder everyone from anons to admins are confused. Abrazame (talk) 10:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- I would say that it goes to the person, not just the policy. However, I'm not inclined to argue about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- In two successive sentences you miss both the editorial and situational points. To the editorial: threshold for article inclusion isn't "no big deal". Encyclopedias are for big deals, the bigger the deal of the article subject the bigger the deal the threshold for inclusion. To the situational: "as soon as practicable" is now more relevant—not less so—than "one year from now". You do get that, right? One year wasn't practicable, but we're still moving toward the goal and the recent announcement of the trials is the most significant indicator of that? Abrazame (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- We could save space by cutting out "as soon as practicable". Just excess verbiage now.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- By November 2009, Obama stated that the US will miss the January 2010 deadline he set for closing the Guantanamo Bay prison, and acknowledged that he "knew this was going to be hard" as officials are trying to determine what to do with some 215 detainees still held at the US prison. While Obama did not set a specific new deadline for closing the camp, he said it would probably be later in 2010, citing that the delay was due to politics and lack of congressional cooperation.
- At the very least, I think we can agree that this belongs in the Presidency article and not here. I'd even go so far as to propose that the current text in this article be removed or pared down quite a bit for the reasons I stated above. QueenofBattle (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Obama has terminated the services of Greg Craig over this, signaling that it has been a significant failure. It is notable enough to include in the biography. I agree with 81's assessment that there is a tendency among certain editors to say "the good news should be included here, the bad news is somewhere else." Throwing out all negative information, no matter how notable, into child articles has been a notorious problem on this page. Remember WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- I am suggesting that we throw all the information, positive and negative, about this into the appropriate child article. This is a discussion about something that is happening during his presidency, and driven by decisions he has made as president. It is not the same as biographical information, which gets deposited in the BLPs. QueenofBattle (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Phoenix and Winslow, that is not what has been happening here. What's been happening is that some editors want to include negative material in the the Barack Obama article when it really belongs in the Presidency of Barack Obama article. Then other editors try to add balance to the entries and it becomes part of this article. Almost the whole entry under Barack_Obama#Presidency should be moved to Presidency of Barack Obama, except that it is already there. I don't think you are reading WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV correctly. Or at least not also considering other factors. DD2K (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree. Guantanamo Bay is Obama's signature issue. He campaigned on it. Within 24 hours of his inauguration he signed an executive order to close it within one year, and he did it with a fluorish and great media fanfare. This is his version of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. Perhaps he should have thought it through more carefully, and considered all of the pitfalls before making that commitment. He may not have already failed, but he knows he's going to fail and he's admitted it. Imagine how notable it would have been if, 10 months after making his proclamation, Lincoln had admitted that he wouldn't be able to free all the slaves! It would have been an enormous personal defeat. So is this.
- Obama's involvements with Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, William Ayers, Rod Blagojevich and ACORN have all been carefully reduced to a few words or confined to child articles, even though they have nothing to do with his presidency and (except for Blago) are clearly reflections of Obama as a person, rather than a politician. All are negatives. How do you explain this, if it hasn't been the practice here to throw all negatives into the child articles, and keep only the "good news"? Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with a lot of what you type. Namely, I think the BLP should include much more robust (or at least more balanced) discussions of Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, William Ayers, Rod Blagojevich and ACORN. But, Guantanamo Bay as Obama's signature issue?! Come on. I can think of several issues he is hyped up about before I think of Gitmo: The economy, change for change's sake, America's standing in the eyes of the world, Muslim/American relations, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, ethics in government, expensive universal healthcare, the BCS, etc., etc. QueenofBattle (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- On Day One of his presidency, why do you suppose he selected this particular issue to act on, over all the others? It was his signature issue during the campaign. At least, that's my impression. On Day One, he did not declare war on the recession, he did not declare that we would be out of Iraq in 16 months (as promised), he did not introduce a health care reform bill ... all of those issues had to wait. First things first. Actions speak louder than words. He chose to act on Gitmo (or at least declare that he would act) because that was his signature issue. If it was a minor issue, he wouldn't have fired Craig over it. Craig used to be a Clintonite: very, very loyal to the Clintons. Craig stabbed them in the back and went over to Obama's camp. This is how he's being treated, now that he's burned his bridges with the Clintons. It's very noteworthy. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- The fact that you are claiming that closing Gitmo is President Obama's "signature issue", comparing it with the Emancipation Proclamation(showing further that you are misinformed about that issue as well as Lincoln's "promise's), while also wanting more discussion about Wright, Rezko, Ayers and ACORN, shows that your goals seem to be very much in line with trying to POV push. DD2K (talk) 00:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Don't you think that's a rather dismissive way of putting it? Also, you are addressing P&W and it was QofB who made the Wright/Rezko/etc comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, first of all, that's incorrect. QoB responded to P&W's suggestions of adding more about those figures with a response that maybe they should be more robust or balanced. QoB did not make some pretty off base claims(Obama, Gitmo, Lincoln, Emanc.Proc.) and then suggest adding more about controversial figures from the 2008 primary/election. My own feelings on those figures are that most were used as a sort of 'guilt by association' smear campaign(most of which President Obama's main opponent refused to take part in, and WP:BLP shows we should be careful about using those type of associations. While I don't mean to be totally dismissive of other editors contributions, it's hard to WP:AGF here. DD2K (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Don't you think that's a rather dismissive way of putting it? Also, you are addressing P&W and it was QofB who made the Wright/Rezko/etc comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- The fact that you are claiming that closing Gitmo is President Obama's "signature issue", comparing it with the Emancipation Proclamation(showing further that you are misinformed about that issue as well as Lincoln's "promise's), while also wanting more discussion about Wright, Rezko, Ayers and ACORN, shows that your goals seem to be very much in line with trying to POV push. DD2K (talk) 00:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- On Day One of his presidency, why do you suppose he selected this particular issue to act on, over all the others? It was his signature issue during the campaign. At least, that's my impression. On Day One, he did not declare war on the recession, he did not declare that we would be out of Iraq in 16 months (as promised), he did not introduce a health care reform bill ... all of those issues had to wait. First things first. Actions speak louder than words. He chose to act on Gitmo (or at least declare that he would act) because that was his signature issue. If it was a minor issue, he wouldn't have fired Craig over it. Craig used to be a Clintonite: very, very loyal to the Clintons. Craig stabbed them in the back and went over to Obama's camp. This is how he's being treated, now that he's burned his bridges with the Clintons. It's very noteworthy. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) We have to alter the Guantanamo information. Currently, the First Days section says that he announced that the prison would be closed by a certain date. If no further mention is made, the reader will be given the mistaken impression that the intended January closing date will be met (and eventually, that it was met). We could remove the reference from Final Days, but as was pointed out above, it's in there now to indicate what matters he had chosen to give priority during his start. We need a sentence in the Foreign Policy or Iraq War sections along the lines of, "During a tour of Asia in November 2009, Obama announced that he would be unable to meet the January 2010 deadline for the closing of the Guantanamo Bay prison, which he had set on the first day of his presidency. The President cited technical, political and legal obstacles as the reason for the delay, and predicted that the final closure would come later in 2010." Okay, two sentences. It may seem like undue weight to some, but the President himself treated it as important, so we should, too. (Looking at the sentences, I recommend placing them at the end of the current Foreign policy section. CouldOughta (talk) 04:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- What about a footnote? I should add that I'm entirely an outside voice here, I came in when there was a call for neutral admins to monitor the article. Still, I see POV on both sides. It is POV to say ACORN/Adkins/whatever and it is POV to say yes, he said it then but we aren't actually at Jan 22 yet and it's Congress's fault. Suggest a compromise be found.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- The problem here is we have two sides: one side that sees political implications (per their own personal ideologies) that may have a huge impact on Obama and his future presidential re-elections (I.E. "look he can't keep his promises!") and the flip side who see the broader picture. This is the same argument that has arisen with the poll numbers, ACORN, etc. A foot note would be best, but I always advocate for a historic look and not rush to anything. Heck, if we wait instead of rushing to judgment, we may see this blow up in Obama's face and become the reason for his loosing the elections, this may work out with little fan fair and everything turned out all right, or it may be the leading cause to his re-election. Either way we don't know and cannot know per WP:CRYSTAL. So instead of jumping around saying "Look look he won't be able to keep his promise" we should instead wait until the event has come and gone, then report on it. By then we will have lots more information and also have much more of a view of how much of an impact it had on Obama. Brothejr (talk) 11:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, one side has personal ideologies, the other sees a broader picture, and presumably lacks personal ideologies? How idealistic. No, it is not quite the same as ACORN. ACORN, the argument was for inclusion of information that was not already there in the article. Here, it is for updating something already there. If Obama's Gitmo pledge is not important enough to be updated, I respectfully suggest we strike it from the article. Incidentally, I'm not going to go and find the diff that the Gitmo closure was added to the article, but it was in January, a quick search shows that. Historic view? We also have the Health Care bill passing one House of Congress in the article, the equivalent of one hand clapping. Historic view? I await with bated breath your deleting, to start with, the health care passage "until the event has come and gone, then report on it. By then we will have lots more information and also have much more of a view of how much of an impact it had on Obama." Be bold.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- (Ignoring sarcastic remarks) The Gitmo pledge in the article is fine, but as of right now he has not failed to keep that pledge. He only said he might not be able to keep the pledge. However, after the date has come and gone and the pledge was broken, then yes include it, not before per WP:CRYSTAL. I'm not sure how the health care debate has any impact or was brought up here in this section on Gitmo? However, using historic view would mean waiting until there is a bill passed or if it is defeated. Then we would report that it passed or defeated and report the impact it had on Obama's presidency. This is the same issue as ACORN in that it is mainly a political issue and the politics of the day. It has to do with "We must get as much dirt on him and tie as many scandals or supposed scandals around his neck" attitude. If you remove the heated politics of the day, then the issue carries less weight and does not merit inclusion in this article. It's all about politics of the day (I.E. ideologies) and if you remove them then the issue looses weight. Brothejr (talk) 12:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- You said, "He only said he might not be able to keep the pledge." Wrong. He said he WILL not be able to keep the pledge. A significant difference. It may reasonably be argued, that since nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize closed about a week after he was inaugurated, it was this pledge that won him the Nobel Peace Prize. Regarding any WP:NOTNEWS complaints, the facts of Obama's election and inauguration were reported here instantly. Commentary about other editors' motives might as well be directed at your own. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- It's not sarcasm. As for WP:CRYSTAL, I'd respectfully suggest it doesn't apply. If a spaceship is sent to Neptune and it doesn't make it past Mars and is drifting out there, must we wait until nonarrival at Neptune to report it? Obama has stated that the camp will not be closed in that time frame. Stretching back into the law school days, I remember a concept, I think called anticipatory repudiation which says that if one party says a contract will not be completed, the other side can sue based on that and does not have to wait until the technical noncompletion. I'm not comparing what Obama said with a contract, I'm simply saying that announcing it will not be fulfilled relieves us of any need to wait until Jan 22 As for the health care thing I am suggesting that by the same logic applied by you, that no "progress report" such as passage by the House should be in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Wehwalt, although I do see the point being made about mentioning the fact that President Obama will not meet the self-imposed deadline of January 22nd, 2010, your analogy is a poor one. The 'spaceship' is not 'drifting out there' it's still on it's way to Neptune and almost every aspect of the flight plan is still in place. Although it's delayed. While mentioning that the date will probably be delayed, it's absolutely absurd and shows an obvious WP:POV comparing the delay to Lincoln not freeing the slaves and claiming it's a 'failure'. If one has even the slightest inclination of how Washington D.C. works, arguing about how many detainees go to Illinois or about how many go to Michigan, is not a 'failure', but part of the process. So if Gitmo is closed on February 12th, or March 13, instead of January 22nd, the deadline wasn't met but the promise was fulfilled. Anything else is just WP:POV. DD2K (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- (Ignoring sarcastic remarks) The Gitmo pledge in the article is fine, but as of right now he has not failed to keep that pledge. He only said he might not be able to keep the pledge. However, after the date has come and gone and the pledge was broken, then yes include it, not before per WP:CRYSTAL. I'm not sure how the health care debate has any impact or was brought up here in this section on Gitmo? However, using historic view would mean waiting until there is a bill passed or if it is defeated. Then we would report that it passed or defeated and report the impact it had on Obama's presidency. This is the same issue as ACORN in that it is mainly a political issue and the politics of the day. It has to do with "We must get as much dirt on him and tie as many scandals or supposed scandals around his neck" attitude. If you remove the heated politics of the day, then the issue carries less weight and does not merit inclusion in this article. It's all about politics of the day (I.E. ideologies) and if you remove them then the issue looses weight. Brothejr (talk) 12:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, one side has personal ideologies, the other sees a broader picture, and presumably lacks personal ideologies? How idealistic. No, it is not quite the same as ACORN. ACORN, the argument was for inclusion of information that was not already there in the article. Here, it is for updating something already there. If Obama's Gitmo pledge is not important enough to be updated, I respectfully suggest we strike it from the article. Incidentally, I'm not going to go and find the diff that the Gitmo closure was added to the article, but it was in January, a quick search shows that. Historic view? We also have the Health Care bill passing one House of Congress in the article, the equivalent of one hand clapping. Historic view? I await with bated breath your deleting, to start with, the health care passage "until the event has come and gone, then report on it. By then we will have lots more information and also have much more of a view of how much of an impact it had on Obama." Be bold.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- The problem here is we have two sides: one side that sees political implications (per their own personal ideologies) that may have a huge impact on Obama and his future presidential re-elections (I.E. "look he can't keep his promises!") and the flip side who see the broader picture. This is the same argument that has arisen with the poll numbers, ACORN, etc. A foot note would be best, but I always advocate for a historic look and not rush to anything. Heck, if we wait instead of rushing to judgment, we may see this blow up in Obama's face and become the reason for his loosing the elections, this may work out with little fan fair and everything turned out all right, or it may be the leading cause to his re-election. Either way we don't know and cannot know per WP:CRYSTAL. So instead of jumping around saying "Look look he won't be able to keep his promise" we should instead wait until the event has come and gone, then report on it. By then we will have lots more information and also have much more of a view of how much of an impact it had on Obama. Brothejr (talk) 11:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sending a spaceship to Neptune generally involves bouncing it off the gravity wells of several planets, so if it isn't making it past Mars, it isn't in position of the next richochet shot. By your logic, Neville Chamberlain was quite correct with "peace for our time" (my current project, btw), our time is not yet come. But it may come someday ...--Wehwalt (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Collecting some arguments from one side:
- "Maybe this is relevant to the Presidency of Barack Obama..." User:QueenofBattle
- "it's not relevant to an encyclopedia that is based on the past and not the future..." User:Abrazame
- "I'd even go so far as to propose that the current text in this article be removed..." User:QueenofBattle
- "What about a footnote?" User:Wehwalt
- "Heck, if we wait instead of rushing to judgment..." User:Brothejr
So hide this new information or even delete the whole sentence about Guantanamo from the main article to avoid the inclusion of the bad news. Or make an unvisible footnote by one point of lettersize. Or wait.
