Talk:Public image of Barack Obama/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Merging Muslim conspiracy theory material

Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ identifies this sub-article as the appropriate article to deal with WP:FRINGE claims that he is a Muslim. Currently, the article has five sentences on the topic, while the article on Andy Martin (who started the rumor) has six paragraphs on the issue. The longest paragraph describes how the theory spread and mentions various people and groups, not just Martin. Would it be ok to merge some of that content from the Martin article into this article (or a sub-sub-article), in the same way as some content from Martin's article was moved into Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories? Andjam (talk) 02:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

No. Adding more to the existing material would be a case of undue weight. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

So how do I deal with the coat-racking? Andjam (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You mean on the Andy Martin article? That's not a matter for this talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ambiguity

I inserted a section about Obama's political ambiguity, fully sourced and was removed as soapboxing, stating opinion was being stated as fact. I'd like to contest this.

1. I have no agenda. I don't see it as a positive or negative attribute that Obama is inscrutable, but simply notable, which is the criterion for inclusion.
2. This is a "public image of [...]" article. The statements that it makes will inevitably be based on people's opinions. Recall that this does not violate the criteria for inclusion, which only states that the sources used must be reliable, third-party, and published, which these are. Opinions are fine so long as they're notable published ones.

--Loodog (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You are confusing the Public image with published opinion. They are not the same thing. Just because this is a "public image" article doesn't mean that it can be used a coatrack for any published opinion about Obama, particularly when these opinions are stated as if they are facts. You attempted to add statements such as "Obama's centrist appeals are easily interpreted in differing ways, none necessarily correct" or "This personal ambiguity extends to his writing" which are merely matters of opinion (and not particularly notable ones at that). His public opinion does not stem from a two-year old editorial in the NY Post. As for sourcing, it's not enough to say that "so-and-so said this about him in an editorial." Rather it takes reliable third-party sources (preferably NPOV ones) to indicate that the public feels a certain way about him. After all, this article is not titled "Editorial opinion of Barack Obama" (and such an article would never be allowed on Wikipedia). --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'll see if I can't find something along those lines. Although, using that requirement for article inclusion, wouldn't we have to remove everything there now except for "religion" and "conservative support"?--Loodog (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You didn't (really) respond to the issue, yet you're saying there was "no follow-up discussion on talk" in your edit summary. Please do so now (before just reinserting the material again). Some of this (material) was introduced here while the election was going on and I'm not sure if it is just undue weight and still wp:notable by now. However, I think some of those opinions could be included as long as they're treated as opinions and not facts as presented now.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

But, again, keep in mind that this is not an "Opinions about Barack Obama" article. It is about his public image. Somebody's editorial opinion is not a substitute for third-party sources discussing the public's view of Obama. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, those opinions should be backed up by a third party source discussing them.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to be unilateral, but no one addressed the last thing I wrote: if somebody's editorial opinion about Obama is not acceptable, then everything there now except for "religion" and "conservative support" needs to be removed.--Loodog (talk) 05:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I did use reliable sources with this material: NY Post, Rolling Stone, International Herald Tribune, and Grist Magazine.--Loodog (talk) 05:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Come on, you guys. If we get no discussion, I'm going to assume we're in consensus with my opinion ;)--Loodog (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I am unhappy with the use of "ambiguity", both in the title and the text. Is there a source for this description? Also, I am not sure you can really call Grist Magazine a reliable source, when it is basically an opinion organ. It definitely doesn't meet the high standards of sourcing expected with BLP-related articles like this one. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, junk Grist. There are still sources out there (above). As for ambiguity: the basic concept is that he's a blank slate, a described and self-described Rorschach Test, that he seems to embrace every issue from both sides so the listened basically takes away from a speech whichever side agrees with them.--Loodog (talk) 04:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless you can find a source that specifically uses that word, it would be original research. Headings should not contain characterizations in any case. I can see where you are coming from with this section, but it reads more like the sort of thing you would find in a book than an encyclopedia, with elements drawn together under the banner of "ambiguity" - we are in the realm of synthesis here. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It is incredibly easy to find sources using the phrase "Rorschach Test", so that might be a better title, though they are synonymous in this usage.--Loodog (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you are missing the larger point here. The proposed addition sounds more like a lightly-sourced opinion piece than something encyclopedic, drawing from loosely-connected information to synthesize a concept. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

And my larger point was that half of the page fits that same description. If we're drawing a line somewhere, let's be consistent.--Loodog (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

As for adequacy of the sourcing, there are plenty of good sources mentioning Obama as Rorschach Test, including NY Times.--Loodog (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my worries about synthesis. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

1. I guess I don't understand what you mean. What idea do you believe is being created that isn't directly in the sources?
2. And again, most of the material on this page is far more tenuous than this.

--Loodog (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

1. The idea that he is "ambiguous".
2. That is not an excuse to add more of the same. Better to fix what is wrong, than add to the amount that needs fixing.

-- Scjessey (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

1. I ceded this point and said maybe "Rorschach Test" might be a more appropriate name for the section since it appears directly in many sources.--Loodog (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Charisma

Also, while I'm on it, we should have a section on his charisma. I doubt anyone would contest that the man has charisma and sources abound.--Loodog (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

He sure has some but this would need some real good sources to back up, and I doubt there are some that meet encyclopedic standards. Also a whole section on this would be an over-kill anyway.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The "political savvy" and "alleged elitism" sections seem equally as weak in terms of meriting their own sections.--Loodog (talk) 05:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Japan's views on Obama

two things:

1. 1: From CNN: In high school English classes in Tokyo they have this program where they play his speeches through a computer, as they also write stuff down in this Obama book or something. Their textbook is an obama book and CD set featuring his speeches. They mimick his speaking style and take grammar quizes on all of it.

The book isn't just a hit in high school either, it's a best seller all across Japan. The book has sold so well that they followed it up with a sequal, feating his his innaugral address. The first book is #1 on Japan's version of Amazon and the sequal is #2 based on book reservations alone.

The publisher of the books said that many people were moved by the books and even cried, giving the japenese people hope.

1. 2 from TokyoMongo: ([[1]]) "For the first time ever this year, the primaries are being held globally. Obama won 83% of votes in Tokyo, 80% in Kyoto, and 70% in Nagoya. More votes are expected to come in via online and fax, but those won't be counted til Thursday."

Surely we can include this, right? Neverfades (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Surely. NOT. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm? Why not. We need to include Japan's positive views on Obama. Neverfades (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

They probably like him just because his name sounds Japanese. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• The point is that we just can't include every detailed view from every country. If we would, this page would be endless and the Wiki-foundation on their knees ;) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • That must be what brought down the server earlier today - too much Obama. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

New polling, to be included here?

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/polltracker/2009/02/-while-a-narrow-majority.html

In descending order, elements of Obama's positive image:

1. Good communicator
2. Warm & friendly
3. Well organized
4. Cares about people like me
5. Well informed
6. Strong leader
7. Trustworthy
8. Able to get things done
9. New approach to politics

Thoughts on incorporation into article?--Loodog (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

