Talk:Barack Obama

Proposal to update FAQ1

rm unproductive discussion - Wikidemon (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Question 1 probably should be amended to state that Obama was factually wrong when he stated that he went to a Muslim school. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Concur on that William. From following the links, it becomes obvious that Obama mis-identified his 4th-grade school as being a Muslim school, when it is a secular school at which he did read the Koran (and make faces while doing so....) One year of taking a class on the Koran at the age of 10 is far different than attending a school dedicated to Islam. --Habap (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Wikidemon: can you not remove threads on spurious BLP grounds? I see no BLP violation (he sourced the quotes, after all), and you removed my answer to him too by mistake. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Where is the BLP violation?--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

comments removed - Wikidemon (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It's nice to see some activity now after I have been deleted and banned multiple times. That really was sad from a supposed "encyclopdia" site. Now back to the topic at hand, I don't think Obama "mispoke" when he said he attended a Muslim school. A 4th grade student certainly knows what kind of school he is attending. I think the issue that needs to be addressed specifically is the schools curriculum - was it religious in nature and what was that religion? Otherwise I think it is negligent on the part of this article not to mention his Muslim background and I maintain my position on that. Wikipedia should be a place for reliable and verfied facts, not liberal viewpoints or a place where relevant information is omitted because somebody "doesn't like it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.23.139.106 (talk) 23:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Upon further research, Kim Barker of the Chicago Tribune has addressed the "madrassa" issue. She states in her article (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-070325obama-islam-story-archive,0,3358809.story): "When Obama attended 4th grade in 1971, Muslim children spent two hours a week studying Islam, and Christian children spent those two hours learning about the Christian religion." If Obama was a practicing Christian at that time, that's what he would have been studying. Yet he states in his book he was studying the Koran. Christian children do not study the Koran. I'm afraid the claim that he never "studied" or "practiced" is simply false. This was part of his childhood, and should be mentioned in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.23.139.106 (talk) 00:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

A 4th grade student may know what school he's attending, but a thirty-three year old looking back twenty-five years is going to make a few mistakes where he's simply forgotten. As I said, I'd actually have to check if my primary school was CoE or state, and I'm fifteen years younger than Obama was when he wrote Dreams from My Father. SDN Menteg 01 was a secular school, so the religious instruction was either comparative, or the one choice decided by the parents. In any case, I'm hesitant to call Obama Muslim based on the fourth-grade, partially for ethical reasons, as I don't believe in labelling children by religion before they can make a conscious decision, but also because multiple sources (of which DfMF, AoH, or both, are included) state that Lolo Soetoro and Ann Dunham emphasised comparative religion over indoctrination. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

We now need to discuss how to change the answer to question 1 to make sure it is noted that Obama was factually wrong when he stated in his book that he went to a "Muslim school".--William S. Saturn (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it needs to be changed, the links provided(in the FAQ) go into detail with explanations about it. If one is going to Catholic school for three years, and then transfers to a public school in a predominantly Muslim country, it will seem as if they are going to a "Muslim school". Just as if one went to a public rural school in the 1930's(in some cases up until the 1950's), one would get religious instructions based on the Christian faith. The full explanations are there, but if someone wants to tweak the wording, there may be consensus for that. I'm sure most of us that are over the age of 35 remember certain aspects of our life when we were 8-9 years old, but will admit that most of our 4th grade memories have disappeared. So it's a bit of nitpicking minutia to do into detail about most of this. Dave Dial (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The FAQ links to Snopes. Snopes is an entertainment website, no reputable encyclopedia uses them as a valid reference. Also, it does not address what Obama wrote in his book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.105.69 (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

See WP:REDFLAG and WP:PARITY. There are no reliable sources that assert a Muslim heritage, so Snopes is entirely adequate to refute such nonsense. Johnuniq (talk) 08:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

How is a book, written by the man in question himself, not a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.196.105.69 (talk • contribs)

Side-note

There's a discussion on AN/I here other whether the anon's comments should be kept or removed. Thanks. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I see this still hasn't been resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.109.129 (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Space

There is no mention of the new direction in space with Obama. This is integral to his biography. There is plenty of information. Cancellation of Constellation, protest from Neil Armstrong and others, un-cancelling it but changing it, getting NASA out of the astronaut (earth orbit) business, wanting private companies to go into the astronaut business, manned asteroid mission, etc. It's tough to summarize it in a sentence or two but it can be done. Can we agree that a space section is needed? RIPGC (talk) 05:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so - it's not a particularly vital part of his biography and not often in the news in proportion to other things. Maybe later, if that's what his presidency is known for. It seems appropriate for the "presidency of..." article and sub-articles. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The suggestion of putting non-"vital part of his biography...for the 'presidency of...' article" is interesting. If this advice is followed, there would be a lot of this article removed. For example, the SCHIP mention under domestic policy is a very esoteric and minor point as well as something suited for the presidency article. There should be a wholesale removal of lots of this article. The political events that remain should be events that are related to Obama's own actions and actions that changes things. The space mention is in the middle, neither the top things that Obama did nor an obscure thing. The SCHIP mention is an obscure thing and not even clearly an Obama proposal but something that he attached a signature to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factchecker 3 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but things go incrementally around here so maybe shorten or eliminate one thing at a time. I don't remember the history, but my guess is that the SCHIP is in the article only because it's the second thing he signed, not because it's terribly germane to his presidency otherwise. I know that covering 4 million kids is a big deal but so are many things a President does, and there's no context that Obama had much to do with it other than signing it. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The history is that providing health care for tens of millions more Americans, beginning with children not covered in the previous administration, was unquestionably the cornerstone of Obama's domestic policy campaign and remained so despite having to tackle numerous other developments that vied for (and in some ways won) primacy. So it's germane to that overall policy that, while the cobbling and passage of the reform bill may have taken however many months, this aspect of the plan was instated immediately.

