![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 55 | ← | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | → | Archive 65 |
More birthplace trolling. Sceptre ( talk) 02:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. |
THE STATEMENT BY MARANISS IS PURE HEARSAY. David Maraniss fails to cite the source of the remark about the hospital within his article. The exact location of Obama's birth is still under investigation by World Net Daily (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=96202) and a host of other individuals ( http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/03/04/quo-warranto-legal-brief-part-1/) and organizations ( http://www.usjf.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=index&catid=13). Barack Obama has hired an expensive team of lawyers to keep his long-form birth certificate from public view. Why? The "Certification of Live Birth", that Obama put on his web site DOES NOT name the hospital, the doctor, the child's weight, etc. Therefore, Maraniss remark is can only be described as hearsay. Barack Obama was born at the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu, Hawaii, United States, -- Maraniss, David (August 24, 2008). "Though Obama Had to Leave to Find Himself, It Is Hawaii That Made His Rise Possible". Politics (Washington Post) JMDonovan ( talk) 00:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
|
This is the same troll, back again. Same minor syntax errors, same paranoia flavor, same insistence that smear campaign material be integrated. ThuranX ( talk) 17:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
unconstructive discussion of fringe birth theories |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Obama is loosely referred to as a 'professor', when he was teaching; however, as the article points out, he was a 'Lecturer' and a 'Senior Lecturer'. He should be referred to as a 'lecturer'. KenmanLF ( talk) 13:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. What matters is what the university says. And what it says is clear.
But let's put that aside for a moment and see what the WP article says. It's that:
Any moderately alert reader is likely to think "Huh?" The period is divided into two; for each of these Obama was something other than "Professor", yet the two add up to the period he is said to have been a "professor". [Here and elsewhere in this message, I am using the Shift key carefully.]
What the "professor" bit means here is that -- to me, most uninterestingly -- Lecturers and Senior Lecturers are loosely termed professors at U Chi. This tells us nothing about what he actually did. Use of the word "classified" is wordy too. So, my suggestion:
This neither can be misread as saying he was a Professor (he wasn't) nor implies that he wasn't a professor (he was). Nit-pickers, axe-grinders and miscellaneous fanatics would be served up with the existing, informative and excellent footnote. -- Hoary ( talk) 05:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Let's just wait on it a while. It might be worth noting that this thread was started by KenmanLF's very first edit. PhGustaf ( talk) 02:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Bouncing leftward] The article asserts stuff, you do, ThuranX does, I do. There's not much discussion going on, however. PhGustav, you say that "the fix" (singular definite) is not to mention "lecturer" at all. Actually that's only one among three or more fixes, and while reasonable people may disagree on this I don't think it's the best fix. However, I've already said that I think it would be an improvement on what's there now. ¶ ThuranX, when you were not writing about the identity and/or motivations of the username who most recently brought up this little matter, you pointed out that the university calls Obama a professor (something I have never disputed) but then continued by talking about "nit-picking" and "a semantics game". I rather agree with you there too. What's important is that Obama was an active and eminent teacher of constitutional law at U Chicago. Whether he was a "(Senior) Lecturer" or "professor" or (correctly but confusingly) both is indeed by the way, and that's why my final suggestion was to delegate the whole matter of nomenclature to the footnote and instead just to say what he did. ¶ This nomenclature is either important or it isn't. You say it isn't. I say it isn't. So let's drop it. ¶ If on the other hand it is important (another option that I'm willing to consider), then it's worth presenting in such a way that it doesn't look self-contradictory. We can hardly write:
and I suggest something like:
It's not pretty, but it's less likely to appear as a typo or contradiction than what we have now, and it does away with the slightly odd "classified". -- Hoary ( talk) 06:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Just to add my two cents, the university said, after the "controversy," that they "regarded" him as a professor - that's all fine and dandy, but Frank Abagnale was "regarded" as a teaching assistant when he forged a degree from Columbia University and he was also "regarded" as a lawyer when he forged another degree from Harvard. The point is that what people "regard" is plainly pointless - the real questions are what is a professor and what is a lecturer? In my mind, a professor holds an advanced degree in the field they are teaching, trains people up to masters/Phd level in their field, and produces academic writings on their subject. As far as I know, Barack meets none of those criteria and therefore is plainly not a professor - he is exactly what his title stated - a lecturer. TheGoodLocust ( talk) 20:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
<outdent>"Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source."
I rehighlighted that for you. Also, and more importantly the source that is being used and misinterpreted isn't even a university newspaper - it is a blurb on a university website. So, if we are supposed to "use care" with primary sources, then why are we quoting a university website and then calling that a "university newspaper?" TheGoodLocust ( talk) 23:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
←This again? See Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 24#Professor, for last year's version of this idiotic argument - I suggested wording then which I think stuck for a while, although I don't remember now - close to Sheffield Steel's suggestion: Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School part-time from 1993 until his election... . I'd go with that, or with SS's or with lower case professor which is what dozens of sources use, and I'd suggest we end this. Tvoz/ talk 19:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm starting a new section in case anyone wants to talk about the actual text. I've made a fairly minor (in my opinion) bold edit [1] (after goofing with a big fat typo that Thuranx caught quickly and reverted - my bad) that attempts to smooth out the description of Obama's teaching career. It avoids any attempt to classify what he did, and simply says he taught constitutional (and others - see the sources) law courses at the school for 12 years, and then gives his official position. If anyone wants to go into the nitty gritty about calling him a "professor" or not, and explaining how Chicago actually classifies such things, I don't think that's really necessary but there's plenty of room in the footnote for that. And folks, a strong request with some teeth in it - please keep it on topic and don't use this occasion to complain about other editors. Hope that helps. Wikidemon ( talk) 00:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
←There are plenty of sources that refer to Obama as a "Professor", so I see no reason why this title should not be used per previous (exhaustively explored) consensus discussions. -- Scjessey ( talk) 03:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes because the New York Times is a "great" newspaper...good grief. And yes, they, like most newspapers are simply repeating the myth of Obama. You say there is no reason to take it out and I say there is no reason to include it. I have a source that has actual expertise in this area and you have a fluff piece from a biased paper. Uhh...hello? McFly? But hey, I like your argument, "this is what we've always said and so this is what we must always say" - I guess that makes it easy to ignore my new and superior source of information (not to mention one that actually lines up with the facts you always seem to ignore (e.g. no advanced degree in law)). TheGoodLocust ( talk) 04:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
<outdent> Okay, so he earmarks over a million dollars for the University of Chicago's hospital (a month before his wife gets a 200% raise there), $8 million for human genome research there, which comes out to $9 million total, and then later on their PR office gives him a good statement and they are completely unbiased? Really? Really? You might want to read up on conflict of interest, and you might want think whether it was a good idea to piss off their current Senator/possibly future president or not. Oh, and no academic papers aren't required to be called a professor, hell I used to be called professor when I was younger, but to actually be a professor requires a bit more than lecturing to undergrads - hell, many TA's are called professor by their students. TheGoodLocust ( talk) 20:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't we add more details about the federal spending inside of Obama's stimulus package. For example, I would recommend changing
"The first 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency included his signing into law a $787 billion economic stimulus package on February 17, 2009. The bill included increased federal spending, aid to states, and tax reductions."
