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 60 | ← | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | → | Archive 70 |
Consensus is against these changes as a whole, and specifically #4 which was also discussed separately. Discussion continues in other venues, but this particular thread is not covering new ground. -- Frank | talk 22:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC) | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||||||
The following are my proposed edits to the Barack Obama page, with the intent being to make it more objective and comprehensive, rather than painting a deceivingly rosy picture of him. 1. Proposed Edit to introduction section. Original: "Obama is the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize laureate.[4]" Proposed: "Obama is the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize laureate[4], an honor which accompanied widespread criticism about his lack of accomplishment[ [1]][ [2]] and confessed surprise by Barack Obama.[ [3]][ [4]], 2. Proposed Edit to 'State legislator: 1997–2004' section. Original: "Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996, succeeding State Senator Alice Palmer as Senator from Illinois's 13th District, which at that time spanned Chicago South Side neighborhoods from Hyde Park-Kenwood south to South Shore and west to Chicago Lawn.[42]" Proposed: "Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996, succeeding State Senator Alice Palmer as Senator from Illinois's 13th District, which at that time spanned Chicago South Side neighborhoods from Hyde Park-Kenwood south to South Shore and west to Chicago Lawn.[42] Obama won the election through use of lawyers to subsequently disqualify the petition signatures of Alice Palmer and 3 other opponents after the filing deadline.[ [5]][ [6]]" 3. Proposed Edit to 'State legislator: 1997-2004' section. Original: "In January 2003, Obama became chairman of the Illinois Senate's Health and Human Services Committee when Democrats, after a decade in the minority, regained a majority.[48] He sponsored and led unanimous, bipartisan passage of legislation to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they detained, and legislation making Illinois the first state to mandate videotaping of homicide interrogations.[44][49]" Proposed: "In January 2003, Obama became chairman of the Illinois Senate's Health and Human Services Committee when Democrats, after a decade in the minority, regained a majority.[48] He sponsored and led unanimous, bipartisan passage of legislation to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they detained, and legislation making Illinois the first state to mandate videotaping of homicide interrogations.[44][49] This legislation was originally worked on by Senator Rickey Hendon[ [7]][ [8]], and was among numerous pieces of legislation given to Obama as part of a requested deal with his political mentor[ [9]][ [10]], Senator Emil Jones.[ [11]][ [12]]" 4. Proposed Edit to '2004 U.S. Senate campaign'. Original: "Obama's expected opponent in the general election, Republican primary winner Jack Ryan, withdrew from the race in June 2004.[58] Two months later, Alan Keyes accepted the Illinois Republican Party's nomination to replace Ryan.[59] A long-time resident of Maryland, Keyes established legal residency in Illinois with the nomination.[60] In the November 2004 general election, Obama received 70% of the vote to Keyes' 27%, the largest victory margin for a statewide race in Illinois history.[61]" Proposed: "Obama's expected opponent in the general election, Republican primary winner Jack Ryan, withdrew from the race in June 2004[58] following a widely-reported sex scandal.[ [13]] 2 months later, and with less than 3 months remaining in the election[ [14]], former Ambassador to the United Nations' Social and Economic Council[ [15]], Alan Keyes, accepted the Illinois Republican Party's nomination to replace Ryan.[59] A long-time resident of Maryland, Keyes established legal residency in Illinois with the nomination.[60] Following a race in which Keyes was heavily criticized as a 'carpetbagger'[ [16]] by the press, and with Keyes running a negative campaign criticizing Obama on the issue of late-term abortions[ [17]], Obama in the November 2004 general election received 70% of the vote to Keyes' 27%, the largest victory margin for a statewide race in Illinois history.[61]"
Yes, Bush's page does discuss issues relating to his declining popularity. However, consider when Bush was president. His presidency is now over. It is history. We have had more time to consider the finer points of his presidency. However, Obama's winning of the Nobel Prize is in the recent past. We have not had the time to consider the historical implications of the 2009 prize. You cannot judge how historically controversial something actually was this early.
One thing that concerns me though is that there seems a lot of confusion by users on this topic about what the WP:NPOV rules actually say. Here is a reposting of them: "Neutral point of view The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material. Therefore, material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is "POV", although it may be shortened or moved if it gives undue weight to a minor point of view, as explained below. The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. It is not a lack of viewpoint, but is rather a specific, editorially neutral, point of view. An article should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view. It should explain who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common. It may contain critical evaluations of particular viewpoints based on reliable sources, but even text explaining sourced criticisms of a particular view must avoid taking sides. Bias Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view)—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed or repaired." As stated there, it is expected that editors will have points of view. Everybody does. It just requires that the subject matter be written from a neutral standpoint and avoid taking sides. It is not avoiding contentious material, but rather presenting all views so long as they can be sourced and stated neutrally, with this stating then done in proportion to the relevance. Furthermore, it is perfectly alright to provide 'critical evaluations' if based on reliable sources, so long as it's done simply stating the views, rather than providing opinions. For this reason when writing my proposed edits I sought to avoid using adjectives and merely to use a matter of fact tone of voice, merely stating the facts rather than trying to provide opinions or even to frame it in any way. Furthermore, I sought to provide them as concisely and minimally as possible, using as few words as possible, and to not make them more prevalent than necessary, since this is after all an Obama page, not an Obama criticisms page. Therefore, it's meant simply to provide relevant information, not go into depth about the criticism (which I was confused about before since pages did allow controversies sections in the past). At any rate, I'm adjusting to the style requirements and agree with them from what I can see. If anyone has any more to add about how I should approach this let me know. -- Jzyehoshua ( talk) 16:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC) As for the WP:BLP rules someone earlier brought up, one of the sections states: "Well-known public figures In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out." This is pretty specific. It is not a matter of whether it is negative. It is not a matter of whether there is a POV attached to the person writing it (though they must write neutrally). If the incident is 'notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article-even if it's negative' - those are