As far as context, it was vetoed twice by George W. Bush, who didn't approve of expanding the program to cover these additional 4 million children. Regardless of how one feels about the policy, stating that Obama had nothing to do with it other than signing it misses the point of the difference between an issue you build awareness of and support for as a primary point for two years of a campaign in one sense, and a bill that becomes a law and one that does not in another: Bush term, no law; Obama term, law. Abrazame (talk) 04:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I read an article about Obama's new space policy. It wasn't saying he was good or bad. That means space is a legitimate topic for the article. MVOO (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Comma

The opening line should read "the 44th, and current President. I have fixed it twice. "44th", and "current", are not synonymous. He is the 44th POTUS, which he will always be. He is also the current POTUS, which he will eventually not be.Mk5384 (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with whether or not there should be a comma there. "44th, and current, President" might be correct, but your phrasing is as incorrect as "a tall, and thin man".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You're comparing apples to oranges. If it said "Barack Obama is a tall and thin man", I wouldn't have added a comma. But I know. This is all about consensus. It has nothing to do with whether or not a comma belongs, but whether a consensus of editors want a comma. See, I'm starting to get it. Aren't you proud of me, Sarek?Mk5384 (talk) 03:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to take Guy's advice, and go find one of our other 3,000,000 articles to improve. In the meanwhile, I'll see if someone can learn me some gooder English.Mk5384 (talk) 03:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

If "and current" is meant to be a parenthetical then there should be a comma immediately before and after those words. Otherwise, no comma should be next to those words. SMP0328. (talk) 03:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree with SarekOfVulcan - proper grammar demands two commas (for a parenthetical phrase) or zero commas (for a compound modifier). One comma is wrong, and two commas would make it needlessly weak, so I vote for zero. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The comments above regarding the comma are correct (one comma is wrong, and two commas would not be helpful). If precedent is of interest, here is an old revision of George W. Bush which says "George Walker Bush ... is the forty-third and current President of the United States" (without a comma). Johnuniq (talk) 03:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

So one article being wrong is grounds for another to be wrong as well? Like I said, and is also illustrated above, we have "votes" for these things. Proper English is relegated to an afterthought.Mk5384 (talk) 06:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Why do you believe the earlier version of George W. Bush article was wrong? Deviating from your preference does not necessarily equate to deviating from Proper English. SMP0328. (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue of whether or not a comma would be required in this instance is one of grammar and not one of personal whim. Mk5384, you have expressed your justification for the comma, and others have explained the context in which a comma would be appropriate and the grammatical reason for why a comma where you have suggested one would require a second comma. The question of whether we add two or none is based on a determination of whether being the current president of the United States is a parenthetical detail. (It was that against which Gavia immer was voting, not the underlying rules of grammar.) The question of whether we add one comma is a matter of erroneousness. Your orange stems from the use of a single comma as substitute for the word and between two adjectives, as in changing "he is a tall and thin man" to "he is a tall, thin man". The and was still required despite your addition of the comma, which should tell you that is not the basis for insertion.

If you don't accept grammar as the basis upon which to justify the use of punctuation, we could address the logic of your explanation, as by saying, "At such eventual time as he is succeeded as POTUS the 'and current' qualifier will no longer be in the article. (Such is apparent from the comment about the Bush article.) Similarly, constancy is not a basis upon which to determine punctuation. The fact that he may not always be thin wouldn't have any more bearing than the fact that he will not always be president on whether to put a comma in either sentence. Tall and thin are not synonyms." But all of that would miss the point. Initial misunderstandings are a common fact of life, but they yield to understanding. Tenacious misunderstandings are quite a bit more of a problem. Contentious misunderstandings—say, using an editorial argument (and its alleged abandonment) as a platform to criticize a page or the project as a whole, and in doing so using it as a kicking-off place for several other misunderstandings—is a different, though at this page no less common, problem. The long and the short of it: you've been asking for it; eat it or slap yourself in the face with it already. Abrazame (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No comma is needed, period. (I wouldn't be surprised if some guide to writing for the insecure said it were necessary -- but then this is a genre of book that can be safely ignored, other than for unintended comedy value.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that less commas are needed. The Wikipedia article [[4]] contains a quote:

“ Nowadays… A passage peppered with commas — which in the past would have indicated painstaking and authoritative editorial attention — smacks simply of no backbone. People who put in all the commas betray themselves as moral weaklings with empty lives and out-of-date reference books. (Truss, 2004, p. 97–98) ”

For example, here is a line in this article that could be cleaned up:

His mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was born in Wichita, Kansas, of mostly English, but also some German, descent.

Loveonearth (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Obama's Ethnic Background

Regardless of what other sources refer to Obama as, he is still a bi-racial individual. Calling him African American means that he has no other racial background other than Black. Therefore your article on Obama is incorrect. It is clear that he had a Caucasian mother. You cannot force people to be Black because you want to based on some racist Jim Crow "one drop" rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Educatedlady (talk • contribs) 03:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, what exactly is he then other then just "Bi-Racial"? Phearson (talk) 03:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