And what happened? Nothing. There is no change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.246.182 (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I've made suggestions, but even though I'm an admin, I'm just another editor when it comes to consensus and there is not consensus for what I've proposed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
There seems no reason to wait until the deadline expires, since Obama has said clearly that the deadline will not be met. Eventually the deadline will pass and we'll probably update the text, as appropriate, to say that the date passed as predicted. A footnote next to the appropriate sentence in the First Days would work in most contexts but not here; most readers would assume it's a source reference rather than an explanation. The language I proposed above is clear, nonjudgmental (for example, says "announced" rather than "admitted"), and leaves in place the First Days' mention of Obama's original deadline, which is there now because it was the consensus that it merited inclusion in this article. CouldOughta (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Economic growth and stimulus
Vis-a-vis this edit[1] I do not wish to edit war, but it takes things in the wrong direction to remove a reliably sourced (and rather obvious) statement that a consensus among economists believe that the federal stimulus contributed to the short-term economic growth numbers, in favor of a statement cited directly to the opinion piece in question that a certain "award-winning" (an unencyclopedic descriptor) economist believes it did. Why should we care what one particular economist thinks instead of any other? The point is that the stimulus, a program backed by Obama, contributed to economic growth. This is an article about the president and to a lesser extent his policies, not about what individual economists have to say. We could simply say that the stimulus stimulated growth, something obvious that many reliable sources simply say directly. The stronger claim that the stimulus caused the end of the recession is widely believed, but less widely so, and therefore it's better to go with the more modest claim that a consensus of economists (per the UPI source) believe the stimulus had an effect. We can probably find other reliable sources that cite polls of different groups of economists as well, if additional sourcing is necessary. It's pretty important to say that the stimulus created short-term growth, because without that the comments about the "double-dip" concerns over deficit spending don't have any context. The issue here is balancing the short-term stimulus of increased deficit spending versus medium and longer-term economic results, first of ending the stimulus program and later of the accumulated debt and its effect on credit markets. Anyway, we need some way to characterize the effects of the stimulus if we're going to say anything. Quoting one economist doesn't show much; quoting multiple economists is overkill and still doesn't prove anything. Words like "some", or "many" are weasel-words. So we need some way to characterize the prevailing / majority opinion. "Most" may overstate things, or maybe not. "Consensus" is sourced, and about as good as it gets. I note also that User:ThinkEnemies is correct to use the revised 2.8% figure instead of the initial 3.5% figure for 3Q economic growth. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps I shouldn't have given so much weight to Paul Krugman's opinion. My intention was just to correct the third quarter growth, I saw the consensus claim and attempted to fix what was seemingly an absurd statement. Economists cannot find consensus on what bought us out of the Great Depression, let alone the effects of Obama's stimulus, or Bush's TARP. This is where the consensus claim originated: New Consensus Sees Stimulus Package as Worthy Step. I'm sure we can use this article, the trick is to do it, NPOV. ThinkEnemies (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Is your objection specifically to the word "consensus"? I think you're right that the news articles (though reliable sources as such) are using the word to announce something that doesn't happen, economists agreeing on things. Maybe they're struggling with the same thing we are here. It's obvious that most economists in one way or another credit the additional spending stimulus package with being a net upward influence on the short-term economics numbers. Whether that gives the package "credit" for ending the recession may be a different story. We could say something like "various economists" (?) have opined that the stimulus package resulted in short-term improvement in the economic growth numbers, and then cite Krugman and a few others. Then go on to say (as we do now) that Obama (and others?) have voiced concerns that too much stimulus can have negative effects such as causing a slide back into recession or long-term drag on growth. Is there a good way to say this? - Wikidemon (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, if feel that "consensus" would be an inaccurate description. I agree with your proposals, I'm not sure we should into get detail in this BLP. Maybe the Presidency of Barack Obama article would be a better location. For now, I'll get rid of Krugman and change to the NYT reference, replace "helping the economy emerge from a recession" with your edit "helped create economic growth," and go from there. ThinkEnemies (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- These edits look good.[2] Thanks for discussing. I think this little section ended up stronger than either of our initial efforts! - Wikidemon (talk) 03:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, if feel that "consensus" would be an inaccurate description. I agree with your proposals, I'm not sure we should into get detail in this BLP. Maybe the Presidency of Barack Obama article would be a better location. For now, I'll get rid of Krugman and change to the NYT reference, replace "helping the economy emerge from a recession" with your edit "helped create economic growth," and go from there. ThinkEnemies (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Is your objection specifically to the word "consensus"? I think you're right that the news articles (though reliable sources as such) are using the word to announce something that doesn't happen, economists agreeing on things. Maybe they're struggling with the same thing we are here. It's obvious that most economists in one way or another credit the additional spending stimulus package with being a net upward influence on the short-term economics numbers. Whether that gives the package "credit" for ending the recession may be a different story. We could say something like "various economists" (?) have opined that the stimulus package resulted in short-term improvement in the economic growth numbers, and then cite Krugman and a few others. Then go on to say (as we do now) that Obama (and others?) have voiced concerns that too much stimulus can have negative effects such as causing a slide back into recession or long-term drag on growth. Is there a good way to say this? - Wikidemon (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Obama's first state dinner's crashed
| Closed - Editor blocked for WP:3RR, misuse of multiple IPs for block evasion |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Add: "It's not clear if the pins on the man's tuxedo actually are official, but his presence at President Obama's first state dinner wasn't, and neither was his wife's." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.150.120 (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
|
10,000 additional troops to Afghanistan
| Closed - Editor blocked for WP:3RR, misuse of multiple IPs for block evasion |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Possibly add: The Nobel Peace Prize winner Obama seeks 10,000 additional troops for Afghan war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.146.208 (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I know the anon is soapboxing, but the question "How many Nobel Peace Prize winner asked more troops for a war?" seemed minorly interesting. Off the top of my head, I can think of: Al Gore; Shimon Peres; Yitzhak Rabin; Frederik Willem de Klerk; Menachem Begin; Mohamed Anwar Al-Sadat; Lê Ðức Thọ; Henry Kissinger; Cordell Hull. There might be others who fit the affirmative answer though. LotLE×talk 22:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
|
Obama Job Approval Down to 49%
| Wikipedia doesn't track daily vagaries in politicians' approval ratings. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
read: http://www.gallup.com/poll/122627/Obama-Job-Approval-Down-49.aspx "The latest Gallup Daily tracking results show 49% of Americans approving of the job Barack Obama is doing as president, putting him below the majority approval level for the first time in his presidency." Quite remarkable to mention it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.244.34 (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) The steep nose dive in Obama's job approval ratings is notable. It has declined from 70% to 48% in Obama's first 10 months according to Gallup, a very reliable polling group, and has been confirmed in several other polls. This is faster than any other president in recent history. I believe it is notable enough to mention in his biography. Judging from the number of Google News hits, it's very notable. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
(Resetting indent) A couple of things... First, you appear to be suggesting that we should track Obama's daily approval ratings. That's not what an encyclopedia is for, and this is certainly not the right article for anything like that. Just because Gallup has recorded approval ratings for Obama doesn't mean 1) that they particularly impact his life (remember, this is a BLP) or 2), that they're particularly notable, when they're still in high territory, above his disapproval ratings. So Gallup (and, like I pointed out, Washington Post) have had blips. So what? They've been holding steady (with statistically insignificant variation) for three months now - see http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html. If there was a serious dip that affected him directly, such as the one into the 20s George W. Bush suffered near the end of his presidency, that might arguably be worth mentioning in his BLP. As is, his approvals remain higher than his disapprovals, and remain steady. They don't appear to have affected him personally or politically. --GoodDamon 23:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC) And now I see today Gallup has Obama's favorable rating up again. Yet somehow, no one's suggesting that this absolutely, positively must go into the article. I'm gonna go ahead and close this as resolved. --GoodDamon 23:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC) |
Protection
| article is already semi-protected due to vandalism |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
There should be more protection on it to help provent vadlism! [[User:wikigoogleplex|="brown"|wikigoogleplex —Preceding undated comment added 02:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC).
|
Recent Afghanistan speech
Are people planning on creating a subarticle on this? If so where is the article being worked on? Remember (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- I would think it would belong in the article on the Presidency of Barack Obama. This is a biographical article, and more time will need to pass before we know the biographical legacy on Barack Obama's life. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- We should at least briefly mention it in the "War in Afghanistan" section of this article. Nothing wordy, just that on December 1, 2009, he announced that he would send 30,000 more troops over to Afghanistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.160.56.132 (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with OuroborosCobra, Presidency of Barack Obama is where it should be mentioned. 24.12.93.206 (talk) 23:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, we really need to resist dumping everything that happens while the man is president into his BLP. QueenofBattle (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- To keep our 1:5 ratio of substantive, straightforward responses at this page, I'd note that User:Remember was not suggesting it be added to this article, and tell him that it's my guess from these responses (and no others) that no editor active at this page is working on one. You would be welcome to try your hand at creating one yourself if you'd like. It may prove useful in determining what, if anything, to distill about the speech and/or reaction to it to the Presidency or Public image articles. Good luck. Abrazame (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, we really need to resist dumping everything that happens while the man is president into his BLP. QueenofBattle (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
img not showing up?