and change it to
"The first 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency included his signing into law a $787 billion economic stimulus package on February 17, 2009. The bill included increased federal spending for unemployment, food stamps, health care, infrastructure, energy spending, education, aid to states, and a number of tax cuts and credits." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joker123192 ( talk • contribs) 18:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Do discussions have to be archived so quickly on this article? Shouldn't they remain up at least a week or so? Some of us would like the chance to participate in them before they're summarily relegated to the dustbin of history. Even if the material is somewhat of a rehashing of issues already discussed, by archiving all such discussions so quickly, many editors are de facto locked out of having any input on them. I'm not suggesting rehashes should remain up for even a month, but at least a week would be nice, huh? Ikilled007 ( talk) 20:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
unconstructive discussion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Cheeseburger controversyObama went to a restaurant in Virginia on 6 May 2009 and ordered a cheeseburger. This sparked controversy for his choice of mustard instead of ketchup and for ordering his burger medium-well. [1] Sincerely, Sceptre ( talk) 02:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
|
Non-issue |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
doesnt anyone think its funny how there are millions of pics and vids of obama on his article, whereas there are very few in Bush's article??? JUST A THOUGHT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swimmerfreak94 ( talk • contribs) 05:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
|
no viable discussion here about article improvement |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
article: Unemployment Rate Climbs to 8.9 Percent Why there is 0 word about it in the article? Prodtree ( talk) 16:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
|
I removed this uncited bit that also seems like a very POV assertion:
Feel free to discuss, cite and restore as appropriate. Assertions that he implemented something he campaigned on seems particularly promotional considering that content and sources indicating he has broken various promises are excluded from this and most other Obama related articles. I think a straight statement of his policies would be better. Cheerios. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 03:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Here's a new source for that entry: [2] Saying it was something he campaigned on helps with context-- in general his first term will include doing things that were a big part of his campaign message, like health care reform & tax changes, doing things that came up during the campaign but were not central, like his approach to the economic crisis (important to his victory but not part of the "hope & change"), and things that come from new developments, like swine flu. If we eliminate all the context, the Presidency section well devolve into a list of "on this date he did this, on this date he did this...." Much better is "On this date he did this as he said he would during the campaign, on this date he responded to this crisis with this action, on this date he backed away from this earlier promise..." and so on. Harder to defend against POV attack but more informative, especially since this is the biography page, where we should be showing his intentions, successes and failures rather than list his actions. CouldOughta ( talk) 14:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
"I have a dream" that on some day (maybe in 2080?) there will be a critics section on Obama's page. We are not in North Korea/China/Cuba. Prodtree ( talk) 17:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
<outdent> What does criticism from Paul Krugman on Obama's left calling for more intervention in banking, or criticism from conservatives opposed to massive spending and deficits, or opposition from some economists to government taking over business decisions at major corporations have to do with condiments? This seems like an absolutely absurd and frivolous statement. The fact is that this article, and the Obama content on Wikipedia generally, is almost wholly devoid of notable criticism, and where it exists it is carefully segregated so that it isn't properly linked to and conveniently available for readers. There needs to be an article on criticism, a section of notable criticisms, and/or appropriate additions of these issues, and it's perfectly reasonable to point out that Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored per policy and that indeed we are not supposed to operate like the North Korean or Chinese governments in filtering news and content to suit our political biases. Consider this a formal warning that doing so violates the integrity of Wikipedia and is explicitly prohibited in the WP:Vandalism policy. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 19:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
To examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable.
It's proposed that we add a "see also" link to the List of topics related to Barack Obama article, as a navigational aid and to allow readers to quickly find material. I think that's a good idea because it puts everything in one place. Any thoughts, approval, disagreement? I'll add that this may go some way to addressing concerns that some negative and peripheral material gets lost when it's more than one click away from this main article, yet it does so in a neutral way. Wikidemon ( talk) 22:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
o_0, I had no idea that ridiculous article's deletion was overturned via DRV. All it is is a red-headed stepchild of the infinitely easier-to-navigate navboxes we already have. Keep this redhead an orphan, it serves no functional purpose. Tarc ( talk) 19:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a temporary place of discussion so we can build the portal while the iron's hot. Currently, it's half complete with several sections missing. I've set up a page that gives out seven random pages. There are two things we need to do:
I have questions about the portal.
Respectfully, I think a portal for Barack Obama is a bad idea. Most people's suggestions on this page fall into one of two categories: A) problems with organized government or politicians in general and/or "liberals" in particular (far too general yet far too complex to be focused on or funneled through one man), and B) personal issues with the man (far too specific and irrational). For those who lament a perceived deification of Obama, subjecting the man with his own portal is just the sort of overblown, cult-of-personality overexposure they already can't stand and does indeed seem inappropriate. For those who seek a broader and easier-to-game platform for insinuating and projecting ideological negativity disguised as legitimate criticism, it would be a Pandora's box.