A BLF (or BLF-esque page) does not need to be overwhelmingly dripping with praise and worship. This article needs to be balanced out with a more neutral viewpoint. Ejnogarb (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted that change of yours. The paragraph is a summary of Republican and conservative support for Barack Obama in 2008, which includes plenty of references for "praise" in it. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The current source only mention praise for one president: Ronald Reagan. Find a new source or remove "praise". Ejnogarb (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The section is a summary of another article, which contains plenty of sourcing for "praise". The amount of praise heaped upon Obama was too much for this article, so it had to be split off into a daughter article and summarized here. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Then link it to an article that does reference conservative praise. Ejnogarb (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That isn't necessary in a summary style, because then you get problems of duplication. I have noted that the primary reference for praise in the daughter article is hard to extract because of the nature of the website it comes from - I am looking for a better link to fix that. On a separate note, the new poll numbers you have added should probably be in the same paragraph, rather than a separate one. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the source was Insight Magazine. Unfortunately, it is not longer available because the website was deleted. Archive.org and Google's cache aren't helping. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If the website was deleted, it most likely wasn't a reliable source. I think there were two references for conservative praise on the main site, so the other one will have to do. Ejnogarb (talk) 15:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course it was a reliable source, insofar as it was used as a reference for conservative opinion (just as The Nation might be used for liberal opinion). Let's not start making sweeping statements about sources. If you object to the current phrase, put a "citation needed" tag after the offending word for the time being. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be redundant and confusing to have a "citation needed" tag and a citation for the same fact in question. Better yet, I'll delete the word "praise" until the matter is concluded. Ejnogarb (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I see from your recent edits that you have no interest in neutrality, and are simply engaged in pushing a negative point of view. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No need to make assumptions. My goal is to balance an article which presents a biased view towards a controversial figure. Ejnogarb (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Biased in your opinion. Your edits are becoming disruptive. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This article seems to violate NPOV to me, and I shall tag it as such. It appears to contain nothing but positive coverage. Jtrainor (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing like a worthless, drive-by comment. Grsz¹¹ 17:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If you can't be civil, then keep your hands off the keyboard, please. Jtrainor (talk) 02:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm fine. I meant worthless as in you put nothing forth to improving the article. Grsz¹¹ 03:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Jtrainor has a good point. This POV information should be discussed first, and removed, before the any tag is removed. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The only "POV" stuff in this article was recently added by right-wing apologists who prefer to see as much (unfounded) criticism as possible. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Omitting valid criticism is, itself, a form of POV. Jtrainor (talk) 03:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Youth and INexperience

"Youth and inexperience" is the accepted, colloquial, and ultimately correct (as in- it agrees with the fact that Mr. Obama, until his election to the Executive Office, had no executive experience. It's not biased or negative. It just sounds better and is more accurate. MrSpammy (talk) 03:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Keep it as "experience" for two reasons: first, "experience" is neutral because it doesn't suggest either lots or little of experience; and second, it's already completely obvious in the section that he doesn't have any. Ejnogarb (talk) 03:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Ejnogarb, "inexperience" seems to be POV. "Experience" could be taken either way depending on the source material. Dayewalker (talk) 03:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I see it the other way. "Experience", to me, suggests that he has it, which plainly he does not. I detect bias here. MrSpammy (talk) 03:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Experience ranges on a scale from none to a lot; it includes all possibilities. "Inexperience" tips the scale from the outset and is thus inherently POV. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

But, and this is a big "but", he had NO EXPERIENCE, and so the word, "inexperience" is not only accurate, it is more informative. That's the purpose of Wikipedia, right? To inform. "Inexperience" does imply a lack of experience, but that's the point. It's not QUALITATIVELY negative, which is the point of NPOV, correct? Simply saying "experience" is less accurate and less informative.MrSpammy (talk) 04:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be Age and Experience so you are simply describing two categories with no connotations. --UnnaturalSelection (talk) 04:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

But he did have some experience; just not a lot. Just like McCain, he had experience as a U.S. senator, but a few terms less. The point your trying to make is one I agree with it, and it has already been made in this section. Ejnogarb (talk) 04:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is there any debate about a GOP campaign talking point being used? 'Experience' is value neutral- Q:What experience have you had with this costly software that the job you're applying for relies upon? A:Quite a lot. (or) A: Not much at all. No one asks "Are you completely inexperienced with this costly software that the job you're applying for relies upon?" Interviewees, in any economy but this, would walk out for the hostility. Experience, not Inexperience. ThuranX (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Teleprompter discussion

Other than the two New York Times cites already in the article, more information can be found from the Politico piece and the new AP Analysis. I'd like to see some of this worked into the section. I think the topic has been well enough covered in the national press, and while too trivial to have as it's own article, it should be mentioned. Those objecting are more than welcome to opine. Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. This matter has been debated extensively. It is a trivial detail, invented by the Right and augmented by a few weekend columnists who wrote articles based on an inaccurate press release. It has no effect on Obama's public image (the subject of the article). It has not been "well-covered" in the press either. That is just a fallacy mantra chanted by people trying to turn an insignificant molehill into a mountain. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, you know little about me, so let's remain calm and not jump to conclusions. The "inaccurate press release" has nothing to do with it. None of it mentions the St. Patrick's Day incident, which you are correct would be making a mountain of a molehill. However, when the New York Times, Politico, Associated Press, Fox News (yes, even them), CNN, about a gagamillion (don't have specific numbers, but you get the idea) of blogs, etc., etc., etc. all mention Obama's extensive use of the teleprompter, I think "well-covered" covers it well. Again, this isn't about the Cowan incident. The mentions started long before then, and have simply grown since. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I have added it multiple times, but it keeps getting deleted by the same person. I was threatened to be banned for violatng the 3 revert rule, but the person who kept erasing it was not given the same threat, even though they made just as many reverts as me. This is proof that the administrators are abusing their power to prevent well sourced criticism of Obama from appearing at wikipedia. More proof of administrator bias is this comment that one of the administators left on my talk page: "you should be proud to have a president who prefers to be articulate and on message, instead of someone who behaved like a buffoon and embarrassed our nation with his antics." All of this is proof that the administrators are abusing their authority to keep well sourced criticism of Obama out of the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd disagree. Administrators are just people too, and they have the right to their own opinion, as expressed on your talk page. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken, Grundle2600. I am not an administrator, for one thing. And the reversions I have made have been done under the auspices of WP:BLP, which states:

Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability. The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals.

Please explain why quoting The New Tork Times is "contentious material" and "unsourced" and "a conjectural interpretation of a source" and "relies upon self-published sources" and "sources that otherwise fail to meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability." Grundle2600 (talk) 14:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Contentious: Marked by heated arguments or controversy. - is that not blindingly obvious? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That describes every political article at wikipedia. Why haven't you erased all of them? Grundle2600 (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims about the naming of Obama's teleprompter and the like are trivial and non-neutral. They demand the highest quality sources, and they must conform to WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, WP:V and other related policies. Your edits did not do that. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The Dowd citation [2] is of a throwaway joke that isn't a principal part of the column at all. The column criticized Obama, but not about his gadget. The other is just filler. PhGustaf (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Topic has clearly hit the main stream media and is part of Barack Obama's public image. It thus deserves an appropriate level of coverage in this article. For those who claim WP:NPOV issues, please remember that neutral point of view calls for representing significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias and not the purging of sourced material that does not reflect Obama in the best of all possible lights. --Allen3 ^talk 14:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That made me laugh! This isn't a "significant view". That is completely misleading. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

They also said The New Yotk Times was "discredited" when they erased the info! Grundle2600 (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That's because the NYT article was actually an opinion piece written by the rather polemic and deliberately antagonistic Maureen Dowd. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Grundle, you lost the AfD discussion, and by quite a margin at that. Perhaps you can go add a footnote to the Rush Limbaugh article about his creation of the "TOTUS" neologism and the subsequent overhyping of it, but it really has no place in any Obama-related article. Tarc (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Now he's added comments by right-wing apologist and "friend to Karl Rove" Ron Fournier. Jeez. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The source says that he is an "Associated Press Writer." Grundle2600 (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I wrote in Ron Paul for President. Who did you vote for? Grundle2600 (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Last time I voted, it was for the Conservative Party in the 2001 general election - an election that sadly extended the tenure of Tony Blair and allowed Gordon Brown to contribute to the current global financial crisis. I am a British citizen. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial; for examples and explanations that illustrate key aspects of this policy, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What's missing: evidence that these criticisms are consistent with views of the general public. I agree that there has been notable teleprompter criticism; I do NOT agree that "uses the teleprompter too much" is a common criticism among the American public. This has not been shown.--Loodog (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/304123.html "He read that opening statement from one massive TV monitor from the back and middle of the East Room. White House officials removed the normal glass teleprompters that usually are positioned on both sides of the podium. That change likely a reaction to the focus on the President's heavy use of teleprompters."