Is it just me or is the image under the "Presidency" section not showing up? (File:US_President_Barack_Obama_taking_his_Oath_of_Office_-_2009Jan20.jpg) Despite the code appearing correct the thumbnail image is not being generated. [[File:US President Barack Obama taking his Oath of Office - 2009Jan20.jpg|thumb|right|Barack Obama takes the [[oath of office]] of the president of the United States.]]
I already refreshed the page but no image...It only seems to show up when I specify the image size right after the file name.
-- GateKeeper (talk) @ 08:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- I see that image in the Presidency section fine, at the appropriate size. Can anybody explain why this user is having this trouble? Abrazame (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Is the right chart filled out currectly?
| Banned user |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
It says [3] next to "christian" for his religon which should not be mentioned... if it should be mentioned I doubt that's accurate and I don't see anything about how he got to be Senator of Ilinois. he was not native to that state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B.o.isdevil (talk • contribs) 18:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
|
Afghanistan
Starting a new section though there is a similar one above. Obviously we currently have a section on Afghanistan, but it is now outdated given recent events. The speech last week was by far his most important statement to date, and discussing the newest strategy is a bigger deal then mentioning the fact that McChrystal replaced McKiernan. I don't think we should necessarily expand that section (or only expand it slightly), but rather condense what we have now and then update the situation, probably using some of the basics here and elsewhere (I'm not sure which sub-article, if any, in the "Obama series" has the latest info on the war in Afghanistan).
Are there any objections to me working on some revisions along these lines? I'm not trying to import every detail from his presidency into his bio article, but since we already talk about Afghanistan and would at least behoove us to keep the information current. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- No objections by me. I believe it's a good idea to update the main page with a mention that the POTUS gave a significant speech on the war and is sending X amount of new troops.
- Although most of the new information should go into the Presidency_of_Barack_Obama article, there should definitely be a mention here too. DD2K (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Considering that it does represent a major policy decision, and possibly his most significant action regarding Afghanistan to date in his presidency, I would support revising the section. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
why isnt obama being the FIRST president to use a teleprompter not their? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gofrog1 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well first, this comment doesn't belong here. Secondly, President Obama is not the first President to use a teleprompter, Dwight D. Eisenhower was. Truman could have been the first, but declined to use one. Every other President after Eisenhower used one at one time or the other. President Reagan used a teleprompter almost exclusively:
- Also, the main reason President's like Reagan and Obama use a teleprompter is because they are good at it and it's more comfortable for them to use than the index cards that were used before(and still in some cases). I hope that answers your seemingly innocent question. DD2K (talk) 01:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Getting back to Afghanistan, I recommend keeping the addition to the Afghan war section short, as for example, adding these two sentences to the end of the current last paragraph: "McChrystal requested still more reinforcements in a report submitted the following August. After an extensive policy review, Obama announced in a speech at West Point that he would send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops, with the expectation that troop levels could be reduced again after 18 months." I think that covers the vital points: the source of the request, the fact that there was a substantial review, the notable venue for the announcement, and the idea that Obama views it as a temporary increase. We could give the duration of the review, since it was much remarked upon, but I think it's a little too minor for inclusion. At first I thought we'd need to say that McChrystal was implementing a counterinsurgency plan, but on review I think it's already implied by the earlier mention that McChrystal was chosen because his background made him a good choice to implement a counterinsurgency strategy. We might soon want to add a short sentence on the debate that accompanies the congressional financial authorization, if enough Democrats oppose and Republicans support to make the party reversal notable. CouldOughta (talk) 04:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
First Nobel peace prize winner who leads two wars
| This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Please add this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.47.238 (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
(<-) WP:DNFTT - WP:SOAPBOXing editor previously blocked for WP:3RR, misuse of multiple IPs for block evasion, as documented here --4wajzkd02 (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC) |
Attempts on life?
Nothing is said on the attempts on his life of which there were allegedly four. Kind of useful information considering that he is the prez 99.236.221.124 (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
See the articles 2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Denver and Tennessee.--JayJasper (talk) 05:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
- The IP referred to "allegedly four" attempts. Were there more than two documented? --4wajzkd02 (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Featured Article?
Obama has been President of the United States for 10 months only. For those of you who don't know, that's less than one year. As to why this is a featured article, while President George Bush's isn't, I have no clue. He hasn't done enough noteworthy things in his life to make this one of "Wikipedia's best articles". The man isn't even a year into his presidency yet! His life before his presidency is uneventful. In addition to all of that, much of this page demonstrates Wikipedia's major flaw of bias opinions in articles. Within the "Economic Management" section, it says "Various economists have credited the stimulus package with helping to create economic growth", and while it mentions the opinions of possibly only a few individuals, it mentions nothing about any opposing arguments made from any credible sources. This article is about a less-than-noteworthy individual to be a featured article and also fails to completely Wikipedia standards. i do not feel it should be a featured article and think that the star in the upper right hand corner should be removed. --Stevedietrich (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- This has been a featured article since well before he ran for president. "Featured Article" status is not a way of conferring an honor upon the subject of an article. Rather, it is a way of recognizing articles that are well-written and meet certain criteria for quality on Wikipedia. I'm really not sure I would call the President of the United States "less than noteworthy" but it doesn't really matter. Far less well-known subjects also have featured articles written about them. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- (after edit conflict) Featured Articles are those that have appeared on the front page of Wikipedia, and have if necessary survived a review process to ensure that they are still of sufficient quality. The assessment is based on the quality of the article and, sometimes, interest to a general audience. They are not rewards to the article subject nor are they based in the case of people on their amount of experience or whether they deserve it. We can't go back in time to change history - the article was on the front page so it is a featured article. Why would you think that having Obama as a featured article would mean we should have Bush as opposed to, say, the Prime Minister of England or premier of some other country? They definitely are not tit-for-tat matters where featuring a thing of one persuasion necessitates featuring another for balance - although I'll note that on election day 2008 Obama's and John McCain's articles were both featured, a huge effort in terms of editing time and as far as I know a first for Wikipedia. If you want to know the process by which this became a featured article - twice - you can follow the links relating to the featured article nominations and reviews. If you have a specific suggestion for the economics section feel free to propose it but, again, "balance" is not really a goal here. It is to present the prevailing viewpoints and any significant minorities. Most, perhaps nearly all, economists would say that an economic stimulus of federal deficit spending does exactly that - it creates a short term stimulus to the economy. One of the cites I believe describes a "consensus" among economists, although if you read the sections immediately above this one there was a reasonable objection to using the word "consensus" even though the source said so. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Today's Featured Article is on Henry Wells (general). I'm not sure whom we need to feature as the tit-for-tat pair to Wells :-) (it indeed looks like a nice article, FWIW, of someone I had not myself heard of before today). LotLE×talk 22:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I understand. Thank you for explaining this to me. However I think in response to the economy, that opposing views should be expressed right next to the supporting views, because balance I believe IS ESSENTIAL to a good, and certainly a featured Wikipedia page, or else the article becomes biased. If it only shows one side of the argument, then readers new to the subject may not even know objection exists, technically speaking. It is our jobs as contributors to Wikipedia to present facts and to give a reader understanding of a topic. I understand now why the article is Featured.--Stevedietrich (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Balance does not mean that "the good" must be equally weighted by "the bad". Please familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV. Tarc (talk) 13:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
"The man isn't even a year into his presidency yet!" - This statement indicates that only through a significant time period, in office, he can truly succeed. The truth is, this man has already won the nobel peace prize for his incredible efforts, both nationally and internationally. He has also, might i add, lived a very full and debated life before coming to his current position. If you think that people are only noteworthy when they have spent a reasonable time in office, then think again. This man has already a lot more to say for both his life, and presidency, than George bush. The fact is, this brilliant wikipedia article reflects his life fully. Stakingsin (talk) 13:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
"this man has already won the nobel peace prize for his incredible efforts" -- Are you serious? "This man" himself said he has not earned this honor. While I agree with you that Barack is certainly noteworthy, I can not see how ANYONE could see the award as anything but a political statement by a small liberal-leaning group. And to say that this article with WP restrictions and limited space "reflects his life fully" is just a ludicrous. Codron (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
First African-American President?