The fact is, most criticism discussed here that has any rational and informed bearing in fact whatsoever is really more appropriate for topic articles than a biography or person-oriented venue, and should be related to those topics or genres rather than an individual human being. Any reasonable person familiar with this page can see a pattern of prejudiced attempts to pin any and every bit of bad news they spot on Obama. By "prejudiced" I'm not referring to Obama's race, though of course that is an issue for some, I'm referring to people who come to the table with a bone to pick with liberals, with Democrats, with major parties, with "big government", with lawyers, with politicians, with Americans, et cetera. As such, some of these complainants would be dive-bombing this bio exactly the same way if Obama were white. Which means it's truly not uniquely notable to Obama. As others have said, when actual policy decisions enacted by the man fail, that could rise to the level of inclusion in the man's biography. I say "when" because no president has a 100% success record, and I say "could" because some failures are simply not relevant to or even addressable in a biography of such brevity as is necessitated at Wikipedia.
For example, somebody who takes issue with the budget or the Stimulus package should know there are all sorts of budget-related articles, including Bush's Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 and Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. They should know this because a Wiki search for "Stimulus" will lead them there. They should be searching for "Stimulus" instead of "Obama" because what we feel about Obama should play little part in what we think about his response to economic realities that preexisted him. They should be searching for "Stimulus" instead of "Obama" because whatever fits in Obama's article could never really tell the story of his economic policy, and his economic policy fits into a larger picture that includes the worldwide response to this economic crisis as well as a series of stimulative efforts by the Bush administration.
I would think the more responsible portal would be one for current world issues. This would differ from the regular Wikipedia page or the general portal in that history would only be addressed to the degree to which it impacts a specific current event, and current events would only be addressed to the degree they involve a bigger-picture issue. (For example, sports, art, celebrity, natural phenomena, and other topics will be largely absent unless they play a part in a greater and more impactful story.) The U.S. has an outsized role in the world and Obama is the president of the U.S., which means he will surely be directly or indirectly involved in something or other featured at such a portal on a daily basis, yet the perspective will take the healthier and more informative and educational aspect of making people see how that issue sits in relation to other related issues in a global context, as opposed to the tug-of-war between deifying and demonizing a personality instead of dealing with the issue. All of these issues—the economy/banks/stock market, the wars, foreign policy, even issues we would see as national or even local, like outsourcing/downsizing/job creation, manufacturing, tax incentives/breaks/hikes, energy policy/cost/sources/pollution, health care/diseases, etc., have international effects, and in turn are affected by international factors. Perhaps a better focus would be the U.S. in relation to the world, which would allow for non-U.S. perspectives but still be clearly directly or indirectly relatable to U.S. policies and actions within and without its borders. Abrazame ( talk) 11:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Do we have a complete list of Obama's publications. I know he's authored two books; are there any scholarly publications or essays or columns (newspaper/news magazine, etc.) or any noteworthy legal briefs (from his days with the law firm), or anything in addition to the books? I imagine there have to be some. Shouldn't we have his publication history included? Seems that is both relevant and noteworthy. Thoughts? Ikilled007 ( talk) 09:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
to:For twelve years, Obama served as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School teaching constitutional law. He was first classified as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996 and then as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004.
which was shorter and less informative than the lede section:For twelve years, Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School.
… and also taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004.
which repeated the lede section:From 1992 to 2004, Obama was a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School.
except changing "taught constitutional law" to "was a professor of constitutional law"...and also taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004.
The 11-month-old mention that Obama was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996 and a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004
should be restored to the Early life and career section, minus:
The Early life and career section should say:
Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years, as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004.
Biography: Attorney; Senior Lecturer, University of Chicago Law School; born Aug. 4, 1961, in Hawaii; bachelor’s degree, Columbia University, NY, 1983; graduate, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA, 1991; married (wife, Michelle), has two daughters, Malia Ann and Natasha.
Newross ( talk) 13:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Taking into account these later references:
a more accurate version would be:
In 1991, Obama accepted a two-year position as Visiting Law and Government Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School to work on his first book. He then served as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years; as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004 teaching constitutional law.
Newross ( talk) 21:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Obama was at the University of Chicago Law School for 13 years—from 1991 to 2004; he taught at the University of Chicago Law School for 12 years—from 1992 to 2004; he taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School for 8 years—from 1996 to 2004.