Grundle2600 (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And you just blindly believe that stuff? They SHOWED the "massive" TV in standard coverage many, many times. If they were trying to hide his use of a teleprompter, that's a funny way to go about it. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That statement isn't based on anything, it's not clear who'sFoxnews is saying it, and I'm not familiar with breitbart.tv. Here's what you want: "Polls indicate that the public believes Obama uses the teleprompter excessively." or even, "Bob Smith, professor of political science comments, 'People see Obama as using the teleprompter too much, and that's become a problem.'" A list of people who've made the teleprompter criticism isn't the same.--Loodog (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Teleprompter criticism is a bunch of kooky fringe whining, and as such, it does not get to be placed on the same plane as other, more widely-made/noted criticisms, i.e. too inexperienced, too elite, etc... It fails the "significant views" aspect of what you quoted above. End of story. Tarc (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

In the deleted article, this article, and this talk page, citations have been made to The New York Times, U.S. News & World Report, Associated Press, breitbart, Times Online, The Daily Mail, The Politico, Financial Times, and Canada Free Press. Please explain why those are "kooky, fringe" sources. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Grundle, you have reliable sources. You have sources that make a vague claim about reasons for a giant television, which, at best, only intimate that the teleprompter is a part of his public image. What you do not have is their intersection, sources that:

1. Are reliable.
2. Make direct statements about the opinion/perception of the general public (e.g. polls).

Cheers.--Loodog (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Similar reliable sources have also touched upon the Birthergate nonsense too, but it still doesn't warrant a mention in the main Barack Obama article. Why? Because whether or not something has a reliable source isn't the be all and end all arbiter of what can go into a Wikipedia article, as there is policy about notability and BLP, among others. This over-reliance of yours on a single policy is the flaw of your argument. Tarc (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Small point: the teleprompter material isn't trying to be added to the main Barack Obama article either. --Ali'i 15:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't we talk about something really important, like his Spider-Man collection?[3] PhGustaf (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, here is another article from the New York Times, titled "Tales of Totus, the President’s Teleprompter." Grundle2600 (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't change the issues that several editors have with the inclusion of the material. Tarc (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Grundle, your NYT article just says there are TOTUS criticisms, not that they're common, or a part of the general public's opinion.--Loodog (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

“ Every president since Dwight D. Eisenhower has used teleprompters, but none as extensively as Mr. Obama. ”

This is bound to be picked up. Eisenhower had years of military analysis under his belt. Ottre 22:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed section, Obama's impact on popular culture

There are several newspaper articles out there that point out the disproportionate (compared to prior presidents) number of books, buttons, calenders etc featuring Obama that are sold. There's even an Obama bobblehead. Here are some stories:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/27/AR2008112702319.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/24/business/media/24adcol.html
http://online.wsj.com/video/obama-memorabilia-recession-proof/4EE91ABF-7DA9-45F6-BD39-2F6811653797.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7978054.stm

This may or may not be something or part of something that deserves mention. Adding material to this article is very dangerous at the current state it's in. I think we should begin discussion of such a section now, but I urge everyone to not add any sections until the arbitration case has been resolved. --ScWizard (talk) 05:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not biographically relevant at all. Obama has no control over this type of merchandising. Vendors are trying to cash in on Obama's popularity, and Obama is essentially powerless to prevent it. This might conceivably have a place in Public image of Barack Obama, but certainly not here. -- Scjessey (talk) 05:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahh ok, let me move this discussion section over to the talk page of that article. --ScWizard (talk) 05:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Scjessey here. This seems completely suprious. I honestly can't see why it's relevant at all. The Squicks (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There is some confusion here. The conversation above (down to the last one by ScWizard) has been moved to this talk page from Talk:Barack Obama. On this article, it is conceivable that some of these sources could be used to indicate how vendors have cashed-in on Obama's popularity; however, the bit about it being "disproportionate" is obviously not appropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia

I recently added a sentence to this article, which was subsequently deleted.

The Conservapedia article on Barack Obama contains an extensive ideological exposition of why its editors believe Obama is "likely" Muslim.

The editor who deleted it stated that Conservapedia is far from a peer-reviewed source and dubious. However, this is missing the point. I agree my sentence should be reworded to fully reflect my intent, but my point in adding that sentence is this: I believe it is highly relevant that a wiki which is increasingly influential among members of the far Right has an extensive, ideological, detailed, and blatant section attempting to back up a claim that Obama is "likely" a Muslim is relevant background info supporting the fact that some subcultures of the U.S. view Obama as a clandestine Muslim. I am NOT trying to provide evidence, or allege that Obama is a Muslim. INSTEAD, I just feel it's relevant that certain elements of U.S. society view him as such. --71.111.230.71 (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

But, like they said, nobody cares what Conservapedia says. It's not a reliable or prominent source. Not to mention you can't just look at something and say something about it - we need third-party sources. Grsz¹¹ 01:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What the nutjobs say about him is relevant to a discussion of his public image. However, for technical reasons, I would suggest a new version of the sentence, with a link to the permanent snapshot of one particular version of said article, and the change of "why its editors believe" to "why those editing the article claim to believe" etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You cannot seriously be suggesting that we quote Conservapedia? It is fine for us to quote a reliable source that talks about what Conservapedia editors think, but you just cannot reference Conservapedia itself. This is a sub-article of a BLP, remember. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Scjessey. It would be like linking to 4Chan in an article about the Bush family's public image. The Squicks (talk) 03:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Even if Conservapedia articles weren't the quality of dogshit written at the 10th grade level, it still would not be a reliable source because it is not Peer reviewed.

If you're looking for a reliable source that talks about Obama's allegedly Muslimness, they abound.--Loodog (talk) 04:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

And on a side note, I don't think Conservapedia holds much sway over the Far Right base for anyone over the age of 16.--Loodog (talk) 04:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

To Loodog and everyone, I concede everyone's point. I guess my basic feeling remains that we should highlight the fact that a minority, but potentially vocal minority, believes Obama is a clandestine Muslim. (It would be an interesting empirical point to see whether, in response to Loodog, "Conservapedia holds much sway over the Far Right base for anyone over the age of 16." Don't have time for that research right now.) In any case, I'm probably not going to make an edits on the Obama-Muslim issue. However, some news articles from this April 2009 provide material for other editors use:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2009/04/02/11-of-americans-believe-obama-is-a-muslim.aspx

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpolitics/2009/04/nearly_one_in_f.html ("Nearly 20 Percent of Evangelicals Thinks Obama is a Muslim)

http://blog.beliefnet.com/pontifications/2009/04/barack-obama-our-first-muslim.html

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/godingovernment/2009/04/obama_is_a_muslimisnt_he.html

http://blogs.theledger.com/default.asp?item=2359002

--71.111.230.71 (talk) 10:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

We report facts about opinions, even about opinions that are completely ill-founded. Therefore, the fact that Conservapedia is rubbish doesn't preclude us from quoting it. Our limitation, though, is that we can't, in an article of reasonable length, quote everything that everyone has said about Obama. We have to summarize the notable opinions and provide an occasional representative quotation.

If the "Obama is a closet Muslim" silliness were being pushed heavily by someone as prominent as Rush Limbaugh, that fact might merit mention. Conservapedia, however, is nowhere near that level of prominence. (As a side note to 71.111.230.71, I'd be interested in any information that supports your assertion that Conservapedia "is increasingly influential among members of the far Right". I'd be surprised if even the wingnuts had much regard for Conservapedia.)

The poll results are worth including. Instead of linking to newspaper stories reporting on the Pew poll, however, we'd do better to link to the Pew report itself. JamesMLane t c 14:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: I see that Orange Mike has now taken that approach, and I concur with his edit. JamesMLane t c 14:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, Orange Mike. I made a very slight change & addition. --71.111.230.71 (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

New introduction needed

Here is the existing version of the introduction:

Many aspects of the public image of United States President Barack Obama are unusual among American politicians and stand in stark contrast to those of many of his former opponents.