Wikipedia's exact words on the subject. At the top of the page, in the meantime, it states, "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Therefore, this is not a question of whether my material is negative (though it must be presented with facts only, not opinions, unless stating opinions of a major source from a publication), but of whether the sources are there to back it up. Are my sources used above reliable enough and thorough enough to completely back up everything I said? Was what they were backing up notable and relevant? These are the questions I was expecting to end up confronting primarily when I made this section. All this talk about whether or not my POV is negative and what I want to include is negative has absolutely no bearing according to Wikipedia rules. All that matters is that it be notable, well-sourced, neutrally stated, and relevant in regards to its position on the page. And when it comes to that, I am more than happy to discuss with anybody whether my proposed edits measure up, and if not, what can be done so that Wikipedia rules are met. -- Jzyehoshua ( talk) 17:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Let's stick to the edits to keep things moving... My take on the content proposals:
Hope that helps. As an editorial aside here, can we all please get past any negative comments about each other, and find some other forum if there is any serious concern? There's some good stuff in these proposals, even if you disagree with 90% or even 100% of it. And it's offered seriously and in good faith, even if the editor proposing it is (or is not) opinionated on the subject. Having an opinion is not a crime and it should not hurt our chances of working together, as long as the content itself that results is neutral. That's how it always is in every mature article, even the completely uncontroversial ones... 90% of the content proposals are ultimately rejected and the article gets improved a bit at a time. If we take the best 10% here, or more or less, there are some things to improve the article. - Wikidemon ( talk) 13:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I just made the proposed edit #2, (I will avoid edit #1 for now, and possibly altogether, due to controversy) but as you will see tried to use the alternative version you recommended. The second sentence was changed a bit though to mention the opponent was Alice Palmer, and to mention some of the details mentioned on the Alice Palmer page about the event which would otherwise seem unclear. "Obama won the election by default after a successful legal challenge to the adequacy of each of his four opponents' nomination petitions, none of which were found to have enough legitimate signatures.[43][42] One of those opponents, incumbent Alice Palmer, had earlier named Obama her successor,[44] but following a failed Congressional bid, her campaign asked Obama to step down, and when he refused, had to gather signatures with two days left before the filing deadline.[45]" Also, I incorporated some of the sourcing from the Alice Palmer page which already mentioned these events, and had some very good sourcing. -- Jzyehoshua ( talk) 07:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC) I just made the proposed edit #3. "This legislation was originally worked on by Senator Rickey Hendon[54][44], and was among numerous pieces of legislation given to Obama as part of a requested deal with his political mentor[55][56], Senator Emil Jones, to make him a U.S. Senator.[57][48]" As you can see, it is the same as that proposed, except I added the last part about "to make him a U.S. Senator" since it's such a well-established quote. One of the articles already referenced in that section even mentioned it (In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd) so I made it a ref name tag and re-cited it. I also mentioned in the edit summary that this information has already been mentioned and referenced on the Emil Jones page. -- Jzyehoshua ( talk) 08:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC) And now the 4th edit has been made. Edit is as follows: "Obama's expected opponent in the general election, Republican primary winner Jack Ryan, withdrew from the race in June 2004[6] following a widely-reported sex scandal.[7] Two months later, and with less than three months remaining in the election,[8] Alan Keyes accepted the Illinois Republican Party's nomination to replace Ryan.[9] Following a race in which Alan Keyes was heavily criticized by the press both for being a 'carpetbagger'[10] and for evicting his daughter Maya Keyes for her homosexuality,[11] and with Alan Keyes running a negative campaign criticizing Obama primarily on the issue of Obama's voting record on live birth abortion[12], Obama in the November 2004 general election received 70% of the vote to Keyes' 27%,[13] the largest victory margin for a statewide race in Illinois history.[14]" As before, I made tweaks simply by looking and re-evaluating, but there should be little surprises here aside from the mention of Maya Keyes. I was always skeptical of the accusations during the race of Keyes evicting Maya, but upon following up I found evidence that she does currently still state it happened. For the record, I agree with her that her father is an honest man who did it likely out of a sense of duty and concern he was supporting a sinful lifestyle - but still think he should apologize for it and publicly come clean. Anyway, that's all irrelevant. Bottom line is, these were the three major issues during the campaign and now being covered objectively on Wikipedia, the article is one step closer to truly being comprehensive concerning a figure that is too often poorly understood and reported on. -- Jzyehoshua ( talk) 19:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC) Huge long wall of text
State legislator: 1997–2004 editsI reverted this inaccurate addition by Jzyehoshua:which is not an accurate or WP:NPOV summary of:
and is about a topic that is too detailed for this WP:Summary style article.
which is not an accurate or WP:NPOV summary of:
and is about a topic that is too detailed for this WP:Summary style article.
|
Resolved; this isn't the place to try to discern Obama's legal philosophy. Frank | talk 22:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The section on Obama's career as a professor of law, especially con law, seems woefully abridged to me. Has he said anything about which legal philosophies he adheres to as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisprudence ? For instance, Natural law is the idea that there are rational objective limits to the power of legislative rulers. The foundations of law are accessible through human reason and it is from these laws of nature that human created laws gain whatever force they have. Legal Positivism, by contrast to natural law, holds that there is no necessary connection between law and morality and that the force of law comes from some basic social facts although positivists differ on what those facts are. Legal Realism is a third theory of jurisprudence which argues that the real world practice of law is what determines what law is; ie the law has the force that it does because of what legislators, judges, and executives do with it. Critical Legal Studies is a younger theory of jurisprudence that has developed since the 1970s which is primarily a negative thesis that the law is largely contradictory and can be best analyzed as an expression of the policy goals of the dominant social group. This might not be much of an issue for research or discussion if the president were just some lawyer, but he was a professor of constitutional law, and now he's the chief executive of the US, so his legal philosophies are pretty important. Do we have any information on his leanings? Ikilled007 ( talk) 15:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I mentioned it earlier - we know of exactly one article Obama wrote while president of the Harvard Law review.