→Why is this considered a featured article?: - irony FTW |
ChildofMidnight (talk | contribs) m →Why is this considered a featured article?: copy-edit |
||
Line 341: | Line 341: | ||
I thought that if there was even one objection to content, an article was immediately removed from 'featured' status. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/199.5.171.254|199.5.171.254]] ([[User talk:199.5.171.254|talk]]) 01:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
I thought that if there was even one objection to content, an article was immediately removed from 'featured' status. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/199.5.171.254|199.5.171.254]] ([[User talk:199.5.171.254|talk]]) 01:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
:They need to be reasonable |
:They need to be reasonable objections, relating to the [[WP:FA|Featured article criteria]]. Claiming that this article is biased because it doesn't include such and such controversy that no reasonable media source accepts as valid is not a reason for it to be removed as featured, as evident from the numerous featured article reviews that can be seen at the top. '''[[User:Grsz11|<font color="black">Grsz</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Grsz11|<b><font color="red">11</font></b>]]</sup>''' 01:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
::Indeed. Clearly there has been no media coverage of opposition to Obama's spending plans, for example. We like to embrace a [[see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil]] philosophy here on Wikipedia. Anyone who disagrees is a right-wing radical nut-job. Even trying to provide accesible links to coverage of criticisms or controversies is a good indication of nefarious activity. [[User:ChildofMidnight|ChildofMidnight]] ([[User talk:ChildofMidnight|talk]]) 01:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC) |
::Indeed. Clearly there has been no media coverage of opposition to Obama's spending plans, for example. We like to embrace a [[see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil]] philosophy here on Wikipedia. Anyone who disagrees is a right-wing radical nut-job. Even trying to provide accesible links to coverage of criticisms or controversies is a good indication of nefarious activity. [[User:ChildofMidnight|ChildofMidnight]] ([[User talk:ChildofMidnight|talk]]) 01:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::Hmm, got a comfy perch on your [[WP:SOAP| |
:::Hmm, got a comfy perch on your [[WP:SOAP|soap box]] there, CoM? To the IP editor, the "extreme controversy" is a matter of opinion. "I don't like it" isn't quite sufficient to knock an article out of featured status. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 03:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:31, 17 April 2009
Template:Community article probation
Barack Obama is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 4, 2008. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Redundant discussions
In case anyone is wondering if they have an original comment about one of the frequently-discussed issues for this article, here is a list of discussions at length which have taken place just in the past couple of months.
Race
- Talk:Barack Obama/race
- Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 47#Barack Obama is half-white
- Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 46#Ethnicity in first sentence
- Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 46#Media coverage of ethnicity controversy and the intro
- Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 46#Mulatto, the term is Mullato
- Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 44#He's Multi-Racial.
- Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 43#Obama and race
Religion
Citizenship
- Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 46#Supreme Court Controversy
- Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 45#Still no mention on the birth certificate?
- Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 45#Donofrio v. Wells
- Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 44#Unverified Birth Hospital Needs Revision and Reference
Full name
- Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 46#Article Name
- Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 44#Barack Hussein Obama JR, not II
Give this some consideration before deciding to start another one. Bigbluefish (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Please skim this page first (and ideally the FAQ) before starting a new discussion about Obama's birthplace, citizenship, race/ethnicity, etc. You'll probably find there's already a section there where you can add your comments. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
If you want to read about where Obama was born and have concerns about it, read Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#Citizenship facts, rumors and claims and in particular this source which is heavily utilized in the article.
- Where is the archive on Ayers? 68.5.11.175 (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Should we select one from this list? ↜Just me, here, now … 19:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Any of those should do. I do wonder why the Ayers topic is not included in the "Discussions". Admins getting censor happy?Miker789 (talk) 02:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Bill Ayers
There doesn't seem to be any coverage of the Bill Ayers Election Controversy. It seems a bit odd as this was a major point of attack from the McCain campaign, whatever its merit. (I was told that this article didn't have anything on Wright or Ayers due to "liberal bias", I came along to disprove this, I'm rather disappointed to be proven only half right).
Are there BLP reasons for not mentioning Bill Ayers in this article?
JASpencer (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes there are. WP:BLP specifically discusses "guilt-by-association", which is what the Bill Ayers thing amounted to. You will find that the talk page archive contains many, many discussions about this matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Bill Ayers is a touchy subject because it's very negative, just like Willy Horton. So many people don't want it. Obama could have taken the argument away from critics by going the other way....Were you a friend of Bill Ayers? Answer: Not just a friend, but a close friend. I, too, was concerned over his radical past but he's a logical man that's put bombings behind him. If he were ever to return to bombings, I'd be the first to turn him into the FBI.