During his candidacy for President, his international and biracial background was unprecedented and engendered questions of racial authenticity and religious affiliation. Obama's lack of experience on the national stage became a recurring theme used by former rivals Hillary Clinton and John McCain. His perceived combination of political savvy, calm and even temperament, and conservative support have all been credited with his ascendancy to the Presidential office.

To my mind, this entire introduction is an example of poorly-written original research. The first paragraph is particularly awkward and weasely, and the second paragraph does not seem neutrally-framed ("Obama's lack of experience"). It also mentions the names of political rivals, which does not seem appropriate for an introduction. I'd be interested in thoughts on a complete rewrite. I think we should start with something a bit like this, which I think is a more reasonable summary of the article:

Barack Obama's public image has been shaped by him being the first African American to be elected to the office of President of the United States, and by his atypical international heritage. His unusual background has engendered questions about his racial authenticity and religious affiliations. His perceived combination of political savvy, levelheadedness, and broad political support have been contrasted by allegations of elitism and a perception that he lacked experience on the national stage.

I would appreciate opinions and suggestions. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I was just reading that graf, and was about to do some copy editing. But you're correct, a complete rewrite is better, and yours is a fine start. PhGustaf (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about your rewrite but I agree that the intro is quite bad right now. The Squicks (talk) 21:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Strongest possible oppose. The introduction follows the literature almost word for word. No original research has gone into the "framing", as there are no real transitions to frame, although I do agree there are some problems with the leading sentence. Attention given to Obama's cultural identity was unprecedented (especially RE the Obama/Edwards policy differences), his "blackness quotient" was eventually discounted -- to a certain extent -- after he polled well in the mid-west and was not a dominant factor in the presidential campaign. Obama's candidacy as a whole was marked by public outreach rather than political strategy, and there hasn't been much written (yet) about the reaction to his Harvard doctrine. Ottre 21:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I've looked over the article and I simply cannot see where the introduction, which has been written extremely poorly and somewhat controversially, can be considered a fair summary. What is it about the proposed version that you object to? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't assume anything. Where is the original research? What constitutes research for that matter? I fail to see how a forthright introduction using conventional language is not a fair summary. Ottre 00:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

There are all sorts of problems with the existing version. In the first paragraph, apart from sounding awkward it contains two weasely "many" constructs. Much of the meat of the second paragraph is in my proposed version, but the inappropriate mentions of two political rivals have been removed. The unsupported "lack of experience" statement has been adjusted to include the word "perception" for neutrality. What specifically do you object to about this new proposed version? -- Scjessey (talk) 03:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose on the basis of

1. Grammar: "shaped by him being the" -> "shaped by his being the"
2. Simplification: Calling him the first African American president throws away all the stuff about his not being "black enough". Biracial encompasses both the fact of his blackness and questions of "insufficient" blackness.
3. OR: Calling his lack of experience a "perception" is something we don't quite have support for. His lack of experience being used by Hillary and McCain, we do.
4. Word choice: "unusual". It's kind of an unusual word choice with unusual connotations and less specific than "unprecedented".

--Loodog (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Greedy oil companies

I've twice had to revert a new section about how greedy oil companies are seeking a Swiss tax haven that appears to have nothing whatsoever to do with Barack Obama's public image. This section was previously added as a way of pushing the non-neutral point of view that Obama was somehow "anti-business", although this was unsupported by the source. Please build a consensus for controversial material in future. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course the oil companies are greedy - please name a company that doesn't want to make a profit. The entry is relevant, because it shows that Obama has the public image of being against private investment. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Rich people who voted for Obama are worried that he might raise their taxes

Perhaps this would make a good addition to the article. Source Grundle2600 (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

What exactly does that have to do with Obama's public image? -- Scjessey (talk) 04:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The article says that Obama has the public image of being a "class warrior." Grundle2600 (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The person who used the term is from the Cato Institute, a right-wing libertarian think tank. Hardly a representative sample. Also, on BLP-related articles we are looking for cast-iron sourcing that represents a preponderance of reliable sources, and a single article in the right-wing Daily Telegraph (which I used to buy everyday when I lived in the UK, I might add) is not representative. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

"That Mr Obama should have radical views on the shortcomings of the US economy is hardly surprising." I have to agree with Scjessey: this article seems nothing more than a writer's opinion, synthesized out of a hodgepodge of different things being said by different people, the first of whom is anonymous. To show this as genuine public opinion, we'd either need a poll, an interview with a pollster, or at least notable neutral commentators or a variety of sources across the spectrum.--Loodog (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama campaigning in New Hampshire

Do we know: (a)Where is New Hampshire this photo was taken? (b)What day it was taken? I'm not challanging the photo, I'd just like to include more information. The Squicks (talk) 19:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

That should be addressed on the talk page of the image involved, not on this talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

'Media Malpractice'

The Squicks (talk) 02:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)This probably would merit a seperate page all its own. Does it merit this much treatement here? No. It certainly violates our rules of weight.

This section does not merit an article of its own, and does not belong in this article. It was a section of the John Ziegler (talk show host) article that Clearcrash1 inappropriately cut-and-paste into this article on 15 May 2009. Newross (talk) 14:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree, it really doesn't have anything to do with this article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Fund managers burned by Obama now say they are weary

Fund managers burned by Obama now say they are weary I would like to add this to the article. In the past, whenever I added something about how Obama had a negative image in the eyes of the investor community, someone else erased it. I think this article is not balanced - it's just a puff piece for how great everyone allegedly thinks Obama is. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That's four days an no objections. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean the fund managers are said to be "wary". "Weary" is different; it's how one feels reading the dozenth attempt to poke blog-based petty trivia into the article. PhGustaf (talk) 14:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

@Grundle - You need to present an actual proposed wording if you want to build a consensus for it. Putting up a single source and then ranting about how this is a "puff piece" is not sufficient. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Communist support

Since the article already had a section on conservative support of Obama, I added a section on communist support of Obama. My source was the website of the Communist Party.

Scjessey erased it, and commented, "not a reliable source. You need a third party-source."

However, the article Political positions of Barack Obama cites Planned Parenthood as a source, and Scjessey does not object to that.

Why is that?

Grundle2600 (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood's statement is an official endorsement, meaning it has coverage in third-party sources. Those should be used in preference to Planned Parenthood's website. If you can find a third-party source showing official endorsement, these situations would be equivalent.--Loodog (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, there are many tens of millions of "conservatives" of various stripes in the US, and fewer than 15,000 members of the CPUSA. Nobody has paid much attention to them for decades, and their influence on mainstream politics is negligible. Trying to balance them against the conservatives breaks at least WP:WEIGHT. PhGustaf (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not the size of the communist party that matters - it's their ideology. The fact that they support Obama is noteworthy. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether they're relevant or not is moot without third-party sourcing of an explicit endorsement. This is just them posting on their site, "Obama won, we're happy!" There's a long list of groups that would satisfy that criteria.--Loodog (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If it is truly noteworthy then it would have been noted in some 3rd party source that is worthy of inclusion in this article. So far you that has not been shown, thus its not noteworthy. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 02:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Political positions of Barack Obama still cites cites Planned Parenthood as a source, and it has cited that source for a very long time, and none of you people have removed it. Why the double standard? Why haven't you people removed that source, if you believe it's wrong for me to cite the Communist Party as a source? Grundle2600 (talk) 05:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Go on and remove it. Better sources exist, like the one I provide above.--Loodog (talk) 11:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

There isn't even the slightest correlation between an endorsement by Planned Parenthood and an endorsement by the Communist Party. The only reason to include a CPUSA endorsement is to fan the "OMG OBAMA IZ A SEKRIT MARXIST!" flames. Let's not kid ourselves here. Tarc (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Slop

What on earth does: "Obama is of biracial background: the son of a Kenyan Luo father and a Kansan White American mother of European descent. With his upbringing in Honolulu and Jakarta and his Ivy League education, Obama's early life experiences differ markedly from many of the African American politicians who launched their careers in the 1960s through participation in the civil rights movement."