[ [35]] Covered by Politico, the article mentions he approached the idea of whether fetuses who survive abortions should be able to sue their mothers. As noted in the article, he considered the eugenics concept that children should not be born with injuries more important than that they be born. In his words, "On the other hand, the state may also have a more compelling interest in ensuring that fetuses carried to term do not suffer from debilitating injuries than it does in ensuring that any particular fetus is born." Just to make a guess, I would say probably Legal Positivism or Legal Realism, from what I have read of his comments in his senate transcripts. His Illinois Senate transcripts at www.ilga.gov are revealing when you look at the ones on controversial issues such as abortion. That would be one place to look. However, as Frank said, it needs to have solid sourcing as well as relevance to be included. At this point I don't know that even if his legal philosophy could be determined, it would be a well-enough established fact to merit inclusion on the page. -- Jzyehoshua ( talk) 16:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that debating a single source without having a proposed change to the article is very nearly a complete waste of time. If there is a proposed change or addition to the article, let's debate it. If not, what Obama may or may not have meant in a particular paper (which he may or may not have even written) is not useful here. Frank | talk 17:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
|
Given that we have more words on his Senate campaign than his actual Senate service, something's out of whack. I know the history of the article, and why it got this way, but it's time to start adjusting things as more information gets added about more recent life events of the bio subject. The campaign section, with lots of trivia and minutia is becoming out of date relative to its current significance to the overall biography (actually, likewise about the earlier IL State race). LotLE× talk 08:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I will maximally strongly oppose any addition of more detail to the 2004 election section. We have a child article for that, and any more words (or even as many as we had prior to my slight trimming), is WP:UNDUE weight relative to the overall biography. The biography was initially written before the Presidential election, when the Senate campaign reasonably occupied a larger part of biographical significance, but it's been in need of a trim (and NOT of an expansion) since November 2008 (or at very least, since early 2009). LotLE× talk 11:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Note for Jzyehoshua: If you have additional information you wish to add about the United States Senate election in Illinois, 2004, the wikilink helps you find the appropriate article in which to do so. LotLE× talk 11:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Closed - I've always wanted to close a thread about closing threads! -- Scjessey ( talk) 18:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Would it be improper to request that whoever closes a thread sign his or her name to the thread-closing, as part of the historical record? I can't think of any good reason why that information is not immediately available next to the text explaining why the thread has been terminated. Thoughts? Ikilled007 ( talk) 10:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
←Just noting here that I closed a few waste-of-time threads because they had been started by User:Róbert Gida - now indef blocked for being a probable sock puppet of Multiplyperfect. I left one of them open ( Talk:Barack Obama#More trivias?) because it seemed like a reasonable discussion. -- Scjessey ( talk) 16:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the cooperation, people! Much appreciated. Ikilled007 ( talk) 19:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC) |
AN3 thread closed - please pursue other methods of dispute resolution, and reserve this page for discussion of improvements to the article. - 2/0 ( cont.) 18:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I just caught on to what the cohesive effort was by scjessey, Sceptre, and Unitanode was. They improperly closed an active thread without reason, 'Neutral Point of View', and then took turns reverting it to try and get me to violate a rule called the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Fortunately I caught on just in time to this sinister tactic. I will ask those initiating this edit warring to explain their justification for closing the thread, as this action seems to be required before posting to an Administrator's noticeboard, [36] where scjessey is already facing potential discipline for a separate incident. He, I found out, has already engaged in similar cases in the past. This was just one of them. [37] He is also coming off a recent ban, and is already engaged in active attacks on other members. This seems a serious offense for scjessey and his fellow cohorts, and thus I seek an explanation for the events occurring. -- Jzyehoshua ( talk) 22:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC) That Frank, Dayewalker, and averagejoe are involved seems clear as well, although to what extent I am still uncertain. I am sure all responsible parties will be held accountable when all of this is said and done. -- Jzyehoshua ( talk) 22:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
At this point, I suppose it's best for the admins to sort it out. I tried to take it to Mediation and go through this with discussion, but it seems the opposing users wanted to move against me to such extent that both avenues have become impossible. -- Jzyehoshua ( talk) 23:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't known what the 3 revert rule meant or that it included the talk page discussions until this, but I think I stopped at 3 reverts on the history, but they might count it as 4 since I did 2 separate edits, one to remove a hat and one to remove a hab, so am not sure. Guess we'll see. -- Jzyehoshua ( talk) 08:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
This issue is now being discussed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring I will notify the users involved. -- Jzyehoshua ( talk) 10:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
|
Closed - Tendentious horse flogging, overwhelming consensus agrees this is a non issue. -- Scjessey ( talk) 18:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I already asked, but will provide one more opportunity for those who think edit #4 violates the rules on WP:NPOV to provide solid proof before I make the edit. If you think the below edit violates the guidelines on Neutral Point of View, please state why and make your case. Edit #4: Obama's expected opponent in the general election, Republican primary winner Jack Ryan, withdrew from the race in June 2004 [42] following a widely-reported sex scandal. [43] Two months later, and with less than three months remaining in the election [44] Alan Keyes accepted the Illinois Republican Party's nomination to replace Ryan. [45] Following a race in which Alan Keyes was heavily criticized by the press both for being a 'carpetbagger' [46] and for allegedly evicting his daughter Maya Keyes for her homosexuality, [47] and with Alan Keyes running a negative campaign criticizing Obama primarily on the issue of Obama's voting record on live birth abortion [48], Obama in the November 2004 general election received 70% of the vote to Keyes' 27%, [49] the largest victory margin for a statewide race in Illinois history. When responding, please state on what grounds you think it violates NPOV.