But Obama didn't say this and the controversy started. But I clearly see why Ayers is negative and why many don't want his name mentioned in the same sentence as President Obama. MichelleBM (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, he didn't say that because it's simply not true. All reliable sources say that they were never close friends. But so what? I'm not really sure what your point is here, but you're veering into a discussion of the subject, not the article itself. Please see WP:NOTAFORUM. --Loonymonkey (talk) 05:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Unless you can provide WP:RS to back up your statement, unfortunately your comment would just fall under WP:SOAP as it is your personal opinion. Just a friendly reminder of WP policies.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
FAQ question 9 is inaccurate
I accept lots of sentences, but that sentence has raised many red flags for me, lets see: "Q9: This article needs much more (or much less) criticism/controversy."
You can search for that, but you find zero hits. In the current article there is no criticism/controversy about Obama. Kordon Bleu (talk) 20:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- I forget when and the final count but at one time I looked through the article and found 14-16 pieces of information that would be considered negative, some of which (e.g. Reverend Wright, Tony Rezko) were significant controversies and one which is a fairly harsh criticism in the black world ("not black enough"). The FAQ question is correct in noting that the editors of this article have reviewed ever single significant detail in the article multiple times and feel that it presents an appropriate, neutral, factual description of Obama's life and career, and are therefore not eager to look at the article from the point of view of balancing it to have either more, or less, criticism or controversy. It tends to be unproductive for we editors as a whole to look at things in terms of whether they are too positive or too negative, and when editors start disputing that, there is usually little to be gained. Wikidemon (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- In order for an article to retain FA status, it must (according to 1b of WP:FA? an article must be comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. ::Your statement "[editors] are therefore not eager to look at the article from the point of view of balancing it" is incorrect. An article must be balanced.Smallman12q (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- The article has earned and kept FA status through at least two FA reviews while FAQ#9 is in place. We have several hundred thousand reliable sources, enough to fill hundreds of books, and must choose. The article is already at full length so giving more detail to one thing means giving less to another. Facts have been included or omitted here based on concerns of relevancy, sourcing, weight, and explanatory value given the summary nature of the article. Choosing facts on the basis of balance is not a requirement on FA or anywhere else, although WP:WEIGHT speaks to the need for balance in covering minority opinions. Neutrality is the real operating principle behind NPOV, not balance. The two are sometimes friends, sometimes enemies. Balance is an elusive goal. Exactly how negative or positive should we be -- 40% negative? 20% negative? What does that even mean? Should we balance out all the presidential articles so that Obama comes off exactly as favorably as George Bush? Richard Nixon? Abe Lincoln? Vladimir Putin? So that we give equal time to Obama and his critics, e.g. every time he wins an award we give his rivals a chance to respond? That would all take this article down a rabbit hole. Anyway, my response to the question was to point out that the FAQ correctly notes the community's consensus on the matter, not to try to defend it. It would take a significant change for people to decide that we should try to re-balance the article or even look at it from the point of view of balance. Very little good, and a lot of angst, has come from past attempts to push that. Wikidemon (talk) 23:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- The whole point is that information here, positive or negative, should ideally mirror that presented in reliable mainstream sources. I think this article does that quite well. Merely because some blog reports some random opinion of Obama (good or bad) does not mean we need to give it representation in this article. Facts and reported analysis on Obama included in this article need to be given due weight comparative to those facts and reported analysis representation in reliable sources; and that also means that if something does not merit inclusion by a preponderance of reliable sources, it does not merit inclusion here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- What about a disambiguation page for all of the Obama articles: Barack Obama coverage or Articles related toBarack Obama. Then there could be a single see also to that page. There seems to be lots of interest in some of the more peripheral issues regarding Obama's life and political career and I wonder if there isn't a better way to point people in the right direction and let them know that these issues are covered, just in a different place. Yes I know there are categories, but I don't think it's enough as the same questions are being asked time and again. When I see that it indicates maybe we're not doing something as well as we could be. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- The same questions are only asked time and time again by anti-Obama folks, however you decide to frame it. You are essentially suggesting we reinvent categories just for Barack Obama - presumably so we can give more prominence to Ayers/Wright/Birther nonsense. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I see that ChildofMidnight has decided to completely ignore this discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've nominated the new "disambiguation" page for deletion. I believe it attempts to reinvent categories, is a misuse of a disambiguation page, and serves no useful function not already served by normal Wikipedia mechanism (such as blue links, templates, and the aforementioned categories). -- Scjessey (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I see that ChildofMidnight has decided to completely ignore this discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- The same questions are only asked time and time again by anti-Obama folks, however you decide to frame it. You are essentially suggesting we reinvent categories just for Barack Obama - presumably so we can give more prominence to Ayers/Wright/Birther nonsense. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- What about a disambiguation page for all of the Obama articles: Barack Obama coverage or Articles related toBarack Obama. Then there could be a single see also to that page. There seems to be lots of interest in some of the more peripheral issues regarding Obama's life and political career and I wonder if there isn't a better way to point people in the right direction and let them know that these issues are covered, just in a different place. Yes I know there are categories, but I don't think it's enough as the same questions are being asked time and again. When I see that it indicates maybe we're not doing something as well as we could be. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- The whole point is that information here, positive or negative, should ideally mirror that presented in reliable mainstream sources. I think this article does that quite well. Merely because some blog reports some random opinion of Obama (good or bad) does not mean we need to give it representation in this article. Facts and reported analysis on Obama included in this article need to be given due weight comparative to those facts and reported analysis representation in reliable sources; and that also means that if something does not merit inclusion by a preponderance of reliable sources, it does not merit inclusion here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- The article has earned and kept FA status through at least two FA reviews while FAQ#9 is in place. We have several hundred thousand reliable sources, enough to fill hundreds of books, and must choose. The article is already at full length so giving more detail to one thing means giving less to another. Facts have been included or omitted here based on concerns of relevancy, sourcing, weight, and explanatory value given the summary nature of the article. Choosing facts on the basis of balance is not a requirement on FA or anywhere else, although WP:WEIGHT speaks to the need for balance in covering minority opinions. Neutrality is the real operating principle behind NPOV, not balance. The two are sometimes friends, sometimes enemies. Balance is an elusive goal. Exactly how negative or positive should we be -- 40% negative? 20% negative? What does that even mean? Should we balance out all the presidential articles so that Obama comes off exactly as favorably as George Bush? Richard Nixon? Abe Lincoln? Vladimir Putin? So that we give equal time to Obama and his critics, e.g. every time he wins an award we give his rivals a chance to respond? That would all take this article down a rabbit hole. Anyway, my response to the question was to point out that the FAQ correctly notes the community's consensus on the matter, not to try to defend it. It would take a significant change for people to decide that we should try to re-balance the article or even look at it from the point of view of balance. Very little good, and a lot of angst, has come from past attempts to push that. Wikidemon (talk) 23:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Hard-shell suit
I heard on a Hungarian news channel that Obama is wearing on his events a special hard-shell suit. Probably he is the first US president doing that. Include it on the article. Gordon Bleu (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- What is that, ObamaArmor? Is that like UnderArmor, only much, much cooler? Tarc (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Kordon, you are so hard boiled. Include it on the article, mmm, none of that namby-pamby "please" nonsense! But look, what's needed here are not dominatrices but editors. How about, possibly, "I think including it in the article might be a good idea"? But if so, just what is it that should be included? "Obama is wearing on his events a special hard-shell suit" with footnote "As heard on an unidentified Hungarian news channel at an unspecified time by Wikipedia contributor 'Kordon Bleu'"? No, I think not. Try looking for this stuff in (or on) precisely specified, credible sources, and then drafting persuasive suggestions. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Problem with article, discussion of how to solve it when we have biased people writing here
Looking at the talk page, there are some people who clearly are anti-Obama and want to put all kinds of negative stuff. There are also people who are so pro-Obama that they oppose any negative stuff and even want to sugar coat the positive stuff so that it is slanted.