Have to do with his public image? These are biographical details that are exactly the same as what's already in the main Obama article. This article is about his public image. Please remove this content that has nothing to do with his public image and that is already almost word for word covered elsewhere. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I would've thought it was obvious. Obama's public image revolves around his color, heritage and atypical early life. Without this background information for context, much of the article wouldn't make any sense. The same goes for the background information relating to his religious beliefs. Although the words may duplicate (or be similar to) those used elsewhere, they clearly represent a necessary redundancy. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. $(Contentconcerningpublicimagehere)\supset (Contentconcerningpublicimageonmainarticle).$ This a daughter article; a good amount of redundancy is necessary to make it readable as a stand-alone article.--Loodog (talk) 04:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Then why not write "Obama's public image revolves around his color, heritage and atypical early life." The redundant content about his heritage isn't notable as far as his public image goes. It's redundant clutter. Truth be told, this article is godawful, but if even basic obvious edits like taking out things that have nothing to with his public image and that are totally redundant to other articles is objected to, it's going to be a trying task to try and make this article half-way decent. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The information is necessary for the reasons already given. I'm sorry if you don't see that, but dozens of other regular editors of this article apparently do. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm no expert at math, but how does 2 = dozens? The article should be focused on Obama's public image. Not other issues and content covered elsewhere. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm referring to the dozens of regular editors who have been contributing to and improving this article for months, obviously. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

<outdent>I welcome input on this issue. Content that is redundant to the main article and that isn't relevant to Obama's public image should be removed. If you want to clarify it's relevance please do so in the article. It isn't clear so it needs to be fixed or excised. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

We ought to give context in a stand-alone article as was pointed out further above so no, the content you removed here was relevant.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

PS: It's not a "List of..."-article.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no need. Everything is just fine and you're the only person who seems to be complaining. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Context to what? What does "Obama is of biracial background: the son of a Kenyan Luo father and a Kansan White American mother of European descent. With his upbringing in Honolulu and Jakarta and his Ivy League education, Obama's early life experiences differ markedly from many of the African American politicians who launched their careers in the 1960s through participation in the civil rights movement" have to do with public image? These are biographical details. If we're trying to state that his public image is related to his being biracial, why don't we do that? Surely there are sources that discuss this issue. Repeating biographical information that isn't relevant isn't informative to our readers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

We do. And all of this biographical information is used: is he really black? Has he been set back the same way many blacks typically are? Is he "black enough"? --Loodog (talk) 03:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

...and if I may point out, for month there was "edit warring" going on at his main page about him being (as self described) an African American or biracial.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If anything, he is white. His name in the vast majority of his life was 'Barry Dunham'. He was raised by his white family immersed a white culture and dated several white women while growing up. It was only until his identity crisis in his 20s that he decided to become black. (Of course, this is not something that I would push against consensus- I respect Wikipedia rules) The Squicks (talk) 06:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yeah; no place like Jakarta for getting immersed in white culture! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, whites generally don't have the "identity crisis in their 20s" about being black.--Loodog (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Honolulu, Hawaii seems a great place to be immersed to me. Also, sure someone can be white and then become black. Such cultural morphs are really common in human nature. See More Irish than the Irish themselves as an example. The 'blackness' (or 'darkness') verses 'whiteness' divide is a matter of spiritual/metaphysical nature and not of ethnicity, that's why Bobby Jindal, Vin Diesel, and Jessica Alba are all 'white'. The Squicks (talk) 01:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course, this has little (or nothing) to do with the Public Image of Obama, so I'll stop here. The Squicks (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Around the world

This section was extremely unbalanced, because 100% of the internaitonal opinion of Obama that was cited was positive. I added a few well sourced negative things, but someone else erased it, and their only comment was a personal attack on me, not on the content. I have put the content back in. Here it is:

A May 15, 2009 Washington Post article reported that the "buy American" provision of Obama's stimulus package has caused "outrage" in the Canadian business community, and that the government in Canada has "retaliated" by enacting its own restrictions on trade with the U.S. [67] British banks and stockbrokers have complained that Obama's tax policies have made it more difficult for them to do business with U.S. clients. [68] Hedge fund managers have claimed that Obama's treatment of secured creditors in a manner that is different from that called for under U.S. bankruptcy law will discourage them from lending money to unionized companies in the future. [69][70]

Grundle2600 (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

What has this got to do with Obama's public image? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It's his image among people who invest, lend money, and create jobs. Are they not allowed to have an opinion? Grundle2600 (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You're conflating political opinions with public image, the subject of this article. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This first detail seems to be about his public image among Canadians in general, which is related to his policies, and I would see as relevant. The latter two are about his image among a small minority that is not relevant, in my opinion. The Squicks (talk) 06:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism Section

What about a criticism section of Obama? Why is there no allegations of him being a puppet of the White House-Wall Street Consensus? Clearly he did sent more troops to Afghanistan, and is destablizing Pakistan? What about his corporate and bank bailouts? Why are they never mentioned?

Seriously, this article needs to include a criticism section of Obama. This article is too NPOV in relation to Obama - too rosy colored. This is Unneutral NPOV. I recommend adding a criticism section to this article. NOW.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.173.155 (talk) 16:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

"Criticism" sections are not appropriate in Wikipedia; such information should be in the body of the relevant article(s). If you feel that the article is not neutral in its point of view (there's no such thing as TOO Neutral Point Of View), then give constructive links to reliable sources of articles about the public perception of him that are not already included in the article, and explain why they are relevant. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Clearly he did sent more troops to Afghanistan, and is destablizing Pakistan? If Obama has a negative public perception in Pakistan, than that is certainly worth mentioning in the relevant section here. But where are your sources? The Squicks (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Show through reliable sources that these are mainstreams criticisms found among the public.--Loodog (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic background

The race and culture section cites a source uploaded to factcheck.org about what percentage of the population think he's of partial arabic descent, but the citation doesn't seem to explicitly state that he isn't of arabic descent. Andjam (talk) 07:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Since he is not in fact of Arabic descent, there is no requirement that any given citation also state that fact. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"Incorrect"

I'd like to clarify that I am not the IP that removed the word "incorrect" but I do agree that the use of the word is counter to WP:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves. It is not necessary to label the sentiment as "incorrect."--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless anyone objects, I will remove the word in question. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I do. That it is "incorrect" is one of the facts that need to speak for themselves. We are not "labeling" anything, we are stating facts. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how it is necessary to label the views as "incorrect." Do we label the beliefs of 9/11 conspirators as "incorrect" or the views of other revisionist historians?--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

We are talking about a fact here, not opinion. If someone believes that George Washington is still alive, they believe that incorrectly. To suggest that it's a matter of opinion is to ignore proven facts. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Lets say John Doe claims that George Washington is still alive. It's not appropriate to label this opinion as "incorrect" in his article, even if there is sufficient evidence to prove that. Let the readers see for themselves, labels such as this should not be used per the policy linked above. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, you're misreading the policy above. It has to do with characterizations of opinion, such as "evil" "cynical" "cruel", etc. To use the George Washington example, that article discusses incorrectly held beliefs such as the myth that he had wooden teeth. It's the same idea here. That George Washington did not have wooden teeth and Barack Obama is not Muslim are facts, not opinions. And, as the policy says, let the facts speak for themselves. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

"Resist the temptation to apply labels or moralize." Do you disagree that the word is a "label"? --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It is only a label if your particular POV slant wishes it to be. Tarc (talk) 01:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No, a particular POV prevents individuals from seeing the use of labels. Do you believe "incorrect" is not a label?--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not a label, it is a statement of fact concerning the sentiment in question. As the user explained above, your opinion is incorrect and you are misreading the policy. RTRimmel (talk) 02:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