It is not definitively known who was the first African-American president, and evidence exists that other presidents besides Obama may have had African American ancestry. Evidence is particularly strong for Warren G. Harding, who in some reports is stated as saying he himself had no idea whether or he was of African American ancestry. The Harding case has been studied extensively in academia, and through genealogical reports there is a very strong case to be made that Harding may indeed be the first african american president. As such i believe that the sentence stating that barak obama is the first african american president be changed to either state that he is possibly the first african american president rather than the definitive statement that is currently in the article. I had previously changed this and added a footnote from a reliable academic source from yale. The change would only add one word of prose to the text, and would allow this article to conform with the Warren G. Harding article which states (and has so for quite some time) that President Harding could possibly be the first African American president.XavierGreen (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Obama is credited by the vast majority of sources to be the first African-American president. Obscure, speculative, or technical arguments to the contrary aren't enough for Wikipedia to go against the grain on this. Race is a socially constructed concept, albeit with some roots in ancestory, appearance, genetics, ethnicity, etc. Harding did not self-identify and was not perceived by others as African-American during his lifetime - in fact, he denied it and the only public proponent of the notion was a racist antagonist who dug up old family rumors and scandals that Harding wanted suppressed. The question is not whether there is a traceable tie to an ancestor from Africa. We all have African ancestry. But in this case there is very little dispute that Obama is African-American, and very little acceptance now or during his lifetime that Harding was. The source in the Harding article says that if it had been revealed that Harding had an African ancestor, then the whites of America would have rejected him as black according to the [racist] one-drop rule at the time. Those two qualifications are important. He never was revealed to be black so it's all a contingent argument, and if he had been it would have been according to the standards of the time, not today's standards. By today's evidence and standards, Obama is African-American and Harding was not. All of this could make an interesting footnote to the Obama article, akin to the New York Times piece on the subject, but the article is too long to get into tidbits. Once we get into ancestry and genealogy, Obama is related to Dick Cheney and the British royal family. We could devote entire articles to distant relations. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Wikidemon is absolutely right. People thought of him as being a White person. Even if there were Blacks/African-Americans in his family tree, that wouldn't make him Black/African-American. Barack Obama is the first Black/African-American President. Harding shouldn't be able to get that honor based on a technicality. SMP0328. (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree totally with Wikidemon. The only 'evidence' that Harding had African ancestry is from his political opponents that tried to pin the label on his for political reasons and as a derogatory hit piece. According to the theory of evolution, we all came from Africa. Small technicalities that have no basis in fact don't belong in a WP:BLP. There is no concrete proof. In fact, the innuendo is flimsy at best. DD2K (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- There were allegations that the Harding family had African American ancestry before Warren G. Harding was even born. This is not an issue of race, it is an issue of origin. You have confused race with origin. It is possible to be an African-American and not see oneself as being black. The term African-American does not constru self identified race. The wikipedia definition of African American states "In the United States, the terms are generally used for Americans with at least partial Sub-Saharan African ancestry." Had the article stated that Barack Obama was the first black president i would not have brought the arguement up, however it states that he is the first African-American president. I do not advocate removing the sentence, only to insert the word possibly as there is still doubt from reliable academia. As for the arguement that Obama should not be denied the honor of being black, i think that would be a unsourcable matter of opinion.XavierGreen (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- As per Wikipedia:BLP the entire sentance would have to be removed, as there is no way to identify whether or not Barak Obama was indeed the first African American president.XavierGreen (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- The keyword there is "allegations"; we're talking about a period of history where accusing someone of having "Negro blood" was a serious slur. There is little to substantiates these things about past presidents, none of whom was ever widely described as being anything but Caucasian. We're not about to insert dubious qualifiers like "probably" into this article. Tarc (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- That Obama is the first African-American president is verified by the vast majority of reliable sources. There's no mistake about the term - African American, which in American discourse is more or less synonymous with black, refers to race as socially constructed, a blend of self and external identification, not distant or speculative ancestry. At any rate, the job of the encyclopedia is to report what the sources say (that Obama is the first AA president) and then if necessary explain that for the reader, not to decide on our own definitions in advance then try to fit the facts into them. It is an interesting historical footnote, and would make an interesting footnote here, to say something like "Although Obama is the first president known to be of recent black African ancestry, and the first to be acknowledged generally as African-American, there were allegations made during the lifetime of a former president, Warren Harding, that Harding's great-grandmother was black." However, there are very few sources for this historical curiosity, and not enough as a WP:WEIGHT matter for Wikipedia to go against the grain of the sources. That may be useful in a different article. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- I did not make up this definition i am espousing, it is present on the African-American page, it is not synonymous with the term black. The term African-American refers to ethnicity similar to German-American or Mexican-American, whilst the term black refers to race such as white or latino do. Not all of the sources state Obama is the first african-american president. There are even books on the subject that state he is not. I do agree that there is a signifigant difference between Obama and Harding, so would adding the word self-identified with a footnote be a more acceptable solution? The statement currenty in the text does not comform toWikipedia:BLP as it cannot be completely verified because there are sources stating to the contrary. As for weight, there are dozens of sources which suggest that Harding is of African-American ancestry. There are sources from Yale University stating this. Now if you don't regard that as a reputable source what do you?XavierGreen (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- The question of BLP violations, and removing the statement that Obama is the first African American president, are red herrings and don't bear further discussion, at least not from me. We have broad consensus to the point of adding a FAQ (see #2, above), and the overwhelming weight of the sources. As far as I know there are no reliable sources that say Obama is not the first AA president on account of there being an AA before him, and scant few that claim that he isn't AA because of some different version of AA. Regarding whether Harding is worth a footnote or parenthetical comment here, I haven't seen many sources that mention the theories regarding Harding's ancestry in the context of Obama (sources that discuss Harding outside of the context of Obama are impertinent, because describing them in the article would constitute WP:SYNTH). A few sources, even a few thousand, does not establish much weight next to the hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions that describe Obama as the first AA president. I think we've laid out our positions, and my opinion is as I said that it's interesting but not substantial enough to be worth a mention here. You're welcome to try to gain consensus and if the balance of other editors here thought it is worth mentioning I would defer to that. But it seems a long shot. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- German Americans are Americans of German descent, not persons born in Germany. I doubt that a discussion that has lasted only 6 hours could be considered to have reached consensus. As for a reliable source, Harding himself stated that he did not know if he was of African-American decent or not, and left the possibility open. See http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/question/nov08/. Another possible solution that would allievate my concerns, would be to change the word African-American to black and add a footnote about Harding. That change would seem to be acceptable since you believe the two words are one and the same.XavierGreen (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- As for FAQ#2 it does not address my concerns as i am not putting forth the arguement that Obama is not an African American, which is the scope of that faq.XavierGreen (talk) 22:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- The overwhelming consensus, and reliable sourcing, indicate Barack Obama is the first African American President. There would have to be at least some sort of reliable information to even consider changing the lede. There is not, it's all speculation and innuendos, and there is no possible way that it will be or should be changed. We are not going to change the wording on the fact that Obama is the first AA President because of some accusations made towards Harding or his family. That should be the end of this. No criteria for change.DD2K (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- The question of BLP violations, and removing the statement that Obama is the first African American president, are red herrings and don't bear further discussion, at least not from me. We have broad consensus to the point of adding a FAQ (see #2, above), and the overwhelming weight of the sources. As far as I know there are no reliable sources that say Obama is not the first AA president on account of there being an AA before him, and scant few that claim that he isn't AA because of some different version of AA. Regarding whether Harding is worth a footnote or parenthetical comment here, I haven't seen many sources that mention the theories regarding Harding's ancestry in the context of Obama (sources that discuss Harding outside of the context of Obama are impertinent, because describing them in the article would constitute WP:SYNTH). A few sources, even a few thousand, does not establish much weight next to the hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions that describe Obama as the first AA president. I think we've laid out our positions, and my opinion is as I said that it's interesting but not substantial enough to be worth a mention here. You're welcome to try to gain consensus and if the balance of other editors here thought it is worth mentioning I would defer to that. But it seems a long shot. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- I did not make up this definition i am espousing, it is present on the African-American page, it is not synonymous with the term black. The term African-American refers to ethnicity similar to German-American or Mexican-American, whilst the term black refers to race such as white or latino do. Not all of the sources state Obama is the first african-american president. There are even books on the subject that state he is not. I do agree that there is a signifigant difference between Obama and Harding, so would adding the word self-identified with a footnote be a more acceptable solution? The statement currenty in the text does not comform toWikipedia:BLP as it cannot be completely verified because there are sources stating to the contrary. As for weight, there are dozens of sources which suggest that Harding is of African-American ancestry. There are sources from Yale University stating this. Now if you don't regard that as a reputable source what do you?XavierGreen (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- That Obama is the first African-American president is verified by the vast majority of reliable sources. There's no mistake about the term - African American, which in American discourse is more or less synonymous with black, refers to race as socially constructed, a blend of self and external identification, not distant or speculative ancestry. At any rate, the job of the encyclopedia is to report what the sources say (that Obama is the first AA president) and then if necessary explain that for the reader, not to decide on our own definitions in advance then try to fit the facts into them. It is an interesting historical footnote, and would make an interesting footnote here, to say something like "Although Obama is the first president known to be of recent black African ancestry, and the first to be acknowledged generally as African-American, there were allegations made during the lifetime of a former president, Warren Harding, that Harding's great-grandmother was black." However, there are very few sources for this historical curiosity, and not enough as a WP:WEIGHT matter for Wikipedia to go against the grain of the sources. That may be useful in a different article. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- The keyword there is "allegations"; we're talking about a period of history where accusing someone of having "Negro blood" was a serious slur. There is little to substantiates these things about past presidents, none of whom was ever widely described as being anything but Caucasian. We're not about to insert dubious qualifiers like "probably" into this article. Tarc (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
(<-)As te editor that reverted XavierGreen's addition on this topic, I agree with those that oppose the addition (everyone else who has commented, so far). --4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
*Digging even a little further into this, I see that this has been removed numerous times from the Warren G. Harding article, and it doesn't belong even there. Wikipedia editor Stude62 provides a long explanation why this does not belong on Wikipedia, and then again here.
*Hardings ancestry is listed here, and there is nothing there about any African American ancestors. This addition is nothing but innuendos and accusations to this portion of Harding's life. This not only doesn't belong in the Barack Obama article, it doesn't belong in the Warren G. Harding article(except for mentioning that it was a racial attack made by Harding's opponents), and surely doesn't belong in the List of African American firsts as this same editor inserted here. Someone should contact an admin and have these removed. Giving a NYT link that discusses the issue but provides no proof means nothing. The same with claiming that Yale is a reliable source. Neither pieces prove anything and there is nothing to the pieces but accusations made by other people. DD2K (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- What about the words spoken by President Harding himself? The source you cited for his ancestry is not complete, nor does Ancestry.com regulary state the ethnicity of anyone. Such a presumtion that it infers anything would be synthesis. I did not edit the Warren Harding article to state what is there currently, someone else did and i would not have used the source they suggested as there are more reputable sources such as the one i presented earlier. I do believe it belongs somewhere, and if i am turned down here that does not mean that it should not be listed on the African American firsts page.XavierGreen (talk) 05:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think we need to erase history here, certainly Obama can stand up for himself BLP-wise. That Harding was accused of being of African descent (by a racist, but not without some basis, and without insinuating that African ancestry is anything to be disparaged) is certainly true. Perhaps he was. That is information of an encyclopedic nature. The issue, I think, is where to put it and how to describe it. I have been advocating that this main article about Obama is not the best place. That doesn't mean we should ignore it though. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- His own words? You mean when he said "how do I do" or something like that, when asked if one of his ancestors ever 'jumped the fence'? That's your proof? Listen, 75 years from now if some editor tries to edit the Barack Obama article with notes from the Jerome Corsi book to claim Obama was the first Kenyan born American President, there would be the same reaction. You can't use cited text from a political attack book, with no basis in mainstream reality, to make claims on Wikipedia. Where it should be mentioned is the Warren G Harding article, and only there as a political attack. There is absolutely no basis in fact for these claims. DD2K (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
- What about the words spoken by President Harding himself? The source you cited for his ancestry is not complete, nor does Ancestry.com regulary state the ethnicity of anyone. Such a presumtion that it infers anything would be synthesis. I did not edit the Warren Harding article to state what is there currently, someone else did and i would not have used the source they suggested as there are more reputable sources such as the one i presented earlier. I do believe it belongs somewhere, and if i am turned down here that does not mean that it should not be listed on the African American firsts page.XavierGreen (talk) 05:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
His former pastor/alias
| Answered, no reason to leave thread open. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Why isn't his former anti americain pastor mentioned in his page. He called this man his mentor and a mentor is one who helps create a man. Also why isn't his alias mentioned in the page. Barry Sotto or however it was spelled. These are signs of the liberal bias that is always be thrown at wikipedia. If you wish to be taken serious then include the bad with the good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.101.172.61 (talk) 04:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Often in wikipedia, a persons mentor is mentioned in their bio. By hiding his, we are covering up Barracks influences in his life. Also my mention of Barry Sotto has nothing to do with his citizenship. I just think its important to name a persons AKA's in their bio. Example my name is Daniel but I have been known as Danny. Therefore if I had a wiki bio I would want that included. Barrack Bio should include his also known as. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.101.172.61 (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
|
Compromise
Since there seems to be little support besides my own views in regards to adding a footnote stating that harding could possibly be the first african american president, id be willing to comprimise. If no one comments anything further for inclusion of the footnote on this page in the next two days than i would be willing to let the issue go and support including the information on the African American firsts page as there was support from another editor on that page for the footnotes inclusion there. Consensus seems to be that it should be included somewhere, and that seems like it might be an appropriate place to put it.XavierGreen (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- You cannot develop consensus here to put something in a specific other place; all that can be done effectively is determine that here is not the appropriate place. If you wish to place something on another page - one that will surely have the same sourcing and consensus requirements as this page does - you'll have to take it up at that page. But claiming here that if you don't hear anything in two days, you'll do something there isn't going to fly very well. Frank | talk 22:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- All i am saying is that in the previous discussion there was consensus that it should be placed somewhere on wikipedia and that if no one else supports putting it on this page in the next two days im willing to put it somewhere else though i still think that it belongs here.XavierGreen (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- There's no reason to wait. If you see the consensus is to not put it here, you can take up the discussion elsewhere whenever you want. But do be careful of WP:FORUMSHOPping. Frank | talk 23:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- All i am saying is that in the previous discussion there was consensus that it should be placed somewhere on wikipedia and that if no one else supports putting it on this page in the next two days im willing to put it somewhere else though i still think that it belongs here.XavierGreen (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- XavierGreen, I will state what I wrote before. Those accusations do not belong in the Barack Obama article, and the only articles they do belong in are the Warren G Harding article(as a reference to the attack book and accusations) or the article of the person who made those accusations or wrote that book. Innuendos that are not based with any provable sources and accusations made by political opponents are not part of references for footnotes. Except in the person who was being accused or the accuser. You can't go around Wikipedia and insert footnotes into every article that is affected by those accusations, as if they were a proven fact. DD2K (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that this isn't the place to discuss changes to the "list of" article. But chiming in here from the peanut gallery, that seems a logical place to put it. Conceptually, the statement "Barack Obama is the first African-American President (*but, footnote, there were rumors / accusations at the time that remain unresolved today that Warren Harding had a black African ancestor)" makes some logical sense at an article that is much more focused on marking milestones than this one is. Although somewhat trivial in nature, so is the statement that Obama is the first president from Hawaii, and lots of other things. That's the nature of firsts. You'd have to convince the editors there, and I can't speak for them, not having participated on that article. Cheers, - Wikidemon (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Barack Obama should be listed as Multiracial not 100% African American
| See FAQ#2 at the top of this page. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The opening sentence in the wikipedia article where it mentions that he is the first african american president is somewhat false. Barack Obama is multiracial, his mother was white[1] and his father was african american. He should be listed as the first multiracial president. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiracial. Wikipedia has many other notable multiracial people listed as multiracial why not Barack Obama? Sammy8912 (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
|
Notable Controversies
| Moving on... |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
In the 'Proposed Changes' section I mentioned that I found this in the Wikipedia rules for the Wikipedia:Lead section guidelines: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence." Now, my question is, what should be the 'notable controversies' surrounding Barack Obama to be included in his introduction/lede? Prominence/notability, as well as available reliable sources will play into this. I am interested in seeing what people think should be mentioned as 'notable controversies' in the lede. Again, what controversies are mentioned should then be compared by their prominence and sourcing. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Please. If you don't have consensus - I don't care how many policies you cite - you cannot make these types of additions to the article. It can't get much simpler than that. Since you clearly do not have consensus, drop it. There have been a dozen or more of us who have given you quite clear-cut reasons why we cannot include multiple insignificant controversies, fringe theories, or the comparatively insignificant views of others about Obama. By the way, you are not helping your case by accusing us of being liberal, or accusing us of not providing tangible evidence against. WHSL (Talk) 06:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
:1. Stop. Think. :2. Try to edit the page to better incorporate the edit in question :3. If you really can't find a way to incorporate the edit, revert it :4. Explain in detail what you tried, and why it didn't work. :Even if the reason seems obvious to you, it will not always be obvious to someone else." Also, according to the Wikipedia Consensus page, "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for making or reverting an edit, or for accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action."