Obama was (the first) Visiting Law and Government Fellow for 2 years—from 1991 to 1993; he was a Lecturer for 4 years—from 1992 to 1996; he was a Senior Lecturer for 8 years—from 1996 to 2004. In the 1992–1993 academic year, Obama was Visiting Law and Government Fellow and a Lecturer. Newross ( talk) 20:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
would someone please add a section on "facts about the president" which includes but not limited too: Height? weight? What size suit does he wear? what is his favorite flower? What is his favorite song? Does he know any card games? Does he gamble? Who is his favorite movie star? What is his favorite movie? Which eye does he aim with? what is his hand size? his shoe size? What subject was his favorite in grade school? What did his teachers think about him? Was he an introvert? was he a bully? who was his best friend in high school? What classes did he excel in? Did he fail any classes in grade school? the list goes on. These are topics of interest that anyone would like to know especially about our President. hmm, what else? Does he have a nickname for his wife? for his kids? Does he have a favorite shirt? Does he have a favorite pair of sneakers? Does he currently have a best friend? if so, who is it? When did he first kiss a girl? Who was the first girl he asked on a date? Does he have aspirations for his kids? if so, what are they? How did he and his wife come up with his kids names? What is his favorite sport to play? What is his favorite sport to watch? does have a favorite professional team? a favorite collegiate team? the list of questions goes on. Storm norm ( talk) 06:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Wehwalt, thank you! Sounds like you admit that there are some "trivial facts" in Barack Obama's life. Can the fact that some "trivial facts" aren't pointed out be mentioned in the article? Also, you didn't exactly say that you opposed a section of facts. The presidency of the USA is almost by default one of the most (if not most) recognizeable jobs on the planet. By definition, the job requires service through defending the constitution and its laws, a certain level of scrutiny and attention and usually high standards on protocol, propriety and decorum on how to deal with these issues. In holding the highest office in the USA, Barack Obama publicly accepted the fact that his life is now in the public eye, is in the service of the people and therefore cannot in any way be deemed "trivial." Indeed, of all the public figures in society today, the President's TRIVIAL FACTS are probably the LEAST trivial. oh, did I mention he was elected to this position by his peers? oh, and that he was not born in illinois? oh, and did you know he will be 49 in 2010? I think my point is clear. Barack Obama left his private life a long time ago to delve into the public life. He chose to be a person in the political spotlight and therefore in the public spotlight. He is now the President. Facts about a sitting president aren't trivial and should never be. Height, eye color, hair color, shoe size, left or right handed, his grade school friends, his first kiss, etc, should be facts that are cherished by readers today and 100-200 years from now. what kind of watch does he wear? what was his first car? did his dad teach him how to drive? are all the kinds of facts that make a person who they are as a president. a simple fact like, what his favorite dish is, would greatly add depth, character and insight to an article about a man who won the election in 2008. AND, what better place to be directed too if I wanted to know what Barrack's favorite holiday is, than Wikipedia? its funny how humans are sometimes. we wish that we could go back in time to see Plato, Newton, Poe, Shakespear, King Tut, the list goes on. We wish we could add more to their already rich biographies and autobiographies. Now that we have a chance to really get to know a President, to really let the readers in on some good, everyday facts about a person who was president, who in 200 years will be unknown to anyone alive except through video, text and books, we have nothing to offer. There isn't any excuse for this. these gross omissions are what we as humans dream about knowing when it comes to our past and history. Storm norm ( talk) 09:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Storm norm ( talk • contribs) 09:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I know that this will be taken as wrong by some editors as unconstructive, (...) but I kind of agree with storm norm. (well, partially) we shouldn't put everything suggested in this list, because that secion alone would be longer than the entire article! But a few basic things, like height, weight, favorite dish, etc. probably should be added. They just might make the article more interesting. However, alot of information about him, (and excluded from other important presidents, etc.) might be taken as bias. (I know, isn't it sad how every slightest, possible thing now is taken as bias?!) So, storm norm, unless you are willing to add these things onto every one of the 43 other presidents, this might not be taken well by some. Not me, but other editors, etc. Have a GREAT day!! :D
Swimmerfreak94 (
talk) 13:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I've brought up this issue before in previous threads found here and here but at this point I would like to see discussion translated into action and ultimately article expansion if others agree. We've passed the hundred day mark and are coming up on almost four months in office for Mr. Obama. Our section on the presidency is simply out of date and inadequate—it references nothing after late February—and I think it's time for us to update that section and best to do so systematically/by discussing it here. It should go without saying at the outset that this will take a bit of work. Ideally this is something we would do periodically as the presidency progresses, and overall that "presidency" section is going to have to expand over time (half or more of our article on George W. Bush is about his presidency, ditto the article on FDR—eventually we should see something similar here but it will obviously take time to build to that since we are still in the early going).
I don't think we need to go hog wild and add a bunch of new stuff, realistically we're probably talking about a couple of paragraphs or thereabouts. A lot of the stuff we add now will naturally be adjusted/removed later as more important issues come up, but I think part of keeping this thing at the "featured" level is keeping it up to date.
I would make just two very non-specific suggestions about how to go about doing this:
Of course we should try to work out an expansion of this section in a collaborative fashion rather than just having one editor write something up and dump it in and then arguing about it. I'm not sure how, or if, that's been done in the past but maybe doing some work in a sandbox somewhere would be helpful (or maybe not, it's just one suggestion). Personally I'm more interested in trying to help move us toward consensus than crafting the specifics, and I'm strongly of the view that the only way to work on this is if all editors so engaged comment only on suggestions and content and say nothing - as in nothing whatsover - about other editors. I'm quite willing to enforce that. What I have in mind is WP:CIV on steroids, to be a bit hyperbolic.
Does this sound like a reasonable general thing to do, specifics still to be determined? This talk page has been caught up in a lot of trivial stuff for quite awhile (though right now there are substantive discussions happening above) and I think focusing in on what to my mind is definitely a necessary expansion of the presidency section would be a good way to move us away from that. If it works it would also be good for the article, and good for America, and England, and France, and Japan, and Paraguay, and the rest of the world, and most of the solar system (I'm looking at you—Jupiter).
If others are down with this I think we should get started asap. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Per Lulu's suggestion above I've gone ahead and created Talk:Barack Obama/Sandbox. I put a sort of "what this is for" note at the top in a stupid little box and anyone who wants can feel free to adjust that and make it look more fancy since I'm terrible at the kind of thing. I don't have time at the moment, but possibly later tonight and more likely Sunday or early next week I'll take an initial stab at reconfiguring the Presidency section in the sandbox and then will post back here once I've done that so folks can comment and make changes and such (obviously anyone can edit this sandbox, but it should only be used for constructive collaboration and whatever is going on there should be discussed here). I very much welcome others to start some work in the sandbox before I do if they are so inclined, though so far no one seems to be jumping at the chance to work on this! Hopefully some specific proposals will stimulate more discussion.