← Please see question 2 in the FAQs above. Tvoz/talk 03:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, lazy journalists wishing to overstate Obama's blackness now know that Wikipedia has to use the most frequently reported version of events, whether true or not. There is no chance of making people on here see reason - they can't accept that Obama is as white as he is black. He is not 'African-American' in another sense either, as that term usually means the descendants of slaves, and used because their precise ethnic/national origin is unclear - Kenyan-American is more accurate in this case.--MartinUK (talk) 09:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I call foul on you. I have English, Russian, Polish, and other nationalities in my ancestry. The result of this is not that I'm only allowed to call myself "multi-national" anymore than we do with Andrew Jackson. He's happily celebrated for his ScotsIrish roots (despite not being pure ScotsIrish), just as I'm able to be called a Russian American, despite not being pure blood. In fact, the truth of the matter is that with the exception of first generation immigrants (and often including them, due to European colonization of Africa), there is no such thing as a person who is pure blood African living in America. We still call them "African American," just as Obama is, just as I'm a Russian American, etc. I call foul on your second point as well, I can still be called a Caucasian as well, and so can a first generation immigrant from Russia. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 09:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely absurd. You should look up the definition of African American. Obama self identifies as African American, sources indicate that he is, and the definition also states this. His whole heritage is listed in the body of the article. You, nor anyone else, gets to decide which portion of someone else's heritage they identify with. Perhaps if one is walking around America(especially in the 60's, 70's and 80's) and you look like a Black person, that is your identity and there is nothing you can do about it. We are not going to argue about this silliness every few weeks, that is what the FAQ is for. If nobody has anything new to add, this issue is closed. Dave Dial (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Again, please refer to FAQ #2. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Clearly it is misleading and confusing to say he is African-American without including further clarification. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No further clarification in this article is needed; Obama self-identifies as African-American, and reliable sources consistently refer to him as African-American. If readers wish to read more on the term, its history, and its usage, then they are quite able to click on the link and read more about it. The section African-American#The term "African American" in particular. Tarc (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

As this is an encyclopedia we should avoid ambiguity. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

And I have removed it it was removed (looks like my edit was beaten by a fraction of a seocnd, heh). Wholly unnecessary, especially as his detailed ancestry is covered in the Early Life...section right after the lead. readers do not need clarification that being African-American can mean a non-black parent. Common knowledge and common sense. Tarc (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It isn't ambiguous; it's discussed in the following section. "African-American" is how reliable sources report that Obama identifies himself, so claiming that it is "ambiguous" implies that his self-identification is subject to veto, which is not how we write a neutral encyclopedia. Also, if you are going to make such edits, it is imperative in terms of how your actions will be perceived by others that you capitalize proper nouns and adjectives scrupulously. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I propose a section called "Presidential controversies" with the following content

Grundle2600. Sock. Carry on. Tarc (talk) 02:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
redacted - Wikidemon (talk) 04:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Rory's Dance (talk) 02:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC) First off, these things would be better suited for his PRESIDENCY article, not his bio. Second, we try to avoid controversy sections so it would be best to break this up and distribute it into the article as best fits each situation. Finally, while your sourcing appears to be solid overall, some of your content appears to be of questionable importance. Soxwon (talk) 02:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Minor point

"Obama Sr. remarried and returned to Kenya, visiting Barack in Hawaii only once, in 1971." Why "only"? 207.118.29.23 (talk) 02:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Conversational Indonesian?

The article claims that Obama speaks Indonesian at a conversational level, yet the source only provides examples of Obama using very basic phrases such as "how are you", or "where from?", can we really consider such basic phrasing to be at a level capable of carrying on a substantive conversation? 99.241.90.42 (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Not for us to determine - the source questions whether he surpasses conversational Indonesian. If you have better source to clarify this, please present it. Otherwise, our text is consistent with our source. Tvoz/talk 19:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

We have to use common sense, and I agree that this needs better sourcing. I too can ask where somone is form and how they are in Indonesian. It should be removed unless it can be properly sourced and established. Freakshownerd (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Propose a Public image and perception section similar to other Presidents

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_clinton#Public_image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_clinton#Public_opinion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Public_image_and_perception

---—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.208.111 (talk) 02:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

As in public image of Barack Obama? PhGustaf (talk) 02:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Which, BTW, is linked as the Main article for Barack Obama#Cultural and political image. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Didn't catch that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.208.111 (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Where is our president's nationality information?

Hello,

Why is President Obama's Nationality entry missing? He was born in Hawaii, a state of the United States. George Bush, Bill Clinton, Abraham Lincoln all have nationality entries. Surprisingly John F. Kennedy is also missing the nationality entry. Shouldn't we correct that for both former Presidents?

Thank you, Naperville Illinois Citizen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.228.24 (talk) 04:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe it should be erased from all. What nationality could the president of the United States possibly have? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like the better idea to me. There's no point in having a "nationality" entry in the infobox for someone whose nationality is absolutely plain without it. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Not all Presidents were born in the USA, indeed some were born before the USA even existed. Furthermore, this is a Biography of a Living Person, not a Biography of a US President. Another key factor here is that many Wikipedians will be unfamiliar with the current Constitutional requirement for POTUS to be a US Citizen. Key biographical information like this must be written into the article on the assumption that not every reader is familiar with Article Two of the United States Constitution. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

What? Not everyone knows that the president must be a U.S.-citizen? How many more assumptions of utter stupidity and moronism should we cater to? How low can you go? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Every American ought to know that, but it's not necessarily something they cover in every English-speaking country (and non-English speaking country for that matter) on Earth. If you argue that this is irrelevant than might I remind you of population ratios. Soxwon (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Everyone knows that to be the president of X, you need to be a citizen of X. Anywhere. The step to replace X with "United States of America" shouldn't be too difficult. Name one place where one can be head of state/government w/o being a citizen and I stand corrected. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, one DOES come to mind, but then, that may be cheating. Soxwon (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Smartass :P Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