Can there be an advisory board? Of just writing and see who can write the most often? This article was mentioned in a lecture as and it's true. MichelleBM (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the problems started when a Free Republic group started spamming the place with crap. Since then things haven't quite calmed down to the point where it can edited calmly due constant edit wars and the like. Soxwon (talk) 23:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- In all fairness, the "problem" of POV started when the article was first written. It has become increasingly more hostile after attempts by some to reflect the president in an overly negative way, and compounded by the pro-Obamakins resolving that they are going to "make it up" with overly protective editing. But, to the question at hand, the collective wisdom, experience, and fairness of most editors is the only sure way to ensure an article largely free of bias. No "governmental" interference in this free encyclopedia needed here. ;) QueenofBattle (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that there is (or has been) government interference in this article? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I was equating the word "government" with the suggested "advisory board." Involvement of either (or both) is equally needless. QueenofBattle (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that there is (or has been) government interference in this article? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- In all fairness, the "problem" of POV started when the article was first written. It has become increasingly more hostile after attempts by some to reflect the president in an overly negative way, and compounded by the pro-Obamakins resolving that they are going to "make it up" with overly protective editing. But, to the question at hand, the collective wisdom, experience, and fairness of most editors is the only sure way to ensure an article largely free of bias. No "governmental" interference in this free encyclopedia needed here. ;) QueenofBattle (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- The purpose of this talk page is to make constructive suggestions (or questions, or requests) for improving the article. If you do have such a matter please feel free to discussion. However, dividing editors into "pro" and "anti" camps and general discussions of the state of the article and its editors tend to be distracting, and do not lead to anything actionable. Thanks. Wikidemon (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Obama brother accused of UK sex assault
Legal "accusations" against (very distant) relatives do not go into biographies of living persons on Wikipedia. That includes BLP's of sitting presidents. --Bigtimepeace |
---|
talk |
From the article: "he approached a group of young girls, including a 13 year-old, and allegedly tried to sexually assault one of them." These are the dry facts. Include it on the Obama's article! Gordon Bleu (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
And does George W. Bush or any other major American politician's article mention alleged crimes by their distant relations? George W. Bush doesn't even mention the incident with Jenna and Barbara doing the whole under-age drinking thing that got massive press. This is 1) an article about Barack Obama, 2) it's alleged, not happened, 3) he has scores of relations, 4) it's an article about Barack Obama. rootology (C)(T) 15:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Actually, go one further beyond politicians. We don't do this on any WP:BLP, or even related things. If some Famous Person's sibling is in prison, or standing trial, or had some famous negative event, we don't report it on the relation's page. We simply don't. Find me one BLP where we do, and you've found a BLP every admin should be racing to fix. rootology (C)(T) 15:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
|
Canis est obvius niveus domus
I see that the pooch story has made it to the article, with a brief edit war ensuing. I'd like to propose that the dog is excluded from this article on the basis that it isn't really biographically relevant. It seems to me that it is more appropriate to one of the child articles. Perhaps Presidency of Barack Obama or even Family of Barack Obama. Bear in mind that the canine belongs to the Obama daughters, not the man himself. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- In case anyone is interested, the White House blog has more on the dog, including two high-resolution images that someone could upload to the Commons if they see fit: Meet Bo -- Scjessey (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I really agree with Scjessey. The little doggy is trivial and should be moved to a sub article.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- As do I, which is why I reverted the edit including the little guy in the first place. QueenofBattle (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I really agree with Scjessey. The little doggy is trivial and should be moved to a sub article.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Regardless of what they say about it, we're not going to keep it. The pooch will no doubt acquire his own article lickety split. But with us telling editors that there is no place for certain issues in the article, I don't think we can justify giving house room to the puppy dog. Anyone for Checkers?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Dog info is perfect for the Family of Barack Obama article as suggested above, but really has no place here (unless the dog plays an important role in the health care debate or gets the Israelis and Syrians to sign a peace treaty or convinces Obama to switch parties or something). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- At last, something I can agree with with you all. The puppy is trivial, unless there is precident to add it based on other presidential articles, but I doubt it.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- There seems to be wide agreement that this dog won't hunt so I think we can let sleeping dogs lie, but as a point of comparison and for future reference I will mention that the famous Millie - who even wrote her own book! - does not appear in our article on George H. W. Bush. That seems appropriate to me and probably worth remembering if this ever comes up again, maybe during the dog days of summer or something when there's nothing better to talk about.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- At last, something I can agree with with you all. The puppy is trivial, unless there is precident to add it based on other presidential articles, but I doubt it.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Dog info is perfect for the Family of Barack Obama article as suggested above, but really has no place here (unless the dog plays an important role in the health care debate or gets the Israelis and Syrians to sign a peace treaty or convinces Obama to switch parties or something). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Regardless of what they say about it, we're not going to keep it. The pooch will no doubt acquire his own article lickety split. But with us telling editors that there is no place for certain issues in the article, I don't think we can justify giving house room to the puppy dog. Anyone for Checkers?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Why is this considered a featured article?
I am wondering why, given the extreme controversy, this article is still labeled as a featured article.
I thought that if there was even one objection to content, an article was immediately removed from 'featured' status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.5.171.254 (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- They need to be reasonable objections, relating to the Featured article criteria. Claiming that this article is biased because it doesn't include such and such controversy that no reasonable media source accepts as valid is not a reason for it to be removed as featured, as evident from the numerous featured article reviews that can be seen at the top. Grsz11 01:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed. Clearly there has been no media coverage of opposition to Obama's spending plans, for example. We like to embrace a see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil philosophy here on Wikipedia. Anyone who disagrees is a right-wing radical nut-job. Even trying to provide accesible links to coverage of criticisms or controversies is a good indication of nefarious activity. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)