And like I've said above, it doesn't really matter if it is a statement of fact, it is improper to affix a label. I am not going to argue over the definition of words, so if you don't understand the meaning of the word "label," either you are ignoring "facts" or you just don't know. I will assume good faith and link to you the definition on wiktionary ,wiktionary:label. So far your argument is that my "opinion" is incorrect. Do you really think that is a constructive argument that will help progress the discussion? Let me explain to you that absolutist statements are not constructive. Just answer this question: Is the use of the term "incorrect" not labeling the opinion as such?--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The answer has already been given to you. That you don't like the answer is obvious, but that is not our problem. May be time to leave this dead horse be. Tarc (talk) 03:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has answered the question nor do they want to, because it will show that "incorrect" is a label and does not belong. Demonstrate the evidence, and let the readers decide. Perhaps instead of "incorrect" one could state that "...% of Americans believe Obama is Islamic despite his membership of the ... church (or any variation)." --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The opinion that barack obama is muslim is incorrect. Expanding it to your definition simply clutters the page without improving the article. I'd suggest reading Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Words_that_label and it falls under the "Pedophilia is a sexual perversion..." vs "Pedophilia is a paraphilia..." subsection where incorrect is the most neutral term one can use. Suggesting that he goes to church X is insufficient because every RS says it is incorrect. Because all of the RS say that it is wrong, we go with the neutral incorrect as opposed to a descriptive term. RTRimmel (talk) 04:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you reread your link. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

William, please give up. Consensus says it's fine. We all know you don't, but that's the way it is. PhGustaf (talk) 04:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not "consensus" if it's counter to policy. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I won't rerevert because of the article probation. PhGustaf (talk) 04:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't rerevert because the only difference between the versions is that one uses a label while the other uses evidence. You can't just state that something is incorrect, you should use evidence to show why something is incorrect. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, as everyone has mentioned that you are the only person who appears to maintain that misconception of the policy. Labeling something as incorrect when 100% of RS says its incorrect is the correct way to perform the action. That's what Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Words_that_label says. Its been used on multiple other articles for the same purpose. Your way is actually against policy and, in its present form, open to interpretation by the same group that believes him to be Muslim in the first place. So arguing that you are adhering to policy when you are making your edits is just a bit... odd. But because I'm mindful of 3RR, I'll let other editors get involved though you seem to be moving to unilaterally ignore opinions on policy that you disagree with. RTRimmel (talk) 05:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I tossed it, as the "against policy" argument is without merit. Tarc (talk) 05:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain why? It is currently using the label "incorrect," that is unnecessary given that it is explained that he is a member of the Protestant church. I don't see your argument?--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

As repeatedly explained above, your viewpoint and your argument are incorrect. You are moving towards WP:IDHT. If you feel that the other 4 editors are incorrect, there are other remedies you may attempt, but it is improper to continue in this vein any further. RTRimmel (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I was asking User:Tarc. No offense, but you are continuing the absolutist statements, and they are not helpful. It's interesting to note, the wording of the poll's source [4] does not even use a label. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. Given your consistent misquoting and misapplication of policy and your own use of absolutist statements I was attempting to provide a line of logic you could follow. RTRimmel (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You could help yourself by explaining your view rather than saying it IS one way or another.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

As William S. Saturn suggests, it would be best to look at the poll's source to see what wording they used. July 2008 poll source (emphasis added):

... the incorrect perception that the Democratic presidential candidate adheres to the Muslim faith or to another non-Christian faith has remained remarkably constant over the course of the 2008 election campaign. Pew Research Center

or the October 2008 report:

Overall, 55% of voters correctly identify Obama as a Christian, while 15% say they do not know because they have not heard enough about his religion. Another 14% are unsure because they have heard different things about Obama’s religious beliefs. Pew Research Center

or the March 2009 survey:

More than two months into Barack Obama's presidency, as many people incorrectly identify him as a Muslim as did so during the 2008 campaign.Pew Research Center

Perhaps, someone can update the references in the article. Abecedare (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

William, I would suggest rereading the discussion from the start. It has been explained repeatedly and from various direction as to how the word 'incorrect' can be fully integrated into the text of the poll without any issues from several different positions in policy. Again, you are refusing to get the point as stated by multiple editors and bogging down editors who could be participating in more productive activity. And further, your argument against 'incorrect' is an absolute one as declared by you during the discussion above. If your argument is correct, for example, then the waterboarding article, which begins with waterboarding is a form of torture is incorrect. As multiple administrators, article reviews, and policy reviews have always came back with that their opening sentence is allowed, your viewpoint is obviously incorrect in cases where factual, substantive statements are made that are backed with a significant majority in reliable sources. Your position that "it doesn't really matter if it is a statement of fact, it is improper to affix a label." is incorrect because then "Pedophilia is a paraphilia" which is used on the Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Words_that_label and according to your absolutist logic that is not allowed. Its really that simple and all of these arguments are listed higher in this section. RTRimmel (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

To Abecedare, The Pew Research wording is not the best for wikipedia neutrality. The Washington Post's structure is better for readers and more encyclopedic, and that is why I cited it. What is wrong with explaining why something is incorrect rather than simply stating it is incorrect? --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Two questions:

1. Can you explain why, "Pew Research wording is not the best for wikipedia neutrality", while "The Washington Post's structure is better for readers and more encyclopedic" instead of just stating that as a fact ?
2. Are we now disallowed from using all factual adjectives (what you call "labels") on wikipedia ? For example, can we continue to call Obama the 44th president or would that be "labeling" him the 44th president ?

Abecedare (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

1. NPOV#let the facts speak for themselves. Nothing more I can say on this.
2. Labels are a poor way to describe something. While I would have no problem labeling Obama as the 44th president because we all know this to be true, much like a mathematical formula or the shape of the land. On his biography page, it would be better to explain that "he was sworn in on January 20, 2009 as the nation's 44th president. However, there is a difference between a widely believed fact and a fact. A state of mind cannot generally be labeled as an undisputed fact, since one's mind cannot be read. While many are misinformed it is not appropriate to label one's opinion of one's state of mind as "incorrect" since it can be explained away by true facts. A true fact for example is that Obama is a member of the Protestant faith.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It's clear that you have an idiosyncratic (and IMO grossly incorrect) understanding of WP:NPOV. Since you disagree with the consensus on this page, I suggest that you start and RFC or use another dispute resolution mechanism if you wish to continue with this argument; to mix metaphors, continuing to beat a dead horse in front of the same audience is unlikely to revive it. :-)

Just a friendly reminder: this page (as well as Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories‎) is under article probation so any attempt to use "consensus" is never counter to policy as a justification to edit-war, is unlikely to be end well. Hope you keep that in mind. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not a concensus if it is against policy and one revert is hardly an edit war. I'm not going to start an RFC over one word. I would just like a simple explanation of why it is better to use the word "incorrect" when evidence can be cited instead. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine. My suggestion was sincere but if you think "I didn't hear that" is a better strategy, that is your choice. My apologies but I won't spend any more time trying to provide a "simple explanation" in the forlorn hope of correcting your misunderstanding, especially since that is irrelevant as far as the article is concerned. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

If you can't even explain then why are you so adamant about it? --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