And there is the curious case of Milan Panić. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah well... I guess cases of states in transition coupled with rampant ethno-nationalism were off my radar for a moment. They also made Hitler ^{[do I have to link to that?]} a citizen so he could ruin the country.^{[do I have to say which?]} I stand corrected; I guess such cases do exist. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Now we wait for the birthers to notice our continuing efforts to cloud the truth about his citizenship... Soxwon (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

In that case, the Hitler-thingy wasn't the smartest analogy I guess... :P Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No, no, no, in fact it was incredibly appropriate. ;) Soxwon (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

←As I said before, not all US presidents have been US Citizens because the term didn't even exist before 1776. George Washington, for example, was born British. Nationality should be common to all biographies (living or dead), irrespective of whether or not the person in question is/was a president. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You missed the party. And I think you need a review on what citizenship means; it has nothing to do with place of birth. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

As a British citizen living in the US, I am fully cognizant of the meaning of citizenship. The fact remains that the nationality (derived from country of birth) of a person should be in every Wikipedia biography. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

..and robots may not always know these seemingly obvious facts. Robots read Wikipedia too! - Wikidemon (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Nationality is not derived from one's place of birth. Where do you get that from? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Your statement is incorrect. For most people, nationality most certainly is derived from their place of birth. A minority of people have their nationality derived by other factors, such as nationality of parents. Our own article on the subject explains this in some detail. I'm not sure why you are making such a big deal out of this. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

For some reason, Obama has a controversy over his birth and citizenship. There could be mention of the debate but the conclusion should be that he was born in Hawaii. MVOO (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Liberal Bias