If this sandbox thing works it might prove a good method to work on future changes that are fairly significant and therefore require some detailed discussion in advance. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I put a proposed new Presidency section in the Talk:Barack Obama/Sandbox. It has three sections. The economic stuff is only slightly changed, the war stuff more so. I eliminated reference to the first 100 days; topically that's not a good division. The mention of Gates and the generals is appropriate now but may need trimming as the Obama presidency ages. I couldn't find a good way to mention that the economic stimulus increased the deficit; it should be noted eventually but I recommend we put that off. CouldOughta ( talk) 21:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Believe it or not, on Hungarian language Obama's article contains a conflict section about him: http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama. I wonder when will this happen in English. Nagypogi ( talk) 20:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree. We shouldn't allow any criticisms or controversies about Obama onto our version of Wikipedia. If articles about these topics exist we must make sure not to link to them. Good work everyone! ChildofMidnight ( talk) 00:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 55 | ← | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | → | Archive 65 |
More birthplace trolling. Sceptre ( talk) 02:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. |
THE STATEMENT BY MARANISS IS PURE HEARSAY. David Maraniss fails to cite the source of the remark about the hospital within his article. The exact location of Obama's birth is still under investigation by World Net Daily (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=96202) and a host of other individuals ( http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/03/04/quo-warranto-legal-brief-part-1/) and organizations ( http://www.usjf.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=index&catid=13). Barack Obama has hired an expensive team of lawyers to keep his long-form birth certificate from public view. Why? The "Certification of Live Birth", that Obama put on his web site DOES NOT name the hospital, the doctor, the child's weight, etc. Therefore, Maraniss remark is can only be described as hearsay. Barack Obama was born at the Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu, Hawaii, United States, -- Maraniss, David (August 24, 2008). "Though Obama Had to Leave to Find Himself, It Is Hawaii That Made His Rise Possible". Politics (Washington Post) JMDonovan ( talk) 00:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
|
This is the same troll, back again. Same minor syntax errors, same paranoia flavor, same insistence that smear campaign material be integrated. ThuranX ( talk) 17:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
unconstructive discussion of fringe birth theories |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Obama is loosely referred to as a 'professor', when he was teaching; however, as the article points out, he was a 'Lecturer' and a 'Senior Lecturer'. He should be referred to as a 'lecturer'. KenmanLF ( talk) 13:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. What matters is what the university says. And what it says is clear.
But let's put that aside for a moment and see what the WP article says. It's that:
Any moderately alert reader is likely to think "Huh?" The period is divided into two; for each of these Obama was something other than "Professor", yet the two add up to the period he is said to have been a "professor". [Here and elsewhere in this message, I am using the Shift key carefully.]
What the "professor" bit means here is that -- to me, most uninterestingly -- Lecturers and Senior Lecturers are loosely termed professors at U Chi. This tells us nothing about what he actually did. Use of the word "classified" is wordy too. So, my suggestion:
This neither can be misread as saying he was a Professor (he wasn't) nor implies that he wasn't a professor (he was). Nit-pickers, axe-grinders and miscellaneous fanatics would be served up with the existing, informative and excellent footnote. -- Hoary ( talk) 05:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Let's just wait on it a while. It might be worth noting that this thread was started by KenmanLF's very first edit. PhGustaf ( talk) 02:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Bouncing leftward] The article asserts stuff, you do, ThuranX does, I do. There's not much discussion going on, however. PhGustav, you say that "the fix" (singular definite) is not to mention "lecturer" at all. Actually that's only one among three or more fixes, and while reasonable people may disagree on this I don't think it's the best fix. However, I've already said that I think it would be an improvement on what's there now. ¶ ThuranX, when you were not writing about the identity and/or motivations of the username who most recently brought up this little matter, you pointed out that the university calls Obama a professor (something I have never disputed) but then continued by talking about "nit-picking" and "a semantics game". I rather agree with you there too. What's important is that Obama was an active and eminent teacher of constitutional law at U Chicago. Whether he was a "(Senior) Lecturer" or "professor" or (correctly but confusingly) both is indeed by the way, and that's why my final suggestion was to delegate the whole matter of nomenclature to the footnote and instead just to say what he did. ¶ This nomenclature is either important or it isn't. You say it isn't. I say it isn't. So let's drop it. ¶ If on the other hand it is important (another option that I'm willing to consider), then it's worth presenting in such a way that it doesn't look self-contradictory. We can hardly write:
and I suggest something like:
It's not pretty, but it's less likely to appear as a typo or contradiction than what we have now, and it does away with the slightly odd "classified". -- Hoary ( talk) 06:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Just to add my two cents, the university said, after the "controversy," that they "regarded" him as a professor - that's all fine and dandy, but Frank Abagnale was "regarded" as a teaching assistant when he forged a degree from Columbia University and he was also "regarded" as a lawyer when he forged another degree from Harvard. The point is that what people "regard" is plainly pointless - the real questions are what is a professor and what is a lecturer? In my mind, a professor holds an advanced degree in the field they are teaching, trains people up to masters/Phd level in their field, and produces academic writings on their subject. As far as I know, Barack meets none of those criteria and therefore is plainly not a professor - he is exactly what his title stated - a lecturer. TheGoodLocust ( talk) 20:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
<outdent>"Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source."
I rehighlighted that for you. Also, and more importantly the source that is being used and misinterpreted isn't even a university newspaper - it is a blurb on a university website. So, if we are supposed to "use care" with primary sources, then why are we quoting a university website and then calling that a "university newspaper?" TheGoodLocust ( talk) 23:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
←This again? See Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 24#Professor, for last year's version of this idiotic argument - I suggested wording then which I think stuck for a while, although I don't remember now - close to Sheffield Steel's suggestion: Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School part-time from 1993 until his election... . I'd go with that, or with SS's or with lower case professor which is what dozens of sources use, and I'd suggest we end this. Tvoz/ talk 19:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm starting a new section in case anyone wants to talk about the actual text. I've made a fairly minor (in my opinion) bold edit [1] (after goofing with a big fat typo that Thuranx caught quickly and reverted - my bad) that attempts to smooth out the description of Obama's teaching career. It avoids any attempt to classify what he did, and simply says he taught constitutional (and others - see the sources) law courses at the school for 12 years, and then gives his official position. If anyone wants to go into the nitty gritty about calling him a "professor" or not, and explaining how Chicago actually classifies such things, I don't think that's really necessary but there's plenty of room in the footnote for that. And folks, a strong request with some teeth in it - please keep it on topic and don't use this occasion to complain about other editors. Hope that helps. Wikidemon ( talk) 00:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
←There are plenty of sources that refer to Obama as a "Professor", so I see no reason why this title should not be used per previous (exhaustively explored) consensus discussions. -- Scjessey ( talk) 03:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes because the New York Times is a "great" newspaper...good grief. And yes, they, like most newspapers are simply repeating the myth of Obama. You say there is no reason to take it out and I say there is no reason to include it. I have a source that has actual expertise in this area and you have a fluff piece from a biased paper. Uhh...hello? McFly? But hey, I like your argument, "this is what we've always said and so this is what we must always say" - I guess that makes it easy to ignore my new and superior source of information (not to mention one that actually lines up with the facts you always seem to ignore (e.g. no advanced degree in law)). TheGoodLocust ( talk) 04:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
<outdent> Okay, so he earmarks over a million dollars for the University of Chicago's hospital (a month before his wife gets a 200% raise there), $8 million for human genome research there, which comes out to $9 million total, and then later on their PR office gives him a good statement and they are completely unbiased? Really? Really? You might want to read up on conflict of interest, and you might want think whether it was a good idea to piss off their current Senator/possibly future president or not. Oh, and no academic papers aren't required to be called a professor, hell I used to be called professor when I was younger, but to actually be a professor requires a bit more than lecturing to undergrads - hell, many TA's are called professor by their students. TheGoodLocust ( talk) 20:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't we add more details about the federal spending inside of Obama's stimulus package. For example, I would recommend changing
"The first 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency included his signing into law a $787 billion economic stimulus package on February 17, 2009. The bill included increased federal spending, aid to states, and tax reductions."