|
Obama is out of office Takes a Holiday
| Nothing to see folks Sceptre (talk) 00:59, 26 December 2009 |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Add the following text: Despite of the world financial crisis and double digit unemployment rate the Obama's family take two weeks in Hawaii for Vacation. Video reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxIpYSxLDYY Róbert Gida (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
|
FAQ Regarding Obama's Status as first african American president
Since there seems to be little consensus at putting the possibility that harding might be the first african american president under some definitions in the article at all i suggest adding something in regards to it to the FAQ section of the talk page. I'm quite sure another editor some day or another will attempt to introduce the same thing i have tried to introduce (maybe they will have better luck then i did) but since topics tend to be repeated in the talk page quite often, maybe it would be good material for inclusion as a FAQ.XavierGreen (talk) 03:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think that this is a claim that is frequently made; and as far as I can see, in the replies to your remarks some way above, nobody says that it's frequently made (or a "question" that is frequently "asked"). -- Hoary (talk) 03:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Searching the archives, its come up at least seven seperate times on the first page of search results alone, it appears every couple months or so. id say thats quite frequent would you?XavierGreen (talk) 08:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- You're more energetic (and perhaps also more memorious) than I am. I knew that related questions had indeed come up often, but not that this one had. Well, perhaps it indeed is worth faqqing. -- Hoary (talk) 08:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Xavier, do I understand you to be saying that the spurious claims of Warren G. Harding's racial identity has given rise to seven different threads in the archives of Talk:Barack Obama (not counting the three threads you have created on this particular page alone), or are you conflating the Harding rumor with arguments that Obama is half-white (or ineligible for some crazy reason), and so should not be called the first African American president? Because we already do have FAQs for those, Q2 and Q5. Abrazame (talk) 08:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- There are more than seven, those are just the ones that appear on the first page of results. There were arguements about before obama even became president. I could care less about Obama's ancestry, the page states that Obama is the first african american president there is evidence that he might be the second and a chance harding could be the first. It is not a fringe theory or suprious, established proffesors at Yale have written about the issue and Harding himself stated he did not know. The issue is completely different from the FAQ about Obama's ancestry. My concerns do not challenge that at all.XavierGreen (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Xavier, do I understand you to be saying that the spurious claims of Warren G. Harding's racial identity has given rise to seven different threads in the archives of Talk:Barack Obama (not counting the three threads you have created on this particular page alone), or are you conflating the Harding rumor with arguments that Obama is half-white (or ineligible for some crazy reason), and so should not be called the first African American president? Because we already do have FAQs for those, Q2 and Q5. Abrazame (talk) 08:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- You're more energetic (and perhaps also more memorious) than I am. I knew that related questions had indeed come up often, but not that this one had. Well, perhaps it indeed is worth faqqing. -- Hoary (talk) 08:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Searching the archives, its come up at least seven seperate times on the first page of search results alone, it appears every couple months or so. id say thats quite frequent would you?XavierGreen (talk) 08:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- That's just not true. It is both a fringe theory and spurious. There is no proof whatsoever that Harding had African-American ancestors, and the fact that Harding was quoted as saying "How do I know" when asked if some distant relative 'ever jumped the fence' is ridiculous to cite as something that indicates Harding 'did not know'. I have already pointed you to numerous sources that dispute the allegations about Harding, one from a Warren G Harding scholar. If Harding had a 3rd cousin that 'jumped the fence', it has no relation to Harding's ethnicity. None. There is no provable doubt whatsoever that Barack Obama is the first African-American President. None. Even if someone did prove, without a doubt, that Harding had an African-American ancestor, Harding identified himself as of European decent and as white. You can't cite the musings of some professor about an attack book, or innuendos about a family, and then make the sort of claims you are making. It's just not even remotely allowable. I'm changing my vote to no.DD2K (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- It doesnt matter what someone identifies themself as. I could call myself a tree, but does that really make me one? Theres no probable evidence that Harding was not african american either, so your point is moot. The majority of your comments seemed to be fueled by political ideology. I am not attempting to make some wild ideologically driven claims. I am not stating that it is proven that Harding was part African American and im not stating the opposite. What i am trying to do is address the historical fact that Hardings ancestry is not clear. As the topic has been brought up frequently in discussion, it should be included in the FAQ. By including this topic in the faq the frequency of the topic reappearing on the talk page would hopefully decrease.XavierGreen (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- That's just not true. It is both a fringe theory and spurious. There is no proof whatsoever that Harding had African-American ancestors, and the fact that Harding was quoted as saying "How do I know" when asked if some distant relative 'ever jumped the fence' is ridiculous to cite as something that indicates Harding 'did not know'. I have already pointed you to numerous sources that dispute the allegations about Harding, one from a Warren G Harding scholar. If Harding had a 3rd cousin that 'jumped the fence', it has no relation to Harding's ethnicity. None. There is no provable doubt whatsoever that Barack Obama is the first African-American President. None. Even if someone did prove, without a doubt, that Harding had an African-American ancestor, Harding identified himself as of European decent and as white. You can't cite the musings of some professor about an attack book, or innuendos about a family, and then make the sort of claims you are making. It's just not even remotely allowable. I'm changing my vote to no.DD2K (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- It's not ideology to want proven facts, and not innuendos, lies and accusations, treated as the source for an encyclopedia. To claim that Hardings ancestry is 'not clear' gives credence to the accusations and innuendos. I think an encyclopedia would be willing to treat the accusations as a tidbit found somewhere inside it's vast articles, but not treated as something proven and definitely NOT something that alters proven facts in other articles. In other words, adding as an accusation in the Harding article is ok, but adding it in the Harding article to cast doubt on Harding's ancestry is NOT. You are trying to take a route that is not in the best interests of the facts. To claim that Harding's ancestry is not clear is not true. All the facts that Harding have given about his ancestry are there, and the Harding scholars have long discredited the claims about his AA ancestry. I gave you some links before, and there are many more.DD2K (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- As stated above, this Harding trivia is not a FAQ, so there is no need to update the FAQ. thanks, --guyzero | talk 20:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
:I would say we can WP:AGF on XavierGreen about this issue. Sometimes when delving into historical tidbits that are not widely known, editors like to have these available for readers, because they are interesting. I believe that is also why Wikidemon is interested in this little nugget of American history. The problem is, it's not well sourced and it's only real sources tend to prove it's not true. Personally, I would have no problem with it's inclusion in the FAQ, depending on the wording. And addition to state that the rumors has no verifiable proof, and quite the opposite. We can quibble on the exact wording, but if the editor wants to propose an addition to the FAQ, I think that perhaps something can be added if there is enough consensus. DD2K (talk) 13:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- This is the epitome of fringe; just because the idle speculation originates from a professor and not some blog doesn't make it any less so. Tarc (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- DD2K, I'm curious why you seemed to change your mind on this?[61] Reading through the sources proposed here, and the Harding article, the sources look strong for the proposition that (a) a political opponent at the time accused Harding of having a black ancestor; (b) Harding denied and did his best to bury the claim, without disproving it; and (c) both then and now there is no strong evidence it is true, nor conclusive evidence it is not. We have two seemingly respectable mainstream biographies, and a New York Times analysis that goes into detail on the subject. On the face of it, it is hardly fringe to say that there were unproven rumors that Harding had a black ancestor, and it seems to be true... that such rumors existed. Vis-a-vis Obama I don't think that statement is fringe, it's just not pertinent. So what if those rumors existed? Harding was not considered AA, and Obama is, end of story. The Harding thing has come up several times in the last year, and if everyone wants we can add somethign to the FAQ to head this off should it come up again, e.g. notwithstanding unproven claims and rumors that other presidents, like many Americans, had distant ancestors of African ancestry, Obama is the first to be generally recognized, and self-acknowledged, as AA. Or not... but it looks like a fair question, unless others are seeing something that I'm not. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed its not really pertinent to Obama for exactly the reasons you give, WD. My feel is that the longer the FAQ gets, the less useful it becomes. 7 times in one year isn't really a "FAQ" for this page compared to the "HE'S HALF WHITE" threads that appear here much more frequently. --guyzero | talk 21:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- *Wikidemon, I did not change my mind, I changed my stance. Also, I have given links to arguments about why these accusations are not true and should not be taken as anything other than accusations and attacks by political opponents or enemies of the Harding family. There are many more, and if one can talk to a Harding scholar from Ohio, you will see that these accusations have long been proven false. To claim that they have never been 'proven false' is a double negative. I could accuse you of something, write a book about it, and you could deny it, but years later someone could claim you never proved your innocence. That doesn't mean the accusations are true or worthy of citation. And they should never, ever be treated as citations of fact in an encyclopedia. Especially when you alter other articles and try to change the facts of those articles with the accusations. On the other hand, it's definitely not 'fringe' to state that the accusations happened. I have no problem with that. I do, however, very much have a problem with treating the accusations as if they were even remotely proven. You can't use accusations that have no basis in reality and treat them as citations. I changed my stance on this because the editor in question seems to want to use the accusations as citations, instead of preventive edits.DD2K (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- You seem to misunderstand, i dont think the case that Harding is part african american has been proven or disproven. As for the number of times this has been brought up on this talk page, the majority of articles on wikipeda see most issues brought up once or twice in their entire existance, as such i think that something brought up seven times in one year not to mention that it was brought up last year as well is certaintly a question that has been brought up frequently, and to be honest if there was something in the FAQ about it I probably would have never suggested including it in the article in the first place.XavierGreen (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) To DD2K - Understood, with one caveat... the statement that the claims have a basis and have not been disproven is sourced to the New York Times article, not a Wikipedia WP:SYNTHESIS. Although it's irrelevant to Obama's article, the difference between a completely baseless claim made by opponents and an unproven claim that some reputable modern sources believe to have a basis, is significant. Those maintaining the Warren Harding article should think this through and make sure they're comfortable with the way it's treated there. Perhaps they have, but if the claim is that farfetched / fringe-y, I would take the issue up on that page. Here, it's really a non-issue because even if it were true it wouldn't merit changing the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps we could have a sub-FAQ to uncollapse separately. The top 8-10 in the main one, and then a remainder bin for all the others? - Wikidemon (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- You see, this is what I don't get. The NYT is not the source of an article about this, an Assistant Professor(Beverly Gage) is, from an essay. And all she does is cite the racist attack book and use 'supposedly' and 'rumors', along with innuendos and speculation. I can't see how anyone could take any of that as even a tiny bit factual. Interesting? Sure, but it is definitely not the NYT citing that Harding could have AA ancestry.DD2K (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- It's an analysis piece, not an op-ed or opinion piece. As such, I believe it does get fact-checked, is subject to editorial control, and a reputable organization puts its reputation on the line by printing it, the main hallmarks of a reliable source. Things that are a matter of academic opinion are fairly clearly laid out in the piece. It's clear where the facts end and the speculation begins. If we were taking this more seriously I would do to her what other people do to Wikipedia, i.e. check her sources and look for corroboration... also see what other sources say to see how mainstream / accepted this all is. One NYT article + 2 non-online sources in the Harding article isn't really enough to decide. That's really for the Harding article, not here, because I don't think it matters either way here. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- You see, this is what I don't get. The NYT is not the source of an article about this, an Assistant Professor(Beverly Gage) is, from an essay. And all she does is cite the racist attack book and use 'supposedly' and 'rumors', along with innuendos and speculation. I can't see how anyone could take any of that as even a tiny bit factual. Interesting? Sure, but it is definitely not the NYT citing that Harding could have AA ancestry.DD2K (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps we could have a sub-FAQ to uncollapse separately. The top 8-10 in the main one, and then a remainder bin for all the others? - Wikidemon (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) To DD2K - Understood, with one caveat... the statement that the claims have a basis and have not been disproven is sourced to the New York Times article, not a Wikipedia WP:SYNTHESIS. Although it's irrelevant to Obama's article, the difference between a completely baseless claim made by opponents and an unproven claim that some reputable modern sources believe to have a basis, is significant. Those maintaining the Warren Harding article should think this through and make sure they're comfortable with the way it's treated there. Perhaps they have, but if the claim is that farfetched / fringe-y, I would take the issue up on that page. Here, it's really a non-issue because even if it were true it wouldn't merit changing the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- You seem to misunderstand, i dont think the case that Harding is part african american has been proven or disproven. As for the number of times this has been brought up on this talk page, the majority of articles on wikipeda see most issues brought up once or twice in their entire existance, as such i think that something brought up seven times in one year not to mention that it was brought up last year as well is certaintly a question that has been brought up frequently, and to be honest if there was something in the FAQ about it I probably would have never suggested including it in the article in the first place.XavierGreen (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- The faq doesnt have to take a side on the issue one way or another, all it has to say is why the claims are not included in the article, which would appear to be that they are not notable enough/do not have to do with a biographic text on obama. All it has to do is explain why it was not selected for inclusion into the text in a neutralist fashion. XavierGreen (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- The point is, the issue isn't relevant enough to Obama to warrant inclusion. Tarc (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- I've been digging around some more and it's very interesting stuff. Prof. Gage, an untenured Yale Professor, has been hitting the talk circuit (NPR, etc) with her interest in this. She herself gives the rumors only faint credibility, mostly interested in their impact and what it says about the history of the time than the truth behind them. Anyway, maybe anyone interested can reconvene at Talk:Warren G. Harding? - Wikidemon (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well i wouldnt oppose working on that article in respects to this issue, but i still think that something regarding it should be included into the FAQ here, otherwise we might as well delete the whole FAQ.XavierGreen (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Except that the FAQ contains actual FAQs. Having any simple issue like this come up and be answered once every 8 weeks is not a big deal. The FAQ becomes less useful (or worse per WP:BEANS) if we put tons of topics into it. thanks --guyzero | talk 02:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well i wouldnt oppose working on that article in respects to this issue, but i still think that something regarding it should be included into the FAQ here, otherwise we might as well delete the whole FAQ.XavierGreen (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- I've been digging around some more and it's very interesting stuff. Prof. Gage, an untenured Yale Professor, has been hitting the talk circuit (NPR, etc) with her interest in this. She herself gives the rumors only faint credibility, mostly interested in their impact and what it says about the history of the time than the truth behind them. Anyway, maybe anyone interested can reconvene at Talk:Warren G. Harding? - Wikidemon (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- The point is, the issue isn't relevant enough to Obama to warrant inclusion. Tarc (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- DD2K, I'm curious why you seemed to change your mind on this?[61] Reading through the sources proposed here, and the Harding article, the sources look strong for the proposition that (a) a political opponent at the time accused Harding of having a black ancestor; (b) Harding denied and did his best to bury the claim, without disproving it; and (c) both then and now there is no strong evidence it is true, nor conclusive evidence it is not. We have two seemingly respectable mainstream biographies, and a New York Times analysis that goes into detail on the subject. On the face of it, it is hardly fringe to say that there were unproven rumors that Harding had a black ancestor, and it seems to be true... that such rumors existed. Vis-a-vis Obama I don't think that statement is fringe, it's just not pertinent. So what if those rumors existed? Harding was not considered AA, and Obama is, end of story. The Harding thing has come up several times in the last year, and if everyone wants we can add somethign to the FAQ to head this off should it come up again, e.g. notwithstanding unproven claims and rumors that other presidents, like many Americans, had distant ancestors of African ancestry, Obama is the first to be generally recognized, and self-acknowledged, as AA. Or not... but it looks like a fair question, unless others are seeing something that I'm not. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I think it is worth noting one of our core principles here, which is that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. It really doesn't matter what some (several, few, many, whatever) people are saying, whether some of us consider it fringe, almost fringe, serious...what matters is that the vast majority of reliable sources list Obama as the first African American president. That really should be the end of it. If that ever changes - that would be the time to have a discussion about what this article should say. For example, Pluto was a planet for about 76 years. There were many reliable sources to indicate that. It no longer is considered a planet, but rather a dwarf planet, and that's what our article on the matter says. If we eventually find out that someone else was the first African American president, the sources will exist to support it. Until then...this is a non-issue and really not even FAQ material. Frank | talk 16:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Well then why not put that in the faq as the answer to the question, that obama is regarded by the majority of sources as the first african american president? It doesnt matter if the information is included in the article or not, what matters is that multiple people have brought up the issue mutiple times. If this does not meet the requirements of going into the FAQ then what does?
What is the limit? How many times does something have to be brought up before it is eligible to be addressed by the FAQ? XavierGreen (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- I can't see any reason why it couldn't be in the FAQs. Anything to stop people asking about it would be a good thing. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think WP:CONSENSUS is the answer to that. There are any number of things that have appeared on this talk page and been removed or closed summarily, more than once, but which don't appear in the FAQ because they're not credible enough to generate consensus to keep them. I personally don't think this is necessary to include in the FAQ, but more importantly, I don't see any consensus to include it in the FAQ. And maybe I should WP:AGF a bit more on this one, but I doubt people who will come here and post that question are going to read the FAQ first and then not post the question. Frank | talk 16:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- I did read the FAQ before i posted about this on the talk page, any veteran wikipedia would. The key is to reducing volume on the talk page and i think that by adding it to the FAQ it would.XavierGreen (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should consider the possibility that we need transient FAQs - a few questions and answers that take care of whatever the issue du jour happens to be, but only exist for a few weeks or months as needed? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Another thing that would reduce volume on the talk page, Xavier, is if people like yourself would drop the effin' thing after consensus develops against their suggestion, rather than trying every which way to link their issue with this article, fulfilling themselves the misunderstood prophecy of a frequently asked question. Alternately, we could judiciously cut off these cyclical arguments with people who don't get and/or respond to salient editorial points by closing the thread. If editors persist in reopening or restarting threads about arguments where no game-changing references or points are made, they should be officially tag-warned on their talk pages as doing so repeatedly with no good reason is tantamount to vandalism.
- Perhaps we should consider the possibility that we need transient FAQs - a few questions and answers that take care of whatever the issue du jour happens to be, but only exist for a few weeks or months as needed? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Why, you ask? Well, I could slanderously link Obama to fringe theory X, fallacious partisan POV Y, heinous crime Z, what-have-you; then I could pester the page with several threads (occasionally no doubt getting a few anti-Obama fringers to pop in or even start one or two themselves), and then one of us or someone else could come along and say, "Frequent issue: let's handle this non-issue—that shouldn't even be noted, even on the talk page, in some cases, due to BLP and other issues—by placing it for perpetuity in bold text at the very top of this page in a FAQ", much less strewn across the archive.
- There are already general Wikipedia guidelines and specific article FAQs that deal with the general issues relevant to fringe rumors with no proof. If I were going to do anything to the FAQ it would be to broaden one of those to more clearly show to would-be troublemakers working or feigning to work within the guidelines that the underlying reason for not including the other fringe rumors is not issue-specific. We will not honor each individual rumor with its own FAQ. Next someone will suggest we put a FAQ explaining the ideological and religious differences of opinion about abortion.
- To Scjessey, respectfully, FAQs should not be temporary, because all somebody has to do is arrive and "ask" again in order to "prove" that it's not a temporary issue. Instead, as I say, we should work to ensure that it is clear when the answer to one FAQ is the same as the answer to another question at talk, and indicate in the FAQ Question that this should be extrapolated to other issues as well. (Which should be obvious to editors, like Xavier, who claim to have read them, yet are understandable to editors who have only skimmed the questions without opening the answer.) We then simply note, "See FAQ" and nip a long discussion in the bud. That's the point of FAQs, not to spend time arguing for a new one for every bloody thing, but to save time by hitting the broader points and not getting out into the weeds on every last tactic.
- There are times this page has been too trigger-happy to close discussions that may already be dying down, or on the other hand have a responsibly made editorial point that has true potential for an actual article change. Recently we pulled back from that impulse, rightfully so. The pendulum, however, has swung way in the opposite direction right now, and we now need to correct again without overshooting.
- I would direct you to FAQ13 for why. The answer there provides the reason why your alleged seven threads begun over the Harding allegation do not themselves justify a FAQ. It reads,
- "Swift closure is common for topics that have already been discussed repeatedly, topics pushing fringe theories, and/or topics that would lead to violations of Wikipedia'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."
- It says examples of such common topics are found in the FAQ, not that each common topic gets its own FAQ or even its own mention therein. The concept of extrapolation is implicit. I would advise that editors who are bending over backwards to be amiable on the current page should ponder the concept of disruptive nature, as opposed to sincere efforts to understand policy through a long but focused discussion, and be more vigilant that they don't amenably enable the former as they happily and appropriately do the latter.