No legitimate suggestions of article improvement, just hand-wringing about "liberals" and SAT scores. Tarc (talk) 13:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I find it all over Wikipedia, but especially in the political arena, whether it's a politician or a political commentator or whatnot. This is actually the first time I have looked at the Obama page, and it's predictably predictable. You would think this guy walks on water, has never made a wrong move or a bad decision, and 100% of the nation loves him. I notice on the Bush page regarding most of his major policies and decisions, there's always something negative about them tacked on someplace, how he was accused of this nefarious move or that nefarious deal. No such thing with Obama or his moves, and there have been MANY complaints and many concerns about every aspect of his presidency. You'd never know it here. I suppose this will be removed, which will simply confirm my own suspicions. (75.3.242.197 (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)) <PatrioticHippie> I understand your frustration but there's nothing that can be done about it. Wikipedia will never be completely neutral because collectively, editors are biased.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC) (ec) Your message says "remove it so that I can despise you more" :-) Seriously, constructive comments would be more appreciated. Wikipedia aims to reflect reliable, secondary sources, which are always biased when it comes to politics. This might answer your comments, especially on Bush. Materialscientist (talk) 06:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Please, this page is for constructive discussions leading to potential improvements in the article. It isn't the place for airing gripes about Wikipedia and supposedly liberal bias here or in the press. There are other places for that but in general I have little sympathy. Failure to extensively cover the constant attacks that are the stuff of politics in a biography of a person does not represent a political bias in favor of that person, it is an encyclopedic approach to writing biographies. If there's anything specific to change, please feel free to discuss, but keep in mind that much of this has been extensively discussed already. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC) RIGHT! God knows having non-biased political editors would never help with "improving an article", nor asking for this be "constructive discussion". I was not allowed to post my response to William and Material, but your response says it all. 'We're biased like Hell, and STFU'. (75.3.242.197 (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)) <PatrioticHippie> That's not worth a response. You can explore the policies and guidelines for contributing to Wikipedia at WP:WELCOME. Lesson #1, please remember to sign your posts - four tildes. (~~~~). If there's no constructive discussion forthcoming I'll go ahead and close this thread. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC) I'm sure you will. But before you do, could I simply get even a brief explanation from yourself as to what exactly constitutes "constructive discussion" and Wikipedia aiming to "reflect reliable, secondary sources?" I personally take it to mean, depending on whether there's a D or an R next to the name, those "reliable" sources which the "editors" agree with, while ignoring those "reliable" sources they don't agree with, especially on Obama, to borrow a phrase from Material. If I'm wrong, I'd love to know where, rather than just be silenced, as tempting as I suspect it is. If these political pages are in reality just giant op-ed pages rather than an "encyclopedia", I believe your visitors deserve to know this going in, at the very least. (75.3.242.197 (talk) 08:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)) <PatrioticHippie> Well, that wasn't unconstructive! Constructive discussion: WP:TALK via [[5]]. Reliable sources: WP:RS. It's important to note that the issue isn't only which publication something appears in, but exactly what it is, who wrote it, and what it's supposed to stand for. When we're in the middleground of sources, which perhaps spans from Fox News and Wall Street Journal on the right to Time Magazine and Salon.com on the left, we still have to look to see whether it's an editorial opinion piece, commentary, analysis, rhetorical flourish, interview, whatever. And even the more partisan or special purpose sources, say the Washington Times, New York Post, Village Voice, etc., often have pieces that are reliable for some things. Surely you must be aware that the opinions you voiced here are considerably right of center by American standards, and are a criticism of Wikipedia rather than factual points in nature. In addition to trouble from people who want to "balance" the article towards whatever they feel is the correct pro or anti-Obama bias, we've had a lot of long term, persistent trouble from fake accounts. This is one of the most heavily trafficked and edited articles in the whole encyclopedia, which gives it lots of momentum and makes it hard to make broad changes for any reason. More specialized articles are a lot easier to write and help improve. When editors/accounts new to this article post broadside attacks here on the integrity of Wikipedia they can stir up dissent but they don't get a whole lot of traction. If you approach Wikipedia as an ideological battleground rather than a presentation of simple facts, you're just going to end up banking your head into a brick wall. The editors who expressed understanding with your opinion may (? - I don't really keep score) have conservative, skeptical politics. But try to stick to business around here and get along. I hope that helps explain things. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC) If you ask me, it's somewhat uncivil to equate Fox News and Wall Street Journal to Time Magazine and Salon.com. If Time equals Wall Street Journal on opposite sides, then does Salon equals Fox News? That's just crazy talk. And what's this about the Washington Times and New York Post being being considerably right of center. We don't call teh New York Times and Washington Post center, do we? 99.224.73.157 (talk) 22:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC) civility policy, like personal attack policy, is about the way editors treat each other, it is not about characterizing sources. I have trouble following your arguments. Each of these publications is very different and I'm not equating them. I'm simply saying that newspapers with varying political biases, and different levels of trustworthiness, can all be used if one is careful to evaluate each specific statement for whether it is supported by the source and whether the specific piece cited is reliable for supporting that particular statement. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC) It might help if the IP editor actually pointed out where they disagree with the article and place here what they think it should say. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC) I think we're running into the same thing we run into on all political Wikipedia articles. The argument consistently is "well, this guy has all this criticism, so why doesn't this guy get equal amount?" The problem is, that's not how balance works. You don't balance out articles by putting the same amount of criticism in one because this much is in the other, anymore than you determine how many characters, pictures or quotes appear in each article. That's the opposite of unbiased. Being unbiased ignores numerical instances of a thing and simply includes biographical, significant, verifiable data on a thing. If anything, trying to force fit more criticism into Obama's article for the mere reason that he doesn't have as many as Bush's is bias. It ignores the credibility of the arguments in favor of putting in a matching number. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 05:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Thank you for the response, Wikidemon. I don't ask for broad changes. Aside from sources being reliable and factual, wherever they are from, all I ever ask is that the people in question be treated equally on both sides of the aisle. If Bush's front page for example is going to mention nice little subtlely negative implications and the controversies and criticisms surrounding his policies, and on just about every part of his bio, Obama's should too. I don't see that, and much controversy and criticism certainly exists with Obama and his policies. Even if the establishment liberal network media steadfastly refuses to cover most of it, and attacks those who do. I see him and all of his policies made out to look fantastic here, and some of the entries make sure to point out how he's reversed Bush's policies, in a presumably positive way. It simply isn't balanced in my humble opinion. I don't push for Bush's article to be sterilized. I wouldn't want that. I'd just like to see Obama's not sterilized either. As for what is there, basically all that's missing is that he walks on water. (75.3.241.37 (talk) 08:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC))<PatrioticHippie> Perhaps you would care to suggest a specific addition or alteration. -- Hoary (talk) 08:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC) PatrioticHippie, the problem with your attempt to correct perceived errors with Wikipedia is that your claims are incredibly vague. You keep saying there's all these noteworthy problems that should be included in Obama's page yet you fail to name one. Name something you want to add, somthing that has reliable sources and something that is significant. There are going to be numerous successes and failures, or however you want to look at them, in any presidency that simply aren't significant to put in the person's bio. You may seek to include some of what you want to add under the sub article dedicated to Obama's presidency, provided they are sourced. The article that focusses on his presidency will have a much more narrow focus and will include much of what I am assuming you wish to see in his bio. By all means, and I am sure every editor would agree with me, if you feel there is something that is important enough to be included in his overall bio and not just a sub article, and it is well sourced, bring it up. Again vaguely saying there is negative stuff on Bush's articles and no negative stuff here isn't a real complaint. Say specifically what you want to see here, what sources you have and make a coherent argument for why it should be included in his bio. Wikipedia isn't about negative information and positive information, it's just information. It's not articles on good things and bad things, it's just articles. So saying there is no negative information in an article is no kind of argument. Say what you want to be included and why, and again be specific. And it is absolutely irrelevant what is on another person's bio. If you feel that bio is unfair take it up there, not here. If you feel that this bio is somehow bad state what you want to see and why but the contents on another person's bio is irrelevant here.Jdlund (talk) 03:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC) I'm not attempting to correct anything. I have already written what I find wrong with this. It's rather straightforward. If they are going to mention the criticism of the Bush policies or things he "allegedly" did or didn't do, which they make sure they included on his front page, then do it with Obama and his policies, on his front page. They do not. No heavy criticism about his health care bill? About 2/3 of the nation hates it bitterly. No criticism mentioned. The unprecendented spending bills and debt that most of the nation is now against bitterly? No criticism mentioned. Under the Iraq war, no mention of him voting "against" the surge [planned under Bush] that would later stablize Iraq? Nothing about his own "indifference" and the considerable criticism of him following the Gulf spill, after criticizing Bush for being indifferent following Katrina yet? Nothing about his refusal to release his SAT scores to the public? They made sure to include Bush saying he was "an average student". I could go on, but it's not what I'm after. (71.156.54.2 (talk) 04:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)) <PatrioticHippie> So start by choosing just one of these choices made by Obama or results of his administration that two thirds or most of the nation is bitterly against or bitterly hates, and summarizing the opposition or the hatred. I'm surprised to infer that presidential candidates are now expected to release their SAT scores, and indeed when I try googling for Obama and SAT all I see is mere bloggery. Where's the news coverage of this? -- Hoary (talk) 10:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Any bias is bad. We should combat all bias, not just give up and accept it. MVOO (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Am I to believe these subjects and points have not been summarized already? That I am the first to mention them here? I don't believe it for a second. (71.156.61.127 (talk) 11:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)) <PatrioticHippie>