and change it to
"The first 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency included his signing into law a $787 billion economic stimulus package on February 17, 2009. The bill included increased federal spending for unemployment, food stamps, health care, infrastructure, energy spending, education, aid to states, and a number of tax cuts and credits." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joker123192 ( talk • contribs) 18:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Do discussions have to be archived so quickly on this article? Shouldn't they remain up at least a week or so? Some of us would like the chance to participate in them before they're summarily relegated to the dustbin of history. Even if the material is somewhat of a rehashing of issues already discussed, by archiving all such discussions so quickly, many editors are de facto locked out of having any input on them. I'm not suggesting rehashes should remain up for even a month, but at least a week would be nice, huh? Ikilled007 ( talk) 20:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
unconstructive discussion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Cheeseburger controversyObama went to a restaurant in Virginia on 6 May 2009 and ordered a cheeseburger. This sparked controversy for his choice of mustard instead of ketchup and for ordering his burger medium-well. [1] Sincerely, Sceptre ( talk) 02:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
|
Non-issue |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
doesnt anyone think its funny how there are millions of pics and vids of obama on his article, whereas there are very few in Bush's article??? JUST A THOUGHT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swimmerfreak94 ( talk • contribs) 05:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
|
no viable discussion here about article improvement |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
article: Unemployment Rate Climbs to 8.9 Percent Why there is 0 word about it in the article? Prodtree ( talk) 16:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
|
I removed this uncited bit that also seems like a very POV assertion:
Feel free to discuss, cite and restore as appropriate. Assertions that he implemented something he campaigned on seems particularly promotional considering that content and sources indicating he has broken various promises are excluded from this and most other Obama related articles. I think a straight statement of his policies would be better. Cheerios. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 03:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Here's a new source for that entry: [2] Saying it was something he campaigned on helps with context-- in general his first term will include doing things that were a big part of his campaign message, like health care reform & tax changes, doing things that came up during the campaign but were not central, like his approach to the economic crisis (important to his victory but not part of the "hope & change"), and things that come from new developments, like swine flu. If we eliminate all the context, the Presidency section well devolve into a list of "on this date he did this, on this date he did this...." Much better is "On this date he did this as he said he would during the campaign, on this date he responded to this crisis with this action, on this date he backed away from this earlier promise..." and so on. Harder to defend against POV attack but more informative, especially since this is the biography page, where we should be showing his intentions, successes and failures rather than list his actions. CouldOughta ( talk) 14:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
"I have a dream" that on some day (maybe in 2080?) there will be a critics section on Obama's page. We are not in North Korea/China/Cuba. Prodtree ( talk) 17:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
<outdent> What does criticism from Paul Krugman on Obama's left calling for more intervention in banking, or criticism from conservatives opposed to massive spending and deficits, or opposition from some economists to government taking over business decisions at major corporations have to do with condiments? This seems like an absolutely absurd and frivolous statement. The fact is that this article, and the Obama content on Wikipedia generally, is almost wholly devoid of notable criticism, and where it exists it is carefully segregated so that it isn't properly linked to and conveniently available for readers. There needs to be an article on criticism, a section of notable criticisms, and/or appropriate additions of these issues, and it's perfectly reasonable to point out that Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored per policy and that indeed we are not supposed to operate like the North Korean or Chinese governments in filtering news and content to suit our political biases. Consider this a formal warning that doing so violates the integrity of Wikipedia and is explicitly prohibited in the WP:Vandalism policy. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 19:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
To examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable.
It's proposed that we add a "see also" link to the List of topics related to Barack Obama article, as a navigational aid and to allow readers to quickly find material. I think that's a good idea because it puts everything in one place. Any thoughts, approval, disagreement? I'll add that this may go some way to addressing concerns that some negative and peripheral material gets lost when it's more than one click away from this main article, yet it does so in a neutral way. Wikidemon ( talk) 22:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
o_0, I had no idea that ridiculous article's deletion was overturned via DRV. All it is is a red-headed stepchild of the infinitely easier-to-navigate navboxes we already have. Keep this redhead an orphan, it serves no functional purpose. Tarc ( talk) 19:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a temporary place of discussion so we can build the portal while the iron's hot. Currently, it's half complete with several sections missing. I've set up a page that gives out seven random pages. There are two things we need to do:
I have questions about the portal.
Respectfully, I think a portal for Barack Obama is a bad idea. Most people's suggestions on this page fall into one of two categories: A) problems with organized government or politicians in general and/or "liberals" in particular (far too general yet far too complex to be focused on or funneled through one man), and B) personal issues with the man (far too specific and irrational). For those who lament a perceived deification of Obama, subjecting the man with his own portal is just the sort of overblown, cult-of-personality overexposure they already can't stand and does indeed seem inappropriate. For those who seek a broader and easier-to-game platform for insinuating and projecting ideological negativity disguised as legitimate criticism, it would be a Pandora's box.