But he did explain it. So did quite a few other editors. Some provided policy guidelines. Some provided examples of other articles with similar adjectives on the wiki. You have consistantly ignored all of these arguments instead operate as "I didn't hear that". I apologize that you feel that everyone else is incorrect and that multiple wiki articles (such as the Waterboarding) article go against your viewpoint. They are following policy however. RTRimmel (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps then I missed it. Could you highlight for me an explanation above of why using evidence is not better than using labels? --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I've explained it to you 3 times now, but hey, I got another one in me. Adjectives are useful, using them enhances understanding. Evidence is useful too in situations where there is not a clear cut answer. The red firetruck is an adjective not a label. I wouldn't say, The firetruck, which painting and color expert Hugo Painterson has claimed is red. I would just say the red firetruck because it is not subjective. Actually going through and finding an expert opinion on a non-controversial subject is a violation of wp:weight and is talking down to the reader. It is simply a red firetruck. There is a difference between adjectives and labels. 2+2=6 is incorrect, we don't say 2+2=6 is incorrect according to your 3rd grade math teacher Mrs Gretchen. It is just incorrect. If you follow your logic to its painful conclusion, Pedophilia is a paraphilia is not allowed. Yet, it is in the examples section of what you are SUPPOSED to use. Maybe I just am not following you logic, please explain to me how your viewpoint wraps around Pedophilia is a paraphilia? Paraphilia is a label, and not a pleasant one, and it is recommended. Why isn't an incorrect opinion? RTRimmel (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not opposing the use of adjectives. Like I said above, there are two types of fact. One requires the insertion of true facts for it to be truly NPOV, rather than simply reflecting the majority opinion as fact. This is where labels should not be used. Pedophilia is a paraphilia because it is far from being a sexual norm. I don't see why you keep bringing that up. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I keep quoting the appropriate sections of policy so you can see where they come from. Wait, so you are saying that "Barack Obama is not a muslim" is majority opinion and not a fact? There is your problem. Barack Obama is not a muslim. Such it is not the type that requires the insertions of true facts to be NPOV, because it is not simply reflecting the majority opinion as fact. Its reflecting that stated beliefs of the person in question as fact. Unless you believe that Barack Obama, the person, has based his faith on a majority opinion or something. Then you'd need a reliable source. Glad to have answered that one for you, thank goodness I was afraid we'd be at this forever. RTRimmel (talk) 01:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Honestly RTRimmel, you don't make much sense. A state of mind can never be proven, a membership can. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

A muslim state of mind? Really. So when he withdrew his membership from his old church he suddenly became a non-christian only to become one again when he put in a new membership. Because his religion is a 'state of mind' and admissions from people to realiable sources are not valid. Obama saying I am not a muslim carries no weight. Obama saying I am a christian carries no weight. Obama, saying I am christian in a major worldwide interview carries no weight. Only his membership in a church proves his non-muslimness... and he was not a member of a church for months, so during those month's who knows. You do realize that this viewpoint of yours is against policy. I'd quote policy to you, again, but I don't see how that's going to end any differently than last time. And I might mention that I could follow all the other editors arguments and yours doesn't make any sense, it seems that your position may be the one in question. RTRimmel (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Anybody can say anything, you can belong to a religion but a religion is a person's state of mind. The only proof one has for their religion is their membership. One's own classification does not prove the factual accuracy. I've already pointed out through policy (which you constantly ignore), that labels such as "incorrect" are inappropriate. You're way off topic, and you keep citing policies that are irrelevant to this discussion. My position makes perfect sense, the use of "incorrect" in this context is not in line with wikipedia's NPOV policy. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, you are the only one who ascribes to that belief. According to you a christian who is not a member of a church is not a christian. Your POV is that a state of mind cannot be verified. My POV is that this is against policy and such a standard is blatently false. For example Rush Limbaugh is routinely described as conservative within his bio, according to your logic this label should be qualified on every mention of the term but it is not. By your logic Waterboarding should not be described as a form of torture, but rather qualified. Barack Obama describes himself as a christian, you may feel that this necessitates some grand description however as both the man and all reliable sources point to this. WP:Weight describes this as well, as there are no reliable sources that say Barack Obama is a muslim, and in fact all of them point to him being Christian, giving weight to the opinion that he is not christian is specifically not allowed. As such, even qualifying Obama's religion by providing a single fact, his church membership, is a POV violation because there are such a plethora of sources that providing only one source on either side gives the appearance that both sides are equal. IE: 29% of people though Barack Obama was Muuslim, however Barack Obama is a member of the christian church. gives the appearnce that both sides are equally valid. It is akin to saying 29% of people believe in Intelligent design, though the scientific community largely follows the theory of evolution. In both cases, presenting it in the format you describe places considerably more WP:Weight on the first argument than it can possibly justify due to its lack of reliable sources. As all of the other editors have mentioned, your perception of incorrect as a label in this circumstance is incorrect. I'm sorry citing the policies in the label section seem off topic to you, but as we were talking about labels I felt they were appropriate. According to 4 other editors your view of policy is incorrect.. If you feel that we are all wrong, please take it over to content dispute and let them handle it. I noticed you attempted to contact some administrators to assist you, I would recommend that you wait on them to explain proper policy to us rather than continue with this exercise. The overwhelming consensus, presently, is that this does fall inline with policy and you are misinterpreting policy for whatever reason. RTRimmel (talk) 04:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

If they aren't a member of any church they are a self-described Christian. Obama was a member of a church and I don't think he dropped that membership by leaving that particular church. Wikipedia is not democracy, so it doesn't really matter how many editors are misinterpreting policy. I think that too big of a deal is being made over one word, and I agree that this back and forth is not really constructive anymore. So we'll see if anybody sees this and agrees with me and in the meantime I won't change the wording but I want to make it clear that I still believe it is not in line with NPOV. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I now based the paragraph on more direct statements by the authors of the report in Newsweek. I'm not so worried about using the word "incorrect", but there was a bit of original interpretation there, as 42% included people that said the statement is "not too truthful", which may be too harsh. I would prefer relying on a secondary presentation rather than raw data. Vesal (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You just made one of the most blatantly POV statements in an article that I've ever seen. I'm interested to see how the other editors react to it. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It was a fairly direct paraphrase of a reliable source; however, I should have distanced wikipedia from the strong wording used there. (Although, if you were to read that source, you would note that it discusses the disinformation both among democrats and republicans.) As to how others react? As usual, reverting rather than consulting the source and improving the article. Thus, we are back to the original statement, which takes the number 42% because someone decided that summing those particular numbers is a good idea. Wonderful original research based on a primary source, but then, calling bloggers ignorant is so much worse ... Vesal (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Ideology Section

The section is balanced because Obama responded to it. If there are poor references, than delete them. However, I put several references, and therefore at least one of them most be good.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Anything along these lines needs to have consensus before being added to the article. Please show reliable sources to back up section and please wait for response from other editors for consensus for or against such additions. Brothejr (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The additions were not only not reliably sourced, they consisted primarily of editorial opinion about Barack Obama by political partisans, something that is present no matter who the president is. It had nothing to do with his public image, the ostensible subject of this article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Editorial opinion is what this page is all about. It's about what people think about them.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The article contains material cited to reliable sources. The material you wish to add was cited to blogs, tabloid rags, and lobbying firms. Tarc (talk) 02:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, let me give some examples and you tell me which ones aren't good references.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Examples

• Let's say I add: "Many conservative pundits such as Stanley Kurtz [5] believe Obama is a radical liberal. Many others have called Obama a socialist such as Henry Lamb.[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=78330]"

Anything wrong with adding those 2 sentences?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Among other things, World Net Daily is absolutely totally not a Reliable Source. Juxtaposing the sentences like that argubly WP:SYNTH, too. More importantly, this is just name-calling: it says nothing of value. PhGustaf (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This page is about Obama's public image, about how people perceive him. If many Americans out there criticize that Obama is a socialist or radical liberal, then its relevent because its what people think about him. I have no conservative agenda. I'm simply stating the facts of the what other people say. --Jerzeykydd (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• I also wanted to give another reference to debate on: "Many conservatives such as former Majority Leader Tom Delay have agreed that Obama is marxist.[6]--Jerzeykydd (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Who suggested you had a conservative agenda? Anyway, it's just another crap source and more meaningless name-calling. PhGustaf (talk) 03:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Bias

A complaint I have is that this page has no criticism of Obama. Anyone disagree?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 23:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The article makes it seem as if there is nobody who has ever criticized him and that is far from fact. His public image among conservatives is written in such a way to suggest that conservatives mostly praise him, which is not true. His public speaking has also been criticized for relying too heavily on a teleprompter, and yet that is nowhere in the article. If editors do not want to add balance to the article and want to continue to believe that Obama has never been criticized then a neutrality tag should be added. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

A)Please provide criticism that should be on this page and is backed up by reliable sources that are not, blogs, editorials, WND, etc. Also, make sure that the articles are exactly saying the criticism word for word, please no synthesis. B)Two people who claim a POV problem due to their POV's not being represented in this article does not make a POV problem. Brothejr (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