Further points: -In the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ it states, "We report views that have been published by reliable sources. We do not report views that are held by tiny minorities, or views that reliable sources do not write about. Beyond that, we make no judgements. No view is omitted because someone might see it as prejudiced; if it is omitted from Wikipedia, it is because reliable sources have omitted it." -- Jzyehoshua ( talk) 21:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Jill Stanek, Phyllis Schlafly, Sarah Palin, John McCain, Alan Keyes...we previously covered (and closed) the rogues' gallery of commentators, now we're on to direct political and ideological opponents? Even Hillary Clinton was a political opponent until the 11th hour. Regardless - the issue here isn't what he said or may have supported; there can be endless discussions on that point and no consensus will be reached. It just doesn't rise to the level of interest in a biographical article of the man. It's in his Senate campaign article (which he won by an historical, overwhelming margin), and there may be a place in the presidential campaign articles, but it's not a defining characteristic of the man. Enough said. It's politics. Your attempts to make it significant are not gaining consensus. Frank | talk 22:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
[107] [108] [109] [110] I was however able to find mention of the subject in a Canadian newspaper. [111] [112]
(OD) Agreed. Can we please conclude this and wrap up this thread? This section is choking the page. Dayewalker ( talk) 18:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
Jzyehoshua, this is not a "constructive" thread. Please stop reopening it. There is not a single voice of support for your proposal, and there isn't likely to be any because of the horrendous violations to Wikipedia policy it would entail. Please close this thread, or allow it to be closed without any further intervention on your part, or find yourself hauled up in front of administrators for being insufferably tendentious. -- Scjessey ( talk) 15:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Grouping a series of threads started by various accounts currently blocked for sockpuppetry - Wikidemon ( talk) 00:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Closed - Editor who started thread indef blocked for being a probable sock puppet of Multiplyperfect -- Scjessey ( talk) 15:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Currently you write more about his Harvard studies than his role in Iraq's war, what is a blame, shame, and unacceptable, regarding its importance. Róbert Gida ( talk) 00:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
|
Political axe-grinding not even slightly appropriate for this article. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
see: http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=114118§ionid=3510213 Add to the article: Under Obama administration 140 American banks failed. 25 US banks failed in 2008, compared with only three in 2007. Róbert Gida ( talk) 23:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Róbert Gida, your pattern of interests and prose style suddenly look oddly familiar. Have we perhaps met before? -- Hoary ( talk) 01:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Isn't it a personal attack (the above 4 comments) ? It is interesting when Obama fans run out of arguments then starts attack. Wikidemon thanks for your write, the article doesn't mention Obama's name, but I'm using my brain. He is the president for almost one year, responsible for this situation also. To develop this large number of bank failures indicates that he has done nothing. Róbert Gida ( talk) 09:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
The numbers are important factors of the status of economy, when a year, in last year of G.W.Bush presidency 25 banks closed, and under Obama this is more than 5 times, then I would call it remarkable. This isn't criticism, these are only dry facts, like the 26 years high unemployment rate, what is currently in the article. Róbert Gida ( talk) 10:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC) |
Wikipedia is not Twitter. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrrobKLtI8E My proposal for the main article: "In December of 2009 Obama visited youth center. Met only with black kids." Róbert Gida ( talk) 11:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC) |
Okay, you all had your fun. Now its time to say good-bye |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Yes, that's correct in the main article, but please give me another US president on wikipedia where it is written that x.y. is the first president born in z. Sorry but there is no such example for
and so on. This is another example that the Obama's article is full of uninteresting trivias. Róbert Gida ( talk) 01:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC) ps. write for ongoing topic closers: Could you prove your statement? Why are you closing every topic on wiki? It's talk page. Why are you run away from discuss among peoples? Write your opinion and don't afraid from real arguments Róbert Gida ( talk) 01:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
|
Closed - Editor who started thread indef blocked for being a probable sock puppet of Multiplyperfect -- Scjessey ( talk) 16:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
As the year ends I think it would be good to write this sentence to the article: "Obama gave himself a good solid B-plus grade for his first year in office." There are tons of references for it, for example: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/12/13/us/politics/AP-US-Obama-Oprah.html?_r=1 Róbert Gida ( talk) 23:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
|
Alright, that's enough |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
USA has the biggest number of confirmed deaths caused by H1N1 flu among countries, this is 2836, see: 2009_flu_pandemic_by_country, and 103840 confirmed cases. It is quite surprising that it is not mentioned in the article, my edit has been reverted. I know that it isn't a success subject for Obama's administration, and the fans usual arguments doesn't works here, because it isn't started under G.W.Bush. But this raise many red flags for me because even, if you don't write about it the problem and the 2836 (and ongoing increasing) number of deaths still exists. Róbert Gida ( talk) 13:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
What should be enough? Good question, probably not that currently USA is the top of the leader in the number of reported deaths of H1N1 flu. The government, the president, and Secreatary of Health and Human Services (Obama nominated her) are responsible for this large number of deaths, for this do you need also sources? I can't be responsible for it, I don't have billion of dollars to develop injection, this is the task of government, so Obama's. And I'm really don't understand you, for other quotes I have provided sources, even wikipedia sources, do you mean that those are bad? I thought that wikipedia accepts wikipedia as source. There was a discussion about H1N1 flu and Obama's role here and you said that it is minor, and wait until there will be million of reported cases. It has happened, and there is no change on wikipedia. Róbert Gida ( talk) 17:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I mean, most of the comments he leaves here are unconstructive, he also doesn’t seem to listen to what other (And frankly, more experienced) editors tell him about the way this encyclopaedia works. I’m getting pretty sick of his blatant agenda, it’s a waste of editors time. (Grumble) -- Misortie ( talk) 17:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Proposal to closeI closed this discussion, per WP:SNOW but it's been re-opened by one of the participants. [115] The question of shoehorning in negative events from the world into Obama's bio has been discussed and rejected before many times, and at least once specifically with reference to swine flu. This particular discussion has devolved into accusations of sockpuppetry, and some other borderline accusations both sides. This pattern is not productive to the maintenance and improvement of the article and has no chance of leading to a content change. If the editor is truly legit, they can be educated on the ABC's of the encyclopedia on their talk page. If they're a sock, AN/I and SPI are that-a-way. Doing so here wastes time and distracts attention from any viable work. Any reason to keep it open? - Wikidemon ( talk) 18:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
|
Blocked user |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