- My point, obviously, includes the concurrent debate over abortion (and, variously a dozen other issues that IP has yet thought of). Abrazame (talk) 01:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I continue because i dont believe consensus has been reached in favor of not adding to the FAQ. To the contrary there seems to be support here for an addition to the FAQ in this regard in some form or another. I once again ask you, what determines what is in the FAQ and what is not? I still yet to hear a concise answer to the question, FAQ 13 gives no answer to the question so what is the answer?XavierGreen (talk) 07:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- In answer to your question, once a few of these fringe theories have been cited as prime examples from which to extrapolate, what determines that we do not add more is the simple principle of redundancy. Why we might seriously consider adding another specific FAQ would be if there was some unexamined territory from a FAQ coverage standpoint (not from the standpoint of some new — or newly exhumed — conspiracy) that responsible editors recognize the existing answers to the FAQs are deficient in addressing. I'm sure now that I have explained this, it strikes you as common sense. The main effect of doing otherwise at this point (to add further examples, or new examples for each wrinkle of answer, instead of simply broadening the question and/or answer of an existing FAQ that is already discussing a smaller part of the relevant concept) would be to give credence to the fringe theory and its connection to this article, rather than to dispense with it. The purpose of a FAQ is not to admit that, gee, this fringe idea is drawing a lot of traffic, so we'll note it here instead of in the article; it's to really address as thoroughly and succinctly as possible an argument of an editorial rationale that has already transpired at great length several times over.
- I continue because i dont believe consensus has been reached in favor of not adding to the FAQ. To the contrary there seems to be support here for an addition to the FAQ in this regard in some form or another. I once again ask you, what determines what is in the FAQ and what is not? I still yet to hear a concise answer to the question, FAQ 13 gives no answer to the question so what is the answer?XavierGreen (talk) 07:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- My point, obviously, includes the concurrent debate over abortion (and, variously a dozen other issues that IP has yet thought of). Abrazame (talk) 01:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, so I've answered your question, how about you answer mine. I asked you once or twice already if seven threads were begun with Warren G. Harding as the impetus in challenging Obama's being "the first African American president", as opposed to secondary digressions in arguments for Obama's being "half-white", or misunderstandings that mixed heritage prevents one from claiming either, or — the actual crux of the matter — that people don't understand what African American means. Given that you have apparently already distinguished which threads are which, and I have failed in a perfunctory effort to see if I might stumble upon one of the seven, would you link all seven for me and the other editors here? If you are unfamiliar with how the linking works, I would accept your telling us the title and date of each of the seven threads. I want to make sure we're even talking about something that has been raised as a serious question, much less one that has given rise to seven full-fledged discussions. After all, if we were going to construct a FAQ to determine how the question has actually been asked, and what the response has been, it would be prudent to review all seven. To end with another answer to your question, in case my "newly exhumed" comment was too subtle, but to incorporate Scjessy's comment about temporary FAQs, it is no longer actually frequent if the bulk of the questions came at a much earlier date and has, as of late, only been brought up by yourself, this week. Abrazame (talk) 10:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I object. If we include the 'fact' that Harding was the first black President, I insist we also include that Taft may have been the first Muslim president, and that FDR may have been the first communist president, and that Nixon, by starting the EPA, was the first liberal treehugger president. Also, I must insist that all FAQ question s be written as double binds of the 'When did president Obama stop beating his wife?' style of question. And I'm sure I can find (or make) some attack blogs to source the first one, the second one can almost certianly be cited to LGF or brietbart, and I think Sarah Palin recently said something about the EPA being a liberal plot. Aren't those references good enough? ThuranX (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Once again,the reason why it is not being included is because it is not notable enough for inclusion into the article, not because it is fringe. As for the different threads there are around 10, though it is possible i have missed one or two. It is mentioned at least once in each of these threads in one context or another. Simply search each one for Harding within your browser and you will see where it is mentioned.
- I object. If we include the 'fact' that Harding was the first black President, I insist we also include that Taft may have been the first Muslim president, and that FDR may have been the first communist president, and that Nixon, by starting the EPA, was the first liberal treehugger president. Also, I must insist that all FAQ question s be written as double binds of the 'When did president Obama stop beating his wife?' style of question. And I'm sure I can find (or make) some attack blogs to source the first one, the second one can almost certianly be cited to LGF or brietbart, and I think Sarah Palin recently said something about the EPA being a liberal plot. Aren't those references good enough? ThuranX (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- [[62]]
- [[63]]
- [[64]]
- [[65]]
- [[66]]
- [[67]]
- [[68]]
- [African_American_first_African_American]
- ["first"_"african american"]
- ["firsts"]
XavierGreen (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- You have made your argument for inclusion, many times, and the argument has IMO been pretty much rejected by all involved. Can we wrap this up? Tarc (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Concur with Tarc, and others. This is nothing more than a fringe theory (contrary to what Xavier might believe, theories espoused by a few academics can still be "fringe") and there's no reason to include it in the FAQs or in the article. UA 16:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
1.) The first link is, as you profess, to a thread about Harding. Three of the four posts, including the IP, were of one sentence apiece, one of which was "Obama is actually half-African American, half-Cacutian." I suggest we determine if this Cacutian thing is legit. Isn't that the planet they were from in The Day The Earth Stood Still? This qualifies as a thread about Harding, but not one with any substance. It is from October 2008. Counts as maybe 1/4
2.) This link is to a thread entitled Validity of the term 'President Elect'. The poster, who did aver as fact that "Warren G. Harding had enough African-American blood to be recognized as black in the eyes of the law", also argued that as of November 18, 2008, we should not call Obama "President Elect" any more than we should call him a woman, if I understand him correctly. His next post reads, "I'll drop the Harding point completely. But I will not drop the president-elect point because the constitution is so blatantly clear on the issue." The thread then goes on for PAGES about the constitutional matter, so basically not a thread about Harding. Counts as barely 1/4 more for the editors who seriously responded than for the editor was not in earnest in mentioning it.
3.) Not a thread about Harding, it was another early (June 2008) misunderstanding of the definition of African American. The only mention about Harding is the second-to-last post in the few-pages thread that is not a question, as you contend, but is someone bringing it up to point out that crazy theories abound but are not proven and so are not relevant, apparently in response to a claim about Andrew Jackson. Doesn't remotely count.
4.) Again, an avalanche of threads about the perceived difference between bi-racial and African American. As I've already pointed out to you, we have a FAQ about this, because we do realize that this is a popular misconception that needed to be addressed with a FAQ because we had a good many variations on this thread. Way down deep in there one person brings up Andrew Jackson and another person — again someone who recognizes it as a canard, and not someone who is suggesting it is relevant or asking a question about it — responds with what seems to be, "yeah, and Warren G. Harding, so what". Doesn't count as a FAQ.
5.) Again, a thread called He's multi-racial. Harding's name is mentioned twice. The first person mentions five presidents, and the second — who offers his opinion on the first — does so as an aside and that is not the point of his post. The discussion here is not about Harding, it is a FAQ we already have.
6.) This is a thread arguing against calling Obama "Irish American". He is mocking the idea of including Harding as an African American, not suggesting or questioning it. C'mon, man. Absolutely doesn't count.
7.) This is truly disingenuous, Xavier. The sole post mentioning Harding here says, "For example, it's now well known that Warren Harding had some black ancestors, but no one would claim he was America's first black president or even the first African-American president." They are wrong on the "well-known fact" aspect, but even though they apparently believe it is true, they have actually ridiculed the idea you are suggesting here, again, as a debating point, as an analogy, not as a sincere discussion of the Harding issue. If this counts, it's as a point against you, not for you.
8.) Again, this is a conversation about calling him "the first" anything, including the first black president of The Harvard Law Review. In this thread it's more clear that the editor from a previous thread is joking by noting Harding, when he says in response to a refutation of the suggestion on the grounds of reliable sourcing, "Come on - is there any other authority to rival Stephen Colbert?" I don't know if you're an American, but Colbert is a satirist who pretends to be a neo-con bringing up absurd things like this.
9.) Not like I'm expecting any different, but again, as I predicted because I ignore these threads often, this is not about Harding, for crying out loud, it's the same misunderstanding that you cannot be both "half-white" and "African American".
10.) I'm not even clicking on 10 because if it were the most thorough and cogent contemplation or the most heated loggerhead debate it is buried under 9 non-starters and so couldn't possibly make this into a FAQ.
Basically, Xavier, I see three possibilities. One, that you didn't actually read these threads, you just noted "hits". Your laziness wraps us up into three lengthy threads on this page in a week and you didn't have the decency to admit this up front when I called you on it. Two, that you knew they were not what I asked you if they were, but that you thought you'd bluff us. This is just a game to you to see if you can crowbar some sham into the FAQ permanently. Or three, that you read them and can't tell the difference. If the first is true, give it up. If the second is true, didn't work. If the third is true, we can and we're telling you what it is. Perhaps there's a fourth possibility I don't see, but I'm not really interested insofar as you have been thoroughly refuted each time you have tried to push this point and this should be the end of it.
"Yo momma" is not a biographical footnote, particularly about someone else. Canards about other people do not mitigate reliably sourced information about Barack Obama. This is not a FAQ issue, it's a WP:RS issue. The FAQ issue those threads are really about is, appropriately, already a FAQ, as I already told you. End of story, end of thread, end of issue. Abrazame (talk) 06:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- First of all i only said that each of these threads mentioned the issue. Second of all I did read each of the threads, and i in no way shape or form endorse what the majority of them say. Thirdly i do not appreciate being ruthlessly assaulted with personal attacks by you. For the most part every other editor here has acted with civility and i have attempted in every effort to do the same. I sir would hardly call myself lazy, if so i would not have pursued the issue as long as i have nor spent as much time looking into the issue as I have. You asked me to prove that there were seven threads mentioning the issue at hand, i provided you with ten. The issue at hand, unlike some in the FAQ, will continue to arise as long as this article exists. Athough you sir may not agree with me, there are others at hand that do. If i felt i were alone, then i would have abanonded the issue long ago as i did with including it within the article itself.XavierGreen (talk) 08:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- What I asked you was:
- "Xavier, do I understand you to be saying that the spurious claims of Warren G. Harding's racial identity has given rise to seven different threads in the archives of Talk:Barack Obama...or are you conflating the Harding rumor with arguments that Obama is half-white (or ineligible for some crazy reason), and so should not be called the first African American president?"
- Your response was:
- "There are more than seven, those are just the ones that appear on the first page of results."
- Clearly you were conflating the one issue with the other, you were mischaracterizing the inception, amount and degree of these threads, and now, just as clearly, you're denying it all, further obfuscating the issue. Harding being name-dropped to little or no response (and often with ironic or satirical intent) in threads about other issues is not what I was asking you about. Whether you like how those discussions went, or didn't go, has nothing to do with whether you get to claim them as previous discussions of questions that cry out for a FAQ. These are not ten threads begun about Harding, and these are not ten threads begun about other issues which jumped the tracks to delve into the Harding question, thereby becoming the basis of a FAQ, which is the way you misrepresented them.
- What I asked you was:
- First of all i only said that each of these threads mentioned the issue. Second of all I did read each of the threads, and i in no way shape or form endorse what the majority of them say. Thirdly i do not appreciate being ruthlessly assaulted with personal attacks by you. For the most part every other editor here has acted with civility and i have attempted in every effort to do the same. I sir would hardly call myself lazy, if so i would not have pursued the issue as long as i have nor spent as much time looking into the issue as I have. You asked me to prove that there were seven threads mentioning the issue at hand, i provided you with ten. The issue at hand, unlike some in the FAQ, will continue to arise as long as this article exists. Athough you sir may not agree with me, there are others at hand that do. If i felt i were alone, then i would have abanonded the issue long ago as i did with including it within the article itself.XavierGreen (talk) 08:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Incidentally, two things inherent about seeing three possibilities is that A) not all of them would be true at once, and B) perhaps none of them are true at all. You are not accurately representing the facts. Whatever the reason for doing so may be, it's holding this page hostage to an issue that you are not accurately representing and are unwilling to accept consensus against.