My POV? I have no POV. If you are denying that this article is biased, then do you believe that Obama has never been criticized for his speaking ability, policies and ideology? --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There's an extensive discussion of the teleprompter matter at the top of this very page. PhGustaf (talk) 00:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

And it should be included. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

After just a few minutes of searching I find this. I'm sure I could find more. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Might I ask, if you do not have a POV, then why are you pushing more criticism in? Just a quick scan I see there are at least two sections which deal with of the valid criticism. Plus a link to an article completely on another valid criticism. Brothejr (talk) 01:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Because the article is obviously biased. John McCain and Jesse Jackson were not the only individuals to criticize Obama.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, that article you found was an OP-Ed which it clearly states by the authors name and thus cannot be used as a reference. Brothejr (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes it can be used because it shows the viewpoint of the media. Please re-read RS. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It can only be used for the opinion of the author, nothing more. I think you should read the RS policy. Brothejr (talk) 01:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Which is the media. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Still nope, just Michael Gerson, the author of the Op-Ed. Sadly there still is no way around this per the policy. Brothejr (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"According to Michael Gerson of the Washington Post and Council on Foreign Relations, President Obama is known as the "teleprompter president" due to his use of the machine while giving speeches. Gerson observed that "Obama can be ambitiously eloquent (with the teleprompter)" but "without it, he tends to be soberly professorial." Ron Fournier of the Associated Press also criticized this usage, asking "What kind of politician brings a teleprompter to a news conference?" [7] A story in Politico.com described the device as Obama's "crutch." [8] --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Then all we can do is attribute these claims to those people and oprganizations. However, do they belong in the article, still no. Brothejr (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You haven't given a reason why it shouldn't be included, other than your false interpretation of RS, which you just backed away from. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't backed away from anything, nor given a false representation of the WP:RS policy. Simply put, you have not proven your argument. OP-ED are only valid for their authors opinions and only their authors opinions. You will need a regular article from a reliable source that backs that criticism up. Also, it needs to explicitly say that criticisms. The article cannot be a blog, OP-ED, attack site, POV slanted "news" site like WND, etc. Finally, please note there are already a large amount of criticism in the article already, so your argument is to include even more. Brothejr (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The source I used is fine in the manner I used it. I will now insert this into the article, since I see no arguments against its inclusion. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't do that. Consensus against it was established last March, nothing of import has changed since, and you have no trace of new consensus. Such an insertion would be disruptive. Please remember that this is a collaborative effort. PhGustaf (talk) 04:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Please remember that anybody can edit.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I threw a source saying that he doesn't always use the teleprompter on there. Are we sure this qualifies under WP:Weight, this is the first I've heard of 'teleprompter president' and its apparently almost exclusively used on conservative talk radio. The section may need to be shortened somewhat, especially if he continues to not use the teleprompter. RTRimmel (talk) 04:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It fails miserably under WP:WEIGHT. It is entirely trivial. We decided that last March (look up a bit) and nothing has changed since. PhGustaf (talk) 05:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a public view regardless. And its covered in many reliable sources, so its not "trivial." --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:Weight says "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well." The term only has penetration in the conservative talk radio side of things, and given that their are sources that say he is not always using a teleprompter, we are probably putting too much weight behind it in the article at the moment. If the viewpoint was wide spread it would be one thing, but most of the sources are from March and I didn't see any of the recently. It looks, again given by the fact that he's not always using the teleprompter, that this criticism can be described in the past tense as well. RTRimmel (talk) 11:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with RTRimmel. Just because some conservative critics have criticized Obama for her teleprompter use back in March does not mean the majority of the U.S. hold that view. Little to no reliable sources are covering it at the moment and it was a brief blip on the radar back in March when Rush spoke of it. Added upon that the only places that were discussing the issue back in Marck were blogs, Op-Eds, and attack/POV sites. Just because various people are voicing their opinions does not make it a fact or very noteworthy. Brothejr (talk) 11:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a question for you User:Brothejr: Do you want this page to have no criticism of Obama? You say I have conservative bias for pushing criticism of Obama when what all I'm actually trying to do is state the facts of what some prominent people say about him, which is no different than what is on Sarah Palin's public image wikipedia page, where there are many stated facts about how some people express criticism toward her. Every politician, even FDR and Ronald Reagan, have had criticism (maybe not alot but some). So just answer my question.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, like I said above, if you read the article you will see just about every sub section under public image section all have criticism of Obama, a broadly placed link to a rather relevant negative issue relating to Obama, and if you go to the nav boxes down at the bottom, you will see links to other article on Obama's criticism. Brothejr (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Are we really arguing the teleprompter stuff again? Really? All of that was put to bed quite awhile ago. Tarc (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Concensus can change. And there has been alot of coverage of Obama's speaking ability, so if you want to add more praise to it, then good but it's something that is important and sourced from reliable sites. It's more an observation than a criticism. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus does not come from a single voice such as yours. If you wish to try to see if you can gain acceptance for such an addition, then by all means do so. But edit warring to jam it in now, sans discussion, is an egregious display of bad faith on your part. Tarc (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Looking back at the March 2009 discussions, consensus on this was clear. As such, I'm removing it until a new consensus to ADD it can be reached. Unitanode 18:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There didn't seem to be much of a concensus back then, just a bunch of biased editors piling on. And it's not just me that sees problems with this article, many have noted this in the past. I don't see why you removed a paragraph about Obama's speech-giving described by the media using reliable sources. This is simply a description of his public image. What is everybody's specific problem with the paragraph? And before you start talking about WP:Weight, read the depictions section, these are laughable violations of WP:Weight, and yet I see no objection to this. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

People who dismiss consensus as "just a bunch of biased editors piling on" are treating all of this as at battleground, and do more harm than good by participating, as we saw in the recently closed ArbCom case. I really don't see how you can be considered a good-faith contributor to this article. Tarc (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I admit that the I shouldn't have used the word "biased" so I crossed it out. But you're not really helping yourself by attacking me rather than explaining why there shouldn't be a section. I am just going to ignore your laughable and ironic bad-faith assumption. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, it's yours to argue for inclusion. Consensus previously established that it shouldn't be included, so now it's your turn to show why it should, which you have not done to the satisfaction of those who are commenting here. Until you have, it stays out. Unitanode 22:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Which I already have above. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you have not, as there is still, clearly, no consensus to add the section you wish to place. Until you have such a consensus, it stays out. Unitanode 22:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Making absolutist statements rather than discussing the issue doesn't help your argument. I am currently involved in discussion, but you are not. You keep bringing up "consensus" but that is not the same as a majority view. You're continuous stating to "keep it out" is not very constructive, and honestly I view it as an annonance to me and the other editors actually discussing the material. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Weight is still a prime issue. The depictions, silly though they may be, go directly to his public image. A three-month-old minor news blip does not. His dislike of beets has received more coverage. PhGustaf (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Obama teleprompter yeilded 2,140 Google news results. "Obama Republican" received 1,020 results, Obama beets received 371. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This line of argumentation has been tried and tried and tried again in various Obama-related articles, and it fails every time because it is the result of a lack of understanding of policy here. Reliable sourcing is but one policy in the Wikipedia; just because a media outlet mentions something does not mean that that is an automatic qualifier for an article of its own, or a notation within an article. Notability and undue weight play major roles, among others. Please, read through some past AfD discussions such as this, this, and this. Tarc (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a one time event nor is it an article. It's a simple mention in a small paragraph. "Obama Republican" is less notable than the use of the teleprompter and yet it receives a whole section. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Google counts are not useful metrics of notability. PhGustaf (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

In this case it makes sense for comparison purposes. How can you prove your belief that it is not notable enough for a small mention in a sub-article about Barack Obama, while "Obama Republican" is? --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That argument is called WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and is not considered a useful one. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No it's not. We're discussing weight issues, not other articles. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody answered the question. --William S. Saturn (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)