The fact is, most criticism discussed here that has any rational and informed bearing in fact whatsoever is really more appropriate for topic articles than a biography or person-oriented venue, and should be related to those topics or genres rather than an individual human being. Any reasonable person familiar with this page can see a pattern of prejudiced attempts to pin any and every bit of bad news they spot on Obama. By "prejudiced" I'm not referring to Obama's race, though of course that is an issue for some, I'm referring to people who come to the table with a bone to pick with liberals, with Democrats, with major parties, with "big government", with lawyers, with politicians, with Americans, et cetera. As such, some of these complainants would be dive-bombing this bio exactly the same way if Obama were white. Which means it's truly not uniquely notable to Obama. As others have said, when actual policy decisions enacted by the man fail, that could rise to the level of inclusion in the man's biography. I say "when" because no president has a 100% success record, and I say "could" because some failures are simply not relevant to or even addressable in a biography of such brevity as is necessitated at Wikipedia.
For example, somebody who takes issue with the budget or the Stimulus package should know there are all sorts of budget-related articles, including Bush's Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 and Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. They should know this because a Wiki search for "Stimulus" will lead them there. They should be searching for "Stimulus" instead of "Obama" because what we feel about Obama should play little part in what we think about his response to economic realities that preexisted him. They should be searching for "Stimulus" instead of "Obama" because whatever fits in Obama's article could never really tell the story of his economic policy, and his economic policy fits into a larger picture that includes the worldwide response to this economic crisis as well as a series of stimulative efforts by the Bush administration.
I would think the more responsible portal would be one for current world issues. This would differ from the regular Wikipedia page or the general portal in that history would only be addressed to the degree to which it impacts a specific current event, and current events would only be addressed to the degree they involve a bigger-picture issue. (For example, sports, art, celebrity, natural phenomena, and other topics will be largely absent unless they play a part in a greater and more impactful story.) The U.S. has an outsized role in the world and Obama is the president of the U.S., which means he will surely be directly or indirectly involved in something or other featured at such a portal on a daily basis, yet the perspective will take the healthier and more informative and educational aspect of making people see how that issue sits in relation to other related issues in a global context, as opposed to the tug-of-war between deifying and demonizing a personality instead of dealing with the issue. All of these issues—the economy/banks/stock market, the wars, foreign policy, even issues we would see as national or even local, like outsourcing/downsizing/job creation, manufacturing, tax incentives/breaks/hikes, energy policy/cost/sources/pollution, health care/diseases, etc., have international effects, and in turn are affected by international factors. Perhaps a better focus would be the U.S. in relation to the world, which would allow for non-U.S. perspectives but still be clearly directly or indirectly relatable to U.S. policies and actions within and without its borders. Abrazame ( talk) 11:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Do we have a complete list of Obama's publications. I know he's authored two books; are there any scholarly publications or essays or columns (newspaper/news magazine, etc.) or any noteworthy legal briefs (from his days with the law firm), or anything in addition to the books? I imagine there have to be some. Shouldn't we have his publication history included? Seems that is both relevant and noteworthy. Thoughts? Ikilled007 ( talk) 09:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
to:For twelve years, Obama served as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School teaching constitutional law. He was first classified as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996 and then as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004.
which was shorter and less informative than the lede section:For twelve years, Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School.
… and also taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004.
which repeated the lede section:From 1992 to 2004, Obama was a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School.
except changing "taught constitutional law" to "was a professor of constitutional law"...and also taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004.
The 11-month-old mention that Obama was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996 and a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004
should be restored to the Early life and career section, minus:
The Early life and career section should say:
Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years, as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004.
Biography: Attorney; Senior Lecturer, University of Chicago Law School; born Aug. 4, 1961, in Hawaii; bachelor’s degree, Columbia University, NY, 1983; graduate, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA, 1991; married (wife, Michelle), has two daughters, Malia Ann and Natasha.
Newross ( talk) 13:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Taking into account these later references:
a more accurate version would be:
In 1991, Obama accepted a two-year position as Visiting Law and Government Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School to work on his first book. He then served as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School for twelve years; as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996, and as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004 teaching constitutional law.
Newross ( talk) 21:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Obama was at the University of Chicago Law School for 13 years—from 1991 to 2004; he taught at the University of Chicago Law School for 12 years—from 1992 to 2004; he taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School for 8 years—from 1996 to 2004.