It isn't spent even a day and it is in the article: "On December 24, 2009, the bill was passed in the Senate on a party-line vote of 60-39, with Jim Bunning (R-KY) not voting. The vote marked the first occasion since 1895 that the United States Senate has passed voted on Christmas Eve." I don't know how important and how related to Obama's personal life the second sentence, but my feel that this is only another boring trivia. Róbert Gida ( talk) 23:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
My own "feel", Róbert, is that I have seen your inimitable prose before on this talk page, but with other signatures. But let's put aside the matter of any earlier appearances. Your edits show such an exclusive concern with Barack Obama that your description of this admittedly recent event as "boring trivia" comes as a surprise. I wonder what the really important stuff might be, in your view. (His birth certificate, perhaps?) -- Hoary ( talk) 00:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, in this case, I don't understand why this was added here on the Barack Obama article(I saw it earlier and was surprised). When he signs the Bill, perhaps it could be added because it was a critical component of his campaign. Definitely added to the Presidency of Barrack Obama, then. But let's not do a play-by-play of the Legislative process in the House or Senate. It's definitely noteworthy(the Christmas Eve vote), but it's not for the biography for Barack Obama. It should be in the United States Senate article. The whole health care process deserves to be wrote about in encyclopedia articles, it's very historic. Just not here. DD2K ( talk) 03:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC) |
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/12/28/kernis.10.most.intriguing/index.html Interesting article, the first is the president and the second is his wife. (Why I couldn't edit the article?) Bamao ( talk) 00:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
|
proposal considered, no action |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Obama-Hawaii-Emergency-Vacation/2009/12/28/id/344818 Is it interesting to include in the article? Bamao ( talk) 17:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
|
asked and answered |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I think this is an existing term in English: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Obamism I've edtied it, so Obamism, but you deleted it and redirected to Obama. I have no clue why, redirecting it to Obama says nothing about the meaning of the word, seeing this my edit was much better. Bamao ( talk) 19:07, 30 December 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 60 | ← | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | → | Archive 70 |
Consensus is against these changes as a whole, and specifically #4 which was also discussed separately. Discussion continues in other venues, but this particular thread is not covering new ground. -- Frank | talk 22:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC) | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. | ||||||||||||
The following are my proposed edits to the Barack Obama page, with the intent being to make it more objective and comprehensive, rather than painting a deceivingly rosy picture of him. 1. Proposed Edit to introduction section. Original: "Obama is the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize laureate.[4]" Proposed: "Obama is the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize laureate[4], an honor which accompanied widespread criticism about his lack of accomplishment[ [1]][ [2]] and confessed surprise by Barack Obama.[ [3]][ [4]], 2. Proposed Edit to 'State legislator: 1997–2004' section. Original: "Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996, succeeding State Senator Alice Palmer as Senator from Illinois's 13th District, which at that time spanned Chicago South Side neighborhoods from Hyde Park-Kenwood south to South Shore and west to Chicago Lawn.[42]" Proposed: "Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996, succeeding State Senator Alice Palmer as Senator from Illinois's 13th District, which at that time spanned Chicago South Side neighborhoods from Hyde Park-Kenwood south to South Shore and west to Chicago Lawn.[42] Obama won the election through use of lawyers to subsequently disqualify the petition signatures of Alice Palmer and 3 other opponents after the filing deadline.[ [5]][ [6]]" 3. Proposed Edit to 'State legislator: 1997-2004' section. Original: "In January 2003, Obama became chairman of the Illinois Senate's Health and Human Services Committee when Democrats, after a decade in the minority, regained a majority.[48] He sponsored and led unanimous, bipartisan passage of legislation to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they detained, and legislation making Illinois the first state to mandate videotaping of homicide interrogations.[44][49]" Proposed: "In January 2003, Obama became chairman of the Illinois Senate's Health and Human Services Committee when Democrats, after a decade in the minority, regained a majority.[48] He sponsored and led unanimous, bipartisan passage of legislation to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they detained, and legislation making Illinois the first state to mandate videotaping of homicide interrogations.[44][49] This legislation was originally worked on by Senator Rickey Hendon[ [7]][ [8]], and was among numerous pieces of legislation given to Obama as part of a requested deal with his political mentor[ [9]][ [10]], Senator Emil Jones.[ [11]][ [12]]" 4. Proposed Edit to '2004 U.S. Senate campaign'. Original: "Obama's expected opponent in the general election, Republican primary winner Jack Ryan, withdrew from the race in June 2004.[58] Two months later, Alan Keyes accepted the Illinois Republican Party's nomination to replace Ryan.[59] A long-time resident of Maryland, Keyes established legal residency in Illinois with the nomination.[60] In the November 2004 general election, Obama received 70% of the vote to Keyes' 27%, the largest victory margin for a statewide race in Illinois history.[61]" Proposed: "Obama's expected opponent in the general election, Republican primary winner Jack Ryan, withdrew from the race in June 2004[58] following a widely-reported sex scandal.[ [13]] 2 months later, and with less than 3 months remaining in the election[ [14]], former Ambassador to the United Nations' Social and Economic Council[ [15]], Alan Keyes, accepted the Illinois Republican Party's nomination to replace Ryan.[59] A long-time resident of Maryland, Keyes established legal residency in Illinois with the nomination.[60] Following a race in which Keyes was heavily criticized as a 'carpetbagger'[ [16]] by the press, and with Keyes running a negative campaign criticizing Obama on the issue of late-term abortions[ [17]], Obama in the November 2004 general election received 70% of the vote to Keyes' 27%, the largest victory margin for a statewide race in Illinois history.[61]"
Yes, Bush's page does discuss issues relating to his declining popularity. However, consider when Bush was president. His presidency is now over. It is history. We have had more time to consider the finer points of his presidency. However, Obama's winning of the Nobel Prize is in the recent past. We have not had the time to consider the historical implications of the 2009 prize. You cannot judge how historically controversial something actually was this early.