Economic policy section

The section needs a little updating. I was surprised to see the extension of first-time home buyer tax credit from the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 wasn't in there. It was modified by the ARRA before extension and has been successful as several notable people have remarked. The reason I opened this discussion though is that last sentence in the second paragraph is unnecessary and outdated. It certainly doesn't reflect the markets today and honestly doesn't add anything substantive to the article. Bernanke's language this week among many other facts and indicators reflect that. I plan to work on the section in the next week.--NortyNort | Holla 22:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Why would that possibly be in this biographical article, instead of the article on Presidency of Barack Obama? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, don't ask me. Ask whoever put the "Economic policy" section in this article in the first place. My comments reflect on subject matter that is already in this article.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Minor fix

It Lists his religion as "Christianity", but in the source it says United CHurch of Christ, could someone fix this? Thanks. 173.75.234.3 (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

...and church of "Christ" is not "Christian"? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I have made the change. I agree the term "Christianity" is too broad. See George W. Bush. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Naw that's a denomination. Bessides, only one of the list of sources mentions UCC, all the rest of them talk at length about Christianity. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

See George W. Bush. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hm. I didn't know we edit-war our way into this. Whatever. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No one is edit warring. You're just being difficult and not listening.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

My dear Will, take a breath. Bush never dropped out of a specific church though, so the comparison really isn't applicable. This is a perennial topic that is IMO bordering on WP:LAME, but the last time this topic popped up, it was initiated and trolled by socks of Gaydenver, so I'm not sure how useful a review of that is. Basically we're stuck, since Obama has declined to join a specific church on a regular basis, and no one can seem to agree on whether or not leaving Wright's church mean he dropped out of the UCC itself. So what does one do when the subject himself has a particularly vague religious denomination/affiliation? Tarc (talk) 21:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I have self-reverted but would prefer a more general term such as Protestant.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for self-reverting. Maybe I should've been as clear as Tarc; I wasn't simply being difficult, I've seen the wars that took place over this. That being said, convince me. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This may need to be added to the FAQ. I know this has been discussed before ad nauseum. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I was actually looking for it in the FAQ at first... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This is strange that it list Christianity. The excuse is that it has been discussed before but what Mr. Saturn says makes sense, that he is United Church of Christ or Protestant. Obama's dispute was with Rev. Wright, not the religion. Part of the problem in real life (not saying it's here) is that some want to defend Obama so much that they think he abandoned the church and want to wipe it out. However, Obama never abandoned his religion or said he changed it. He just had a dispute with Rev. Wright. MVOO (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This is easy to compromise if we just look at George Bush's article which states under religion Episcopalian (before 1977), United Methodist (after 1977). Then all we have to do is say UCC (before 2008), non-denominational (after 2008) for Barack Obama.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 05:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Show Portal:Barack Obama in article alongside other portals?

If you look at the External links section of the article, there is a box which features five portals related to Obama. Since Obama himself has his own portal, Portal:Barack Obama, shouldn't it be shown too? Just a comment here. Thanks, AngChenrui ^Talk 06:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I had no idea someone had done up the portal, to be honest. I left it in a half-completed state months ago. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Before I add this to the article...

I think that it should be mentioned that although Obama said that "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes"1 he has signed in to law a tax on tanning, as well as buying cigarettes (which are bought overwhelmingly by people making less than 250,000)2 These facts should be mentioned, I think, because they have caused some controversy among his opponents, and some supporters alike. JahnTeller07 (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Ehh... while technically true, I never, for one minute, believed he was including sin taxes in that too. Politifact, as well, were debating on whether sin taxes counted. However, I'd personally rate the promise broken, because of the insurance mandate, as the administration are defending it as a tax now. I'd personally wait until the end of the PPACA lawsuits, just to be sure. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that's been discussed here. That's a political argument, not a simple fact about the President's life and times. It's a question of how to characterize something, when there's no dispute over what it is, just how to describe it. As such it belongs in a sub-article about the presidency or the economic policy. Further, Wikipedia can't endorse one side or the other on political arguments. If the criticism or debate over this are important enough, we can simply report that some people criticized or disparaged the president, using this as an argument. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The only way we can agree that Obama raised taxes for under-$250k is a court ruling accepting the administration's argument re: the mandate. It's not like HW's "read my lips: no new taxes"; it's much more ambiguous. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Long story short: We'll know he raised taxes on under $250,000s if and only if a reliable source says he did. We are not going to add our own analysis of the situation. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

So if I find a source (which I have...a reliable one) that says that the vast majority of people that were affected by the cigarette tax, as well as the tanning tax earn under 250K/yr. I can add it in right? JahnTeller07 (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You can only say what independent reliable sources say. To add that the cigarette tax was, contrary to his promise, effectively raising taxes on those earning less than a quarter of a million dollars a year, you would need independant reliable sources saying exactly that. Please note: that's sources that are 1) "independent" 2) "reliable" and 3) plural. Then, there's the question of weight... No hurry, you've got 24 hours to figure it out before you can do anything with it. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Be careful too. You'll need to find non-partisan sources too, given that the right-wing will try to vilify him and the left-wing will try to vindicate him... Sceptre ^(talk) 19:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not going to happen. What you will get at most is independent reliable neutral sources that say the partisans are bickering on it. Some of them might get into an analysis of the merits of the claims, but in doing so they take themselves out of reliable source territory and voice opinions. And after all that, it still would belong in the economic policy or presidency article, not here. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and pre-emp your objections to whatever source is going to be presented by noting that although CNN, the Huffington Post and MSNBC are typically seen as liberal and Fox News and WSJ are typically seen as conservative none of these groups identify with a political ideology and they all count as independent sources as far as RS guidelines are concerned.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 05:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd personally be wary about calling Fox a RS after Sherrodgate. They need to take a hard look at their editorial policy (I mean, seriously, when you call the chairman of the Republican Governor's Association a Democrat...). Sceptre ^(talk) 23:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait I'm still confused as to why it shouldn't be included, when all that was going to go in the article were properly sourced facts. JahnTeller07 (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, we aren't sure on whether either the sin taxes count or the mandate count. Politifact spent quite a lot of time debating it. As we said, it's not like HW's "read my lips: no new taxes". It's more complex than that, because we don't know what counts as a tax on under-$250,000s. Hence why I said we should wait for the court ruling agreeing with the administration's argument that the mandate is a tax. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