Obama was (the first) Visiting Law and Government Fellow for 2 years—from 1991 to 1993; he was a Lecturer for 4 years—from 1992 to 1996; he was a Senior Lecturer for 8 years—from 1996 to 2004. In the 1992–1993 academic year, Obama was Visiting Law and Government Fellow and a Lecturer. Newross ( talk) 20:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
would someone please add a section on "facts about the president" which includes but not limited too: Height? weight? What size suit does he wear? what is his favorite flower? What is his favorite song? Does he know any card games? Does he gamble? Who is his favorite movie star? What is his favorite movie? Which eye does he aim with? what is his hand size? his shoe size? What subject was his favorite in grade school? What did his teachers think about him? Was he an introvert? was he a bully? who was his best friend in high school? What classes did he excel in? Did he fail any classes in grade school? the list goes on. These are topics of interest that anyone would like to know especially about our President. hmm, what else? Does he have a nickname for his wife? for his kids? Does he have a favorite shirt? Does he have a favorite pair of sneakers? Does he currently have a best friend? if so, who is it? When did he first kiss a girl? Who was the first girl he asked on a date? Does he have aspirations for his kids? if so, what are they? How did he and his wife come up with his kids names? What is his favorite sport to play? What is his favorite sport to watch? does have a favorite professional team? a favorite collegiate team? the list of questions goes on. Storm norm ( talk) 06:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Wehwalt, thank you! Sounds like you admit that there are some "trivial facts" in Barack Obama's life. Can the fact that some "trivial facts" aren't pointed out be mentioned in the article? Also, you didn't exactly say that you opposed a section of facts. The presidency of the USA is almost by default one of the most (if not most) recognizeable jobs on the planet. By definition, the job requires service through defending the constitution and its laws, a certain level of scrutiny and attention and usually high standards on protocol, propriety and decorum on how to deal with these issues. In holding the highest office in the USA, Barack Obama publicly accepted the fact that his life is now in the public eye, is in the service of the people and therefore cannot in any way be deemed "trivial." Indeed, of all the public figures in society today, the President's TRIVIAL FACTS are probably the LEAST trivial. oh, did I mention he was elected to this position by his peers? oh, and that he was not born in illinois? oh, and did you know he will be 49 in 2010? I think my point is clear. Barack Obama left his private life a long time ago to delve into the public life. He chose to be a person in the political spotlight and therefore in the public spotlight. He is now the President. Facts about a sitting president aren't trivial and should never be. Height, eye color, hair color, shoe size, left or right handed, his grade school friends, his first kiss, etc, should be facts that are cherished by readers today and 100-200 years from now. what kind of watch does he wear? what was his first car? did his dad teach him how to drive? are all the kinds of facts that make a person who they are as a president. a simple fact like, what his favorite dish is, would greatly add depth, character and insight to an article about a man who won the election in 2008. AND, what better place to be directed too if I wanted to know what Barrack's favorite holiday is, than Wikipedia? its funny how humans are sometimes. we wish that we could go back in time to see Plato, Newton, Poe, Shakespear, King Tut, the list goes on. We wish we could add more to their already rich biographies and autobiographies. Now that we have a chance to really get to know a President, to really let the readers in on some good, everyday facts about a person who was president, who in 200 years will be unknown to anyone alive except through video, text and books, we have nothing to offer. There isn't any excuse for this. these gross omissions are what we as humans dream about knowing when it comes to our past and history. Storm norm ( talk) 09:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Storm norm ( talk • contribs) 09:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I know that this will be taken as wrong by some editors as unconstructive, (...) but I kind of agree with storm norm. (well, partially) we shouldn't put everything suggested in this list, because that secion alone would be longer than the entire article! But a few basic things, like height, weight, favorite dish, etc. probably should be added. They just might make the article more interesting. However, alot of information about him, (and excluded from other important presidents, etc.) might be taken as bias. (I know, isn't it sad how every slightest, possible thing now is taken as bias?!) So, storm norm, unless you are willing to add these things onto every one of the 43 other presidents, this might not be taken well by some. Not me, but other editors, etc. Have a GREAT day!! :D
Swimmerfreak94 (
talk) 13:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I've brought up this issue before in previous threads found here and here but at this point I would like to see discussion translated into action and ultimately article expansion if others agree. We've passed the hundred day mark and are coming up on almost four months in office for Mr. Obama. Our section on the presidency is simply out of date and inadequate—it references nothing after late February—and I think it's time for us to update that section and best to do so systematically/by discussing it here. It should go without saying at the outset that this will take a bit of work. Ideally this is something we would do periodically as the presidency progresses, and overall that "presidency" section is going to have to expand over time (half or more of our article on George W. Bush is about his presidency, ditto the article on FDR—eventually we should see something similar here but it will obviously take time to build to that since we are still in the early going).
I don't think we need to go hog wild and add a bunch of new stuff, realistically we're probably talking about a couple of paragraphs or thereabouts. A lot of the stuff we add now will naturally be adjusted/removed later as more important issues come up, but I think part of keeping this thing at the "featured" level is keeping it up to date.
I would make just two very non-specific suggestions about how to go about doing this:
Of course we should try to work out an expansion of this section in a collaborative fashion rather than just having one editor write something up and dump it in and then arguing about it. I'm not sure how, or if, that's been done in the past but maybe doing some work in a sandbox somewhere would be helpful (or maybe not, it's just one suggestion). Personally I'm more interested in trying to help move us toward consensus than crafting the specifics, and I'm strongly of the view that the only way to work on this is if all editors so engaged comment only on suggestions and content and say nothing - as in nothing whatsover - about other editors. I'm quite willing to enforce that. What I have in mind is WP:CIV on steroids, to be a bit hyperbolic.
Does this sound like a reasonable general thing to do, specifics still to be determined? This talk page has been caught up in a lot of trivial stuff for quite awhile (though right now there are substantive discussions happening above) and I think focusing in on what to my mind is definitely a necessary expansion of the presidency section would be a good way to move us away from that. If it works it would also be good for the article, and good for America, and England, and France, and Japan, and Paraguay, and the rest of the world, and most of the solar system (I'm looking at you—Jupiter).
If others are down with this I think we should get started asap. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Per Lulu's suggestion above I've gone ahead and created Talk:Barack Obama/Sandbox. I put a sort of "what this is for" note at the top in a stupid little box and anyone who wants can feel free to adjust that and make it look more fancy since I'm terrible at the kind of thing. I don't have time at the moment, but possibly later tonight and more likely Sunday or early next week I'll take an initial stab at reconfiguring the Presidency section in the sandbox and then will post back here once I've done that so folks can comment and make changes and such (obviously anyone can edit this sandbox, but it should only be used for constructive collaboration and whatever is going on there should be discussed here). I very much welcome others to start some work in the sandbox before I do if they are so inclined, though so far no one seems to be jumping at the chance to work on this! Hopefully some specific proposals will stimulate more discussion.
If this sandbox thing works it might prove a good method to work on future changes that are fairly significant and therefore require some detailed discussion in advance. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I put a proposed new Presidency section in the Talk:Barack Obama/Sandbox. It has three sections. The economic stuff is only slightly changed, the war stuff more so. I eliminated reference to the first 100 days; topically that's not a good division. The mention of Gates and the generals is appropriate now but may need trimming as the Obama presidency ages. I couldn't find a good way to mention that the economic stimulus increased the deficit; it should be noted eventually but I recommend we put that off. CouldOughta ( talk) 21:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Believe it or not, on Hungarian language Obama's article contains a conflict section about him: http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama. I wonder when will this happen in English. Nagypogi ( talk) 20:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree. We shouldn't allow any criticisms or controversies about Obama onto our version of Wikipedia. If articles about these topics exist we must make sure not to link to them. Good work everyone! ChildofMidnight ( talk) 00:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)