One thing that concerns me though is that there seems a lot of confusion by users on this topic about what the WP:NPOV rules actually say. Here is a reposting of them: "Neutral point of view The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material. Therefore, material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is "POV", although it may be shortened or moved if it gives undue weight to a minor point of view, as explained below. The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. It is not a lack of viewpoint, but is rather a specific, editorially neutral, point of view. An article should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view. It should explain who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common. It may contain critical evaluations of particular viewpoints based on reliable sources, but even text explaining sourced criticisms of a particular view must avoid taking sides. Bias Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view)—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed or repaired." As stated there, it is expected that editors will have points of view. Everybody does. It just requires that the subject matter be written from a neutral standpoint and avoid taking sides. It is not avoiding contentious material, but rather presenting all views so long as they can be sourced and stated neutrally, with this stating then done in proportion to the relevance. Furthermore, it is perfectly alright to provide 'critical evaluations' if based on reliable sources, so long as it's done simply stating the views, rather than providing opinions. For this reason when writing my proposed edits I sought to avoid using adjectives and merely to use a matter of fact tone of voice, merely stating the facts rather than trying to provide opinions or even to frame it in any way. Furthermore, I sought to provide them as concisely and minimally as possible, using as few words as possible, and to not make them more prevalent than necessary, since this is after all an Obama page, not an Obama criticisms page. Therefore, it's meant simply to provide relevant information, not go into depth about the criticism (which I was confused about before since pages did allow controversies sections in the past). At any rate, I'm adjusting to the style requirements and agree with them from what I can see. If anyone has any more to add about how I should approach this let me know. -- Jzyehoshua ( talk) 16:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC) As for the WP:BLP rules someone earlier brought up, one of the sections states: "Well-known public figures In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out." This is pretty specific. It is not a matter of whether it is negative. It is not a matter of whether there is a POV attached to the person writing it (though they must write neutrally). If the incident is 'notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article-even if it's negative' - those are Wikipedia's exact words on the subject. At the top of the page, in the meantime, it states, "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Therefore, this is not a question of whether my material is negative (though it must be presented with facts only, not opinions, unless stating opinions of a major source from a publication), but of whether the sources are there to back it up. Are my sources used above reliable enough and thorough enough to completely back up everything I said? Was what they were backing up notable and relevant? These are the questions I was expecting to end up confronting primarily when I made this section. All this talk about whether or not my POV is negative and what I want to include is negative has absolutely no bearing according to Wikipedia rules. All that matters is that it be notable, well-sourced, neutrally stated, and relevant in regards to its position on the page. And when it comes to that, I am more than happy to discuss with anybody whether my proposed edits measure up, and if not, what can be done so that Wikipedia rules are met. -- Jzyehoshua ( talk) 17:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Let's stick to the edits to keep things moving... My take on the content proposals:
Hope that helps. As an editorial aside here, can we all please get past any negative comments about each other, and find some other forum if there is any serious concern? There's some good stuff in these proposals, even if you disagree with 90% or even 100% of it. And it's offered seriously and in good faith, even if the editor proposing it is (or is not) opinionated on the subject. Having an opinion is not a crime and it should not hurt our chances of working together, as long as the content itself that results is neutral. That's how it always is in every mature article, even the completely uncontroversial ones... 90% of the content proposals are ultimately rejected and the article gets improved a bit at a time. If we take the best 10% here, or more or less, there are some things to improve the article. - Wikidemon ( talk) 13:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I just made the proposed edit #2, (I will avoid edit #1 for now, and possibly altogether, due to controversy) but as you will see tried to use the alternative version you recommended. The second sentence was changed a bit though to mention the opponent was Alice Palmer, and to mention some of the details mentioned on the Alice Palmer page about the event which would otherwise seem unclear. "Obama won the election by default after a successful legal challenge to the adequacy of each of his four opponents' nomination petitions, none of which were found to have enough legitimate signatures.[43][42] One of those opponents, incumbent Alice Palmer, had earlier named Obama her successor,[44] but following a failed Congressional bid, her campaign asked Obama to step down, and when he refused, had to gather signatures with two days left before the filing deadline.[45]" Also, I incorporated some of the sourcing from the Alice Palmer page which already mentioned these events, and had some very good sourcing. -- Jzyehoshua ( talk) 07:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC) I just made the proposed edit #3. "This legislation was originally worked on by Senator Rickey Hendon[54][44], and was among numerous pieces of legislation given to Obama as part of a requested deal with his political mentor[55][56], Senator Emil Jones, to make him a U.S. Senator.[57][48]" As you can see, it is the same as that proposed, except I added the last part about "to make him a U.S. Senator" since it's such a well-established quote. One of the articles already referenced in that section even mentioned it (In Illinois, Obama Proved Pragmatic and Shrewd) so I made it a ref name tag and re-cited it. I also mentioned in the edit summary that this information has already been mentioned and referenced on the Emil Jones page. -- Jzyehoshua ( talk) 08:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC) And now the 4th edit has been made. Edit is as follows: "Obama's expected opponent in the general election, Republican primary winner Jack Ryan, withdrew from the race in June 2004[6] following a widely-reported sex scandal.[7] Two months later, and with less than three months remaining in the election,[8] Alan Keyes accepted the Illinois Republican Party's nomination to replace Ryan.[9] Following a race in which Alan Keyes was heavily criticized by the press both for being a 'carpetbagger'[10] and for evicting his daughter Maya Keyes for her homosexuality,[11] and with Alan Keyes running a negative campaign criticizing Obama primarily on the issue of Obama's voting record on live birth abortion[12], Obama in the November 2004 general election received 70% of the vote to Keyes' 27%,[13] the largest victory margin for a statewide race in Illinois history.[14]" As before, I made tweaks simply by looking and re-evaluating, but there should be little surprises here aside from the mention of Maya Keyes. I was always skeptical of the accusations during the race of Keyes evicting Maya, but upon following up I found evidence that she does currently still state it happened. For the record, I agree with her that her father is an honest man who did it likely out of a sense of duty and concern he was supporting a sinful lifestyle - but still think he should apologize for it and publicly come clean. Anyway, that's all irrelevant. Bottom line is, these were the three major issues during the campaign and now being covered objectively on Wikipedia, the article is one step closer to truly being comprehensive concerning a figure that is too often poorly understood and reported on. -- Jzyehoshua ( talk) 19:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC) Huge long wall of text
State legislator: 1997–2004 editsI reverted this inaccurate addition by Jzyehoshua:which is not an accurate or WP:NPOV summary of:
and is about a topic that is too detailed for this WP:Summary style article.
which is not an accurate or WP:NPOV summary of:
and is about a topic that is too detailed for this WP:Summary style article.
|