OO okay gotcha...thank you for clarifying; and thank you for the input. I appreciate it. JahnTeller07 (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Sceptre says, "I'd personally be wary about calling Fox a RS". LOL Yea, but Media Matters, MSNBC et ARE, eh? I rest my case, and obviously JahnTeller sees what I have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.156.48.141 (talk) 01:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that does seem kinda hypocritical...but is that the argument that's being made (I agree that FOX is way more reliable than MMFA and the likes) JahnTeller07 (talk) 01:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd not use MMFA as a source, personally. And I'd not use MSNBC as a source regarding the right-wing. However, while the worst MSNBC have done is lean to the left, FOX has a history of failing to do basic fact checking: before Sanford, they called Specter, Foley, and even McCain Democrats on one occasion or another. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

This is fallacy. FOX makes occassional honest and small mistakes like every news outlet in the history of news. They correct them when they do. They make a mistake, MSNBC and the rest blow it up into a scandal that doesn't exist. MSNBC deliberately lies and deliberately slanders people they disagree with. Conservatives/Republicans, moderate Democrats. FOX is now the mainstream TV news in America. They have far and away more in common with where most of the country is at politically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.250.226 (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty funny. But anyway, this is not the place to discuss the merits of various news outlets. We consider citations here one at a time. Even at the WP:RS/N-related pages, they generally don't paint any particular publication in black or white terms according to how accurate or how partisan it is. Instead, different people, publishers, news sections, and articles all have their degree of apparent reliability, and may or may not be useful within their scope of expertise. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Just look around, Jahn. There's mention of criticism and allegations under about every part of Bush's front page, including from left wing sources. Obama's is sanitized. The man is perfection and is loved by 100% of America if you believe this page. Look at any conservative's bio compared to the liberals. Politicians and commentators both. There is no question there is big time bias here. It needs to be brought to a brighter light, because Wikipedia fronts itself as a neutral site. It is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.250.226 (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree, this is worse than MediaMatters, at lt they admit to being biased. Trying to put anything controversial about someone from the left is like pulling teeth around here. JahnTeller07 (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Move to close - we're getting hit simultaneously by two trolling accounts. I've already stricken and deleted some soapboxing and personal attacks, which has lead to some stalking tit-for-tat behavior. The least disruptive course, I think, is to warn the IP (the registered editor has already rejected warnings) and close down the discussion threads that have no reasonable likelihood of leading to edits that improve the encyclopedia. This one isn't going to gain consensus for sure. Thoughts? - Wikidemon (talk) 23:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree JahnTeller07 (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Note - that's one of the two accounts I was referring to. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)'

Obviously the only thing that counts as "improving" an article here is a positive entry for a Democrat and a negative for a Republican. Nothing else passes, and any complaints are called "disruptive". Time and time again I have watched legitimate topics and stories from legitimate sources get shot down because a Democrat is in question, while clear left wing sources count as "reliable" when it's a Republican. It goes on all over Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.250.226 (talk) 00:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. But with all the biased editors no progress will ever be made in making the articles impartial. Why bother trying? JahnTeller07 (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Jhan, it's a waste of trying to reason with these "editors". They are clearly biased. They simply put you, me or anybody else who tries for a legitimate edit, through what is obviously a run-around, until we give up. Thus, Obama's and most other Democrats pages stay clean. It's a whitewash, so just do everything you can as I am going to, to shine a far larger light on Wiki. People should not go into this site thinking they are reading a neutral account. This might as well be Huffington Post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.250.226 (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Haha at least the Huffington Post admits to their bias...something wiki clearly won't do. JahnTeller07 (talk) 03:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"Double dip" speculation

I've removed Obama's speculation on a double-dip recession from the article because it isn't biographically-relevant. Moreover, there is no indication that such an event would occur (quite the opposite, in fact, given the steady growth of the economy). It was originally removed as "trivia" (which is not the case), but it definitely isn't significant when compared to any of the other speculations Obama has made over the years. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

In case you aren't familiar with double dip recessions they are indicative of a recession followed by slow economic growth(like we're in now) followed by another dip and recession, so no the fact that the economy is growing(and predicted to be slowing down to below 2% in the next two quarters) is not at all indicative of not going into a double dip recession. Anyways many people here in America are greatly concerned about the possibility of this turning into a double dip recession and the president acknowledging that could happen is is definitely relevant. Now you may not say it's relevant here but is somewhere else, but I both wonder where else could this info be placed, and I would also like to point out that it takes little stretch of the imagination to see people coming to Barack Obama's wiki page for his view of how the U.S. is doing. In fact I think all info we can gather on how Obama views the current state of the U.S. as being relevant to this article(unless there's some other more relevant article I'm not familiar with).Wikiposter0123 (talk) 17:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"Double-dip" reception seems like a bit of a trendy numbers meme. How many of these has the United States had, historically? Zero? Maybe one? In substance the economy either grows or shrinks as a whole, depending one's measurement methodology and definitions, and behind this summary number are a lot of different pieces of the economy. Whether there is a short period of shrinkage followed by growth, or a longer period of slow growth, or any other curve you can imagine on the graph, high debt and long-term federal deficits cause a drag on the economy. The President's acknowledging a basic fact everybody knows does not seem like a signature event in his life, and this article is after all a telling of his life story. It's far more important what the economy actually does (which we don't know yet), what the President does about it, and how that affects and is affected by his political career and who he is. The President's opinion or statements about the economy might belong in an article that best covers the President's pronouncements on the economy. The month-by-month movements of the economy, and federal actions, would best fit in the "presidency of" article, or if there is one on the Presidential economic policy. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, the economy is growing. The chance of another recession in the near future is extremely low. In the US, recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth (contraction), and everywhere else in the world it is defined as three consecutive quarters. The statement is about as useful as if Obama had said "if an asteroid hits, it could wipe out humanity." It's only interesting to right-wingers trying to scare the US public into believing Obama's policies might cause another recession, but anyone with an ounce of common sense will see it is of little importance. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