- This is not a side issue, the accurate representation of a source is the cornerstone of an encyclopedia and the truthful answers to direct editorial questions is the cornerstone of an article talk page. I didn't respond at all to your first two threads on this, and in the third my first post was a quite civil and helpful request that you clarify — for yourself and for us — your characterization of those threads you were representing as arising from the frequent asking of a question. Your response to my civil helpfulness was to more blatantly misrepresent. So, quite a few posts and two days later — giving you time to get the gist so I wouldn't even have to deal with your misrepresentation — I layed the helpfulness on a little thicker. Your response to that post was to quite obliviously and erroneously claim consensus for your suggestion (showing you did indeed require something above and beyond what has been said to you over three long threads) and ask me a question. I answered your question and repeated my initial question of you, giving you the opportunity to correct your mistake. But you did not correct your mistake, you further misrepresented these threads and made me check each one to prove what I already suspected.
- It's not as if you haven't already been refuted on the merits of your suggestion even if this had been a frequent, major issue beleaguering editors at this page, of the sort that spawns a FAQ here, yet you go on and on, as is the general practice here all of a sudden.
- Let's say I'm wrong, at this late stage in your shifting barrage of erroneousness—and after discovering your misrepresentation of not one but more than half a dozen links—to ponder at what would make you do so. Per your suggestion, how about you respond to the editorial content of my posts? Abrazame (talk) 09:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- I am not conflating anything, and i could care less who the first African American president of the United States is or how Black Obama really is. The subject has come up in at least ten different discussions on the talk page. How the issue was presented or used in a discussion is not really any of my concern. All I am arguing for is that the issue be presented in some shape or form in the FAQ and state that it was not considered notable enough for inclusion. The issue will return, and since there is no explanation why it is not addressed in the article, i think that the FAQ should explain why that is. After all that is the entire reason for the FAQ. Otherwise you should just close every arguement that has already occured without an explanation and not bother having a FAQ at all.XavierGreen (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Let's say I'm wrong, at this late stage in your shifting barrage of erroneousness—and after discovering your misrepresentation of not one but more than half a dozen links—to ponder at what would make you do so. Per your suggestion, how about you respond to the editorial content of my posts? Abrazame (talk) 09:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Fourth-third-first-first!
| Closed - Editor who started thread indef blocked for being a probable sock puppet of Multiplyperfect -- Scjessey (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
When was it added? Do we really need it? "Obama is the fourth U.S. president to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. He is the third to become a Nobel laureate during his term in office, and the first to be recognized in the first year of his presidency." This leads probably to nowhere. Sometimes I feel that Obama's page is like a collection of Guiness world records. Róbert Gida (talk) 16:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
|
Proposed / enacted
User:Joker123192 has changed "proposed" to "enacted", mirroring this earlier edit doing something similar. The provided sources do not support "enacted" or "imposed". I would change it myself, but I have a 1RR restriction. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- Done. To Joker123192, if there is a reference that the specific proposals they were moving forward with have since been enacted, please provide it with your next revert. Abrazame (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Coverage of Controversies?
| Collapsed for readability; nearly 100KB of text but no further discussion in 9 days. Result of this discussion was largely to separate out individual points, done elsewhere later on this page. Frank | talk 22:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||
|
http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=945 At any rate, I am proposing the following section, although, I notice that Wikipedia is now changing to avoid sections labeled 'Political Controversies' even though I noticed another politician with just such a section just today, so perhaps it would be best to not label it that, but instead make it merely historical referenced, as part of his senate career:
Further commentaryNow, all of those are mainstream criticisms of Barack Obama. I would like to see the reasoning behind those who would deny the inclusion of them. I would also ask, if there is a consensus to be achieved on whether to put this in, how long will it take, and how will it be decided? After all, if hypothetically, liberals were more obtuse in refusing to allow criticisms of Obama yet conservatives were able to agree to allow valid criticisms of conservative candidates, would that mean that just because one side is hypocritically unjust in disallowing a consensus that variable and discriminatory means should be permitted to coexist? --Jzyehoshua (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
ConsensusBOTTOM LINE: As I said before, I recognize now that Wikipedia is trying to get away from such 'controversies' sections, even though I think it odd that such sections still exist for the other aforementioned Illinois politicians like Rod Blagojevich and Mayor Richard M. Daley. However, while I would NO LONGER support the inclusion of my original section with its lengthy discourse on infanticide, I still state that it should be mentioned that certain points in Obama's past had negative aspects, to avoid liberal bias. These should include:
NPOVThis article is blatantly in favor of Obama. There isn't even a criticisms area. In the economic section, not a word is devoted to any of the bailouts made available to Wall Street or foreign banks. Nothing is stated about the trillions the Fed handed over to recipients they refuse to disclose. The AIG scandal is left completely out. There is nothing in this article that lends any opposing voice to Obama's presidency. I believe I'm done editing Wikipedia articles. Places have turned into travel brochures instead of accurate representations of the areas (Downtown Eastside is an excellent example of this propagandizing) and living persons are often idolized. When an individual steps up to fix the article, it is often removed by rabidly partisan Wiki-ers. Wikipedia is nothing like it was in years past. What began as an honest attempt is now a mouthpiece in a popularity contest. NoHitHair (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment about proposal
Does anyone, including the admins here, really believe that the absurd propaganda being pushed by Jzyehoshua should be added to the Barack Obama article? I think it should be deleted from the talk page. As for WP:NPOV, does anyone think that is a user went to the George W. Bush article and tried to insert stuff about him killing babies in Iraq or whatever that it would be added to the article, or if the user went to the talk page and littered it with election propaganda or accusations, that the user would not be reprimanded? Do we allow editors to do that type of vandalism to articles about anyone? Are the 'truthers' given a voice on the GWB talk page? Everyone should know that the fringe is not allowed into the WP:BLP and that even on the talk pages it is against policy. How long are we going to allow this to go on in the guise of being neutral? DD2K (talk) 15:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I already said sometime ago (and put it in bold) that I had no problem with replacing the word infanticide with any of the other synonyms used to refer to the process. I also said multiple times, including in my first post, that I did not want to use the original article I wrote in the page anymore. It should've been very clear from that bolded 'Bottom Line' post that we were not discussing any specific phrasing but the content validity itself and the possibilities for mention of the subject matter itself in the Obama page.
As for the links themselves, I am just not understanding why all the focus on attacking them. Obviously they were not main article supporting, content-related links like the list I originally posted (1-7), and it should've been clear from the discussion that I was simply doing a quick 20 minutes of research to find links showing that the word 'infanticide' has been used by major publications, in response to someone who said that my use of the word 'infanticide' disqualified anything I could say. Why editors are treating these like my primary source links, when I never said they were, is utterly incomprehensible to me. It seems very dishonest of them to attack the 20 minute research links and avoid the primary links I originally mentioned. As the discussion should have shown, the goal in posting them was not primary support for the infanticide criticism itself, but simply to show that major news outlets have used the term 'infanticide' in reference to Obama, and that by using the term I had not 'disqualified' myself from being able to make a reasonable argument. The subject was not on standalone links to support my original written piece, but whether infanticide had been used in reference to Obama by major news outlets, and using the term in reference to him was a 'fringe' view. In that regard, I still believe my links all achieved their purpose, regardless of whether people like who wrote them or not, it remains a fact that major news outlets let the words Obama and infanticide coexist in their publications, and thus I should not be ridiculed like those here wanted me to be simply for following precedent in using the term in reference to Barack Obama. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
But I already said above in my 'Bottom Line' post that I have no problem with another word like 'late-term abortion' or 'partial birth abortion' or 'live birth abortion' if the word 'infanticide' was dissatisfactory. My only reason for using it at all as a prospective headline was that it's a concise term referring to the unique situation with Obama that as I showed was used heavily by the press. I feel I adequately pointed out more than enough proof to pass any standard of Wikipedia for sourcing on Obama's questionable history here. There should be no doubt that not only does he have a questionable voting record and statements before Congress on this issue that can be easily quoted and sourced, but also that it was a major enough issue to draw national criticism. With that said, I think it incredible that Wikipedia editors would deny it could even be referred to in the page. As my 'Bottom Line' post shows, I have not been arguing for inclusion of the specific post I originally wrote. I recognize now that would be unsatisfactory simply because of its structure, and perhaps objection to the titles (which again, were simply references to the media terms used to summarize the situations - both Fox News and the articles reporting on his early election history refer to 'Chicago politics'). It wasn't my intention to put content that was framing or anything else, merely to advocate for the facts alone being included in whatever form we here could determine would be alright. My frustration was with the steady attacks on me and my character by those here while stubbornly refusing to even consider what I was proposing could be included - they'd made their minds up before I even started talking, and that was brought out my frustration (plus, I don't like fallacy tactics against me, and many were using them). --Jzyehoshua (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
The question of including Jz's proposals is irrelevant, as long as he has no consensus for those additions. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I have 2 points I would like to make:
Nevertheless, I feel I proposed a consensus that did not sustain much objection and thus suppose the discussion has at any rate run its course. I appreciate those that provided input without resorting to personal attacks. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 03:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Talk page censorshipIn this edit, Sceptre rendered a section invisible, with the comment "I'm closing this as a massive clusterfuck. I can't seriously believe we're seriously discussing comments by Alan Keyes here." For some reason it rendered more than one section invisible, at least as my particular browser (Epiphany) views the page. Perhaps that was because another HAT/HAB pair was nested within it. Merely in view of what it did to the rest of the page, Sceptre's edit, no matter how well-intentioned, was not a helpful one. That technical matter aside, if any editor takes Keyes seriously, does this really render everything else the editor says thereabouts as unworthy of consideration? Of course inane or mindlessly repeated objections can and should be rendered invisible or even deleted, and I've done this myself in my time on this very page (particularly for the comments of a vigorous, multinamed person who seemed to be of Hungarian extraction). But I strongly disagree with what I see as an overeagerness here to render objections invisible. I believe that most of the objections are unwarranted and a lot of the rejoinders to them are good. However, many of even what I consider unwarranted objections seem reasonably phrased. They merit refutation (or pointing toward a refutation), not deletion. Yes, editorial policy in this talk page is turning the talk page into the pastiche that its critics say it already is. And if you must render material invisible, please use the "Show preview" button. -- Hoary (talk) 03:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Please don't reopen a closed discussion like this that is disrupting normal operation of the page. It was precisely the closing of the discussion that disrupted the normal operation of the page. An accusation on a talk page that Obama committed, encouraged or condoned infanticide is ludicrous. Mention on the talk page that others claimed this is not necessarily ludicrous (after all, the US punditocracy is famous for the number and vigor of its nutballs), and, since Obama is prez and the US prez is about the most public person there is and routinely gets a lot of stick for just about anything (or indeed nothing at all), is hard to square with "BLP" measures designed for very different articles. In a few days, the section above will drift off into an archive, where it will be forgotten. That is the normal operation of this talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
|
- ^ http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1729524,00.html
- ^ "Keyes assails Obama's abortion views". Associated Press. August 9, 2004. Retrieved December 17, 2009.
- ^ "State of Illinois General Assembly 92nd General Assembly Regular Session Senate Transcript" (PDF). Illinois General Assembly. March 30, 2001. pp. 85–87. Retrieved December 17, 2009.
- ^ "State of Illinois General Assembly 90th General Assembly Regular Session Senate Transcript" (PDF). Illinois General Assembly. March 18, 1997. pp. 61–63. Retrieved December 17, 2009.
- ^ "State of Illinois General Assembly 90th General Assembly Regular Session Senate Transcript" (PDF). Illinois General Assembly. April 4, 2002. pp. 30–35. Retrieved December 17, 2009.
- ^ Henig, Jess (August 25, 2008). "Obama and 'Infanticide'". FactCheck.org. Retrieved December 17, 2009.
- ^ Jackson, David (April 3, 2007). "Barack Obama knows his way around a ballot". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved December 17, 2009.
{{cite news}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help) - ^ Spivak, Todd (February 26, 2008). "Barack Obama and Me". Houston News. Retrieved December 17, 2009.
- ^ Weisskopf, Michael (May 8, 2008). "Obama: How He Learned to Win". Time Magazine. Chicago,IL. Retrieved May 8, 2008.