Resolved; this isn't the place to try to discern Obama's legal philosophy. Frank | talk 22:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The section on Obama's career as a professor of law, especially con law, seems woefully abridged to me. Has he said anything about which legal philosophies he adheres to as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisprudence ? For instance, Natural law is the idea that there are rational objective limits to the power of legislative rulers. The foundations of law are accessible through human reason and it is from these laws of nature that human created laws gain whatever force they have. Legal Positivism, by contrast to natural law, holds that there is no necessary connection between law and morality and that the force of law comes from some basic social facts although positivists differ on what those facts are. Legal Realism is a third theory of jurisprudence which argues that the real world practice of law is what determines what law is; ie the law has the force that it does because of what legislators, judges, and executives do with it. Critical Legal Studies is a younger theory of jurisprudence that has developed since the 1970s which is primarily a negative thesis that the law is largely contradictory and can be best analyzed as an expression of the policy goals of the dominant social group. This might not be much of an issue for research or discussion if the president were just some lawyer, but he was a professor of constitutional law, and now he's the chief executive of the US, so his legal philosophies are pretty important. Do we have any information on his leanings? Ikilled007 ( talk) 15:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I mentioned it earlier - we know of exactly one article Obama wrote while president of the Harvard Law review.[ [35]] Covered by Politico, the article mentions he approached the idea of whether fetuses who survive abortions should be able to sue their mothers. As noted in the article, he considered the eugenics concept that children should not be born with injuries more important than that they be born. In his words, "On the other hand, the state may also have a more compelling interest in ensuring that fetuses carried to term do not suffer from debilitating injuries than it does in ensuring that any particular fetus is born." Just to make a guess, I would say probably Legal Positivism or Legal Realism, from what I have read of his comments in his senate transcripts. His Illinois Senate transcripts at www.ilga.gov are revealing when you look at the ones on controversial issues such as abortion. That would be one place to look. However, as Frank said, it needs to have solid sourcing as well as relevance to be included. At this point I don't know that even if his legal philosophy could be determined, it would be a well-enough established fact to merit inclusion on the page. -- Jzyehoshua ( talk) 16:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that debating a single source without having a proposed change to the article is very nearly a complete waste of time. If there is a proposed change or addition to the article, let's debate it. If not, what Obama may or may not have meant in a particular paper (which he may or may not have even written) is not useful here. Frank | talk 17:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
|
Given that we have more words on his Senate campaign than his actual Senate service, something's out of whack. I know the history of the article, and why it got this way, but it's time to start adjusting things as more information gets added about more recent life events of the bio subject. The campaign section, with lots of trivia and minutia is becoming out of date relative to its current significance to the overall biography (actually, likewise about the earlier IL State race). LotLE× talk 08:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
I will maximally strongly oppose any addition of more detail to the 2004 election section. We have a child article for that, and any more words (or even as many as we had prior to my slight trimming), is WP:UNDUE weight relative to the overall biography. The biography was initially written before the Presidential election, when the Senate campaign reasonably occupied a larger part of biographical significance, but it's been in need of a trim (and NOT of an expansion) since November 2008 (or at very least, since early 2009). LotLE× talk 11:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Note for Jzyehoshua: If you have additional information you wish to add about the United States Senate election in Illinois, 2004, the wikilink helps you find the appropriate article in which to do so. LotLE× talk 11:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Closed - I've always wanted to close a thread about closing threads! -- Scjessey ( talk) 18:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Would it be improper to request that whoever closes a thread sign his or her name to the thread-closing, as part of the historical record? I can't think of any good reason why that information is not immediately available next to the text explaining why the thread has been terminated. Thoughts? Ikilled007 ( talk) 10:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
←Just noting here that I closed a few waste-of-time threads because they had been started by User:Róbert Gida - now indef blocked for being a probable sock puppet of Multiplyperfect. I left one of them open ( Talk:Barack Obama#More trivias?) because it seemed like a reasonable discussion. -- Scjessey ( talk) 16:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the cooperation, people! Much appreciated. Ikilled007 ( talk) 19:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC) |
AN3 thread closed - please pursue other methods of dispute resolution, and reserve this page for discussion of improvements to the article. - 2/0 ( cont.) 18:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I just caught on to what the cohesive effort was by scjessey, Sceptre, and Unitanode was. They improperly closed an active thread without reason, 'Neutral Point of View', and then took turns reverting it to try and get me to violate a rule called the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Fortunately I caught on just in time to this sinister tactic. I will ask those initiating this edit warring to explain their justification for closing the thread, as this action seems to be required before posting to an Administrator's noticeboard, [36] where scjessey is already facing potential discipline for a separate incident. He, I found out, has already engaged in similar cases in the past. This was just one of them. [37] He is also coming off a recent ban, and is already engaged in active attacks on other members. This seems a serious offense for scjessey and his fellow cohorts, and thus I seek an explanation for the events occurring. -- Jzyehoshua ( talk) 22:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC) That Frank, Dayewalker, and averagejoe are involved seems clear as well, although to what extent I am still uncertain. I am sure all responsible parties will be held accountable when all of this is said and done. -- Jzyehoshua ( talk) 22:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
At this point, I suppose it's best for the admins to sort it out. I tried to take it to Mediation and go through this with discussion, but it seems the opposing users wanted to move against me to such extent that both avenues have become impossible. -- Jzyehoshua ( talk) 23:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't known what the 3 revert rule meant or that it included the talk page discussions until this, but I think I stopped at 3 reverts on the history, but they might count it as 4 since I did 2 separate edits, one to remove a hat and one to remove a hab, so am not sure. Guess we'll see. -- Jzyehoshua ( talk) 08:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
This issue is now being discussed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring I will notify the users involved. -- Jzyehoshua ( talk) 10:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
|
Closed - Tendentious horse flogging, overwhelming consensus agrees this is a non issue. -- Scjessey ( talk) 18:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I already asked, but will provide one more opportunity for those who think edit #4 violates the rules on WP:NPOV to provide solid proof before I make the edit. If you think the below edit violates the guidelines on Neutral Point of View, please state why and make your case. Edit #4: Obama's expected opponent in the general election, Republican primary winner Jack Ryan, withdrew from the race in June 2004 [42] following a widely-reported sex scandal. [43] Two months later, and with less than three months remaining in the election [44] Alan Keyes accepted the Illinois Republican Party's nomination to replace Ryan. [45] Following a race in which Alan Keyes was heavily criticized by the press both for being a 'carpetbagger' [46] and for allegedly evicting his daughter Maya Keyes for her homosexuality, [47] and with Alan Keyes running a negative campaign criticizing Obama primarily on the issue of Obama's voting record on live birth abortion [48], Obama in the November 2004 general election received 70% of the vote to Keyes' 27%, [49] the largest victory margin for a statewide race in Illinois history. When responding, please state on what grounds you think it violates NPOV.