There was 3.2% growth...in 2007 when there was also 3.2% growth there were clamors from left wingers that we were delving deeper into the recession JahnTeller07 (talk) 22:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that is true (which I don't), what has that got to do with anything? This discussion is about a specific comment from Obama, and why it would be retarded to include it. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If you looked into the matter you would see that quite a few economists think we're headed towards a double dip recession and your claim that this is fear tactics from conservatives is completely ridiculous and paranoid. Why are you even talking about the matter when you clearly don't understand that a period of growth happens between two recessions and that growth right now doesn't prove that we're not headed in a double dip recession at all. Anyways I didn't realize there was a presidency of Barack Obama article and all this info would be better suited for that article.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Nobody thinks we're heading into another recession except ill-educated folks who've been hoodwinked by the politicians they vote for. No economists of any standing whatsoever are making this outlandish claim. Show me a single legitimate source, but please bring it to my talk page instead of prolonging this discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Done, although I'm not as sure as you as to how far this right wing conspiracy delves, so I can't totally rule out brainwashing.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 00:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure as long as Obama keeps spending $500 Billion to create 600,000 jobs, the economy has nothing to worry about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.250.226 (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

IP, you wrote that just four minutes after writing (in a section above) it's a waste of trying to reason with these "editors". Did you change your mind within four minutes, or are you not attempting to reason but instead just venting? If you want to reason, reason (persuasively and concisely); if you just want to vent, please do so at some other website. -- Hoary (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

How does this not belong in the article

In terms of immigration policy, a memo that recently surfaced suggests that in-depth discussions have occurred on how to keep many illegal immigrants in the country, which would be at least a temporary alternative to the proposals Democrats in Congress have made to legalize illegal immigrants. The notion of using these tools have drawn the ire of many people who say that it is circumventing congressional authority in order to grant illegal immigrants amnesty. Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/29/memo-outlines-backdoor-amnesty-plan-for-obama/?page=1

Everything I wrote about the administration's policy on immigration reform is true, and sourced by a reliable source. Keeping it out is further bias censorship which already seems to be rampant in this article JahnTeller07 (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Because it has nothing to do whatsoever with Barack Obama's biography. A memo discussing a possible immigration strategy was obtained by Chuck "pull the plug on Grandma" Grassley, spun in the usual way, and fed to a conservative newspaper. In fact, the memo was addressed to the head of USCIS and written by its staffers. There is nothing to suggest that Obama admin officials are even aware of it. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"The memo suggests that in-depth discussions have occurred on how to keep many illegal immigrants in the country, which would be at least a temporary alternative to the proposals Democrats in Congress have made to legalize illegal immigrants." "In testifying to the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 11, Mr. Mayorkas first said he was unaware of discussions to use these kinds of tools on a categorical basis, then later clarified that officials had talked about expanding the use of those powers." Both statements support the fact that the administration has discussed using this power JahnTeller07 (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As noted in my edit summary, this article is about the life and career of Barack Obama. It is not an in-depth article about all of the policy decisions and the politics that go along with them. Even if the content were well-sourced, and of sufficient weight to include in the encyclopedia somewhere (neither of which are the case), it is not pertinent to the subject of this article. Although the Washington Times is sometimes a reliable source for some content, it is problematic when it comes to politics due to the paper's strong conservative bent, lackluster respect for factual accuracy (often mischaracterizing or printing unsubstantiated facts to support its position), and being very sloppy about distinguishing opinion and propaganda from factual reportage. This article is a case in point. It is masquerading as a news story, but it uses phrases like "back door" and conjecture like "the memo suggests that...", amidst a highly selective choice of quotes, to hide what is partly an opinion and speculation piece. Regarding weight here or anywhere, the substance is that a second or third tier official approved a report written by four staffers (or something like that) proposing a form of immigration amnesty. There is nothing in the source that says it has anything to do with Obama, or is anywhere close to getting enacted. No substance to it at all. Finally, as you'll note from the cautions on your talk page, please do not use this page (or any of the others) to make accusations of censorship, bias, etc., against the editors here. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) Again, how is this biographically relevant? At best, this is a lower-level discussion by immigration officials. No policy has been announced. At this point, we're in the same territory as "who do you fancy for the Final Four?" -- Scjessey (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

This is whitewashing at its finest.

"As of August 2010 Obama hit a new low in approval ratings, according to RealClearPolitics. The RCP average was 45% approve, 49.7% disapprove. The two extremes were a Rasmussen poll which had Obama at a -11 spread (44% approve, 55% disapprove) and a Reuters which had him at a spread of 0 (48% approve, 48% disapprove)."

How in the world is that original research, or synthesis? Approval ratings were listed previously in his article. STOP WITH THE WHITEWASHING. This is going back in if I don't get a clear reason it shouldn't.