Further points: -In the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ it states, "We report views that have been published by reliable sources. We do not report views that are held by tiny minorities, or views that reliable sources do not write about. Beyond that, we make no judgements. No view is omitted because someone might see it as prejudiced; if it is omitted from Wikipedia, it is because reliable sources have omitted it." -- Jzyehoshua ( talk) 21:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Jill Stanek, Phyllis Schlafly, Sarah Palin, John McCain, Alan Keyes...we previously covered (and closed) the rogues' gallery of commentators, now we're on to direct political and ideological opponents? Even Hillary Clinton was a political opponent until the 11th hour. Regardless - the issue here isn't what he said or may have supported; there can be endless discussions on that point and no consensus will be reached. It just doesn't rise to the level of interest in a biographical article of the man. It's in his Senate campaign article (which he won by an historical, overwhelming margin), and there may be a place in the presidential campaign articles, but it's not a defining characteristic of the man. Enough said. It's politics. Your attempts to make it significant are not gaining consensus. Frank | talk 22:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
[107] [108] [109] [110] I was however able to find mention of the subject in a Canadian newspaper. [111] [112]
(OD) Agreed. Can we please conclude this and wrap up this thread? This section is choking the page. Dayewalker ( talk) 18:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC) |
Jzyehoshua, this is not a "constructive" thread. Please stop reopening it. There is not a single voice of support for your proposal, and there isn't likely to be any because of the horrendous violations to Wikipedia policy it would entail. Please close this thread, or allow it to be closed without any further intervention on your part, or find yourself hauled up in front of administrators for being insufferably tendentious. -- Scjessey ( talk) 15:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Grouping a series of threads started by various accounts currently blocked for sockpuppetry - Wikidemon ( talk) 00:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Closed - Editor who started thread indef blocked for being a probable sock puppet of Multiplyperfect -- Scjessey ( talk) 15:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Currently you write more about his Harvard studies than his role in Iraq's war, what is a blame, shame, and unacceptable, regarding its importance. Róbert Gida ( talk) 00:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
|
Political axe-grinding not even slightly appropriate for this article. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
see: http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=114118§ionid=3510213 Add to the article: Under Obama administration 140 American banks failed. 25 US banks failed in 2008, compared with only three in 2007. Róbert Gida ( talk) 23:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Róbert Gida, your pattern of interests and prose style suddenly look oddly familiar. Have we perhaps met before? -- Hoary ( talk) 01:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Isn't it a personal attack (the above 4 comments) ? It is interesting when Obama fans run out of arguments then starts attack. Wikidemon thanks for your write, the article doesn't mention Obama's name, but I'm using my brain. He is the president for almost one year, responsible for this situation also. To develop this large number of bank failures indicates that he has done nothing. Róbert Gida ( talk) 09:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
The numbers are important factors of the status of economy, when a year, in last year of G.W.Bush presidency 25 banks closed, and under Obama this is more than 5 times, then I would call it remarkable. This isn't criticism, these are only dry facts, like the 26 years high unemployment rate, what is currently in the article. Róbert Gida ( talk) 10:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC) |
Wikipedia is not Twitter. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrrobKLtI8E My proposal for the main article: "In December of 2009 Obama visited youth center. Met only with black kids." Róbert Gida ( talk) 11:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC) |
Okay, you all had your fun. Now its time to say good-bye |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Yes, that's correct in the main article, but please give me another US president on wikipedia where it is written that x.y. is the first president born in z. Sorry but there is no such example for
and so on. This is another example that the Obama's article is full of uninteresting trivias. Róbert Gida ( talk) 01:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC) ps. write for ongoing topic closers: Could you prove your statement? Why are you closing every topic on wiki? It's talk page. Why are you run away from discuss among peoples? Write your opinion and don't afraid from real arguments Róbert Gida ( talk) 01:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
|
Closed - Editor who started thread indef blocked for being a probable sock puppet of Multiplyperfect -- Scjessey ( talk) 16:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
As the year ends I think it would be good to write this sentence to the article: "Obama gave himself a good solid B-plus grade for his first year in office." There are tons of references for it, for example: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/12/13/us/politics/AP-US-Obama-Oprah.html?_r=1 Róbert Gida ( talk) 23:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
|
Alright, that's enough |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
USA has the biggest number of confirmed deaths caused by H1N1 flu among countries, this is 2836, see: 2009_flu_pandemic_by_country, and 103840 confirmed cases. It is quite surprising that it is not mentioned in the article, my edit has been reverted. I know that it isn't a success subject for Obama's administration, and the fans usual arguments doesn't works here, because it isn't started under G.W.Bush. But this raise many red flags for me because even, if you don't write about it the problem and the 2836 (and ongoing increasing) number of deaths still exists. Róbert Gida ( talk) 13:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
What should be enough? Good question, probably not that currently USA is the top of the leader in the number of reported deaths of H1N1 flu. The government, the president, and Secreatary of Health and Human Services (Obama nominated her) are responsible for this large number of deaths, for this do you need also sources? I can't be responsible for it, I don't have billion of dollars to develop injection, this is the task of government, so Obama's. And I'm really don't understand you, for other quotes I have provided sources, even wikipedia sources, do you mean that those are bad? I thought that wikipedia accepts wikipedia as source. There was a discussion about H1N1 flu and Obama's role here and you said that it is minor, and wait until there will be million of reported cases. It has happened, and there is no change on wikipedia. Róbert Gida ( talk) 17:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I mean, most of the comments he leaves here are unconstructive, he also doesn’t seem to listen to what other (And frankly, more experienced) editors tell him about the way this encyclopaedia works. I’m getting pretty sick of his blatant agenda, it’s a waste of editors time. (Grumble) -- Misortie ( talk) 17:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Proposal to closeI closed this discussion, per WP:SNOW but it's been re-opened by one of the participants. [115] The question of shoehorning in negative events from the world into Obama's bio has been discussed and rejected before many times, and at least once specifically with reference to swine flu. This particular discussion has devolved into accusations of sockpuppetry, and some other borderline accusations both sides. This pattern is not productive to the maintenance and improvement of the article and has no chance of leading to a content change. If the editor is truly legit, they can be educated on the ABC's of the encyclopedia on their talk page. If they're a sock, AN/I and SPI are that-a-way. Doing so here wastes time and distracts attention from any viable work. Any reason to keep it open? - Wikidemon ( talk) 18:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
|
Blocked user |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
It isn't spent even a day and it is in the article: "On December 24, 2009, the bill was passed in the Senate on a party-line vote of 60-39, with Jim Bunning (R-KY) not voting. The vote marked the first occasion since 1895 that the United States Senate has passed voted on Christmas Eve." I don't know how important and how related to Obama's personal life the second sentence, but my feel that this is only another boring trivia. Róbert Gida ( talk) 23:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
My own "feel", Róbert, is that I have seen your inimitable prose before on this talk page, but with other signatures. But let's put aside the matter of any earlier appearances. Your edits show such an exclusive concern with Barack Obama that your description of this admittedly recent event as "boring trivia" comes as a surprise. I wonder what the really important stuff might be, in your view. (His birth certificate, perhaps?) -- Hoary ( talk) 00:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, in this case, I don't understand why this was added here on the Barack Obama article(I saw it earlier and was surprised). When he signs the Bill, perhaps it could be added because it was a critical component of his campaign. Definitely added to the Presidency of Barrack Obama, then. But let's not do a play-by-play of the Legislative process in the House or Senate. It's definitely noteworthy(the Christmas Eve vote), but it's not for the biography for Barack Obama. It should be in the United States Senate article. The whole health care process deserves to be wrote about in encyclopedia articles, it's very historic. Just not here. DD2K ( talk) 03:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC) |
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/12/28/kernis.10.most.intriguing/index.html Interesting article, the first is the president and the second is his wife. (Why I couldn't edit the article?) Bamao ( talk) 00:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
|
proposal considered, no action |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Obama-Hawaii-Emergency-Vacation/2009/12/28/id/344818 Is it interesting to include in the article? Bamao ( talk) 17:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
|
asked and answered |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I think this is an existing term in English: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Obamism I've edtied it, so Obamism, but you deleted it and redirected to Obama. I have no clue why, redirecting it to Obama says nothing about the meaning of the word, seeing this my edit was much better. Bamao ( talk) 19:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
|