Talk:Barack Obama

How come the first sentance states Mr Obama is an African American? I always thought he was a Mullato? Point in case - I'm half Chinese and half African (yes a bit like Tiger Woods) and grew up in China, and would feel a bit odd if someone referred to me as an African American (I have nothing to do with Africa or America?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.8.95 (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Mulatto is more of a slur than an acceptable racial designation, first of all. Second, "African-American" can be considered more a social construct rather than a literal reference to place of birth/origin. In the U.S. it has simply become the term to use to refer to black people in general. Tarc (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

More precisely, it refers to black people who live in the USA. 84.194.235.204 (talk)

Given the "-American" bit, I'd wager that that is a bit obvious. Tarc (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

You'd think that was obvious, but the original IP seemed to think that we would label him african american even though he's not american.LedRush (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Not surprising at all - I've just recently seen the term used to refer to black Africans outside the US, with a social-science-political-correctness shudder at the insensitive use of "black". I always value "correctness" above "political correctness", but this sentiment does not seem to be shared universally. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why does this particular reset button keep getting pushed? Is it on an automatic timer? ;-) Flatterworld (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well, if we included that Obama was the first biracial president in US history (a pretty big f'in deal) in the ame sentence that states he's the first african american one, this may stop. Until then, we'll have to keep hitting snooze every two weeks.LedRush (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

re "Why does this particular reset button keep getting pushed?" Why?? Because it deals with ambiguous and abstract racial concepts. NickCT (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Because for some people racial concepts are a big thing. It's these same people who don't understand the concept that a person can and will define themselves. These people cannot understand that a person of bi-racial decent may and can decide to choose once race to identify with over the other. The same thing with religion, cars, money, rocks, papers, scissors, or paper cuts? Brothejr (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

While I understand your point that people self-identify and that Wikipedia should recognize this self-identification (when it is verifiable and in RSs, as this clearly is), that doesn't really address why Wikipedia wouldn't also report on other verifiable info in reliable sources.LedRush (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

In situations like these, it is helpful to consider that it is better to use terminology employed by the preponderance of reliable sources. While it is true that some quality sources explore the bi-racial issue, it is also true that most sources (by an overwhelming margin equivalent of roughly two orders of magnitude) use the term "African-American". I would argue it is better to "hit snooze" on this issue from time to time, rather than adjust the article to cater to (or pander to) those who wish to use the less common terminology. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey LedRush, I think you raise a good point & one I've considered at some length. I think the two major policies addressing this issue are Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality and WP:BLPCAT. My sense is basically that, while "other verifiable info" might be important, we give great deference to self-identification on the hot button topics (i.e. ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality). In other words, if someone says they are African American and has reasonable grounds to do so, we simply take them at their word, unless there is overwhelming information in verifiable reliable sources to the contrary.

Personally, I think someone should rework the policies cited above to more clearly call out an emphasis on self-identification. NickCT (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just to be clear, I never advocated (and clearly argued against) any idea of removing any idea the Obama is African American. I merely mentioned, in answering someone's question about why the issue keeps popping up, that a more complete description might be helpfull. Clearly, the vast majority of sources say that Obama is African American and the first African American president. I just don't think that precludes other information being clearly and affirmatively stated (rather than letting people figure it out from the parents/other text). Anyway, not a big issue and one I'm not going to fight for. Just an explanation...LedRush (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

LedRush - I got your initial meaning LedRush, and I can see you're comments are in good faith. I just don't think the "other information" you're referring rises to the point of overriding "self-identification". NickCT (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the note. Again, just for clarification, I don't want to override the self-identification aspect at all. Any change would be an expansion (not removal) of the current language. Also, let's not forget, Obama also self-identifies as biracial...just not nearly as much as he self-identifies with being african american.LedRush (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

That he is the first President who is (self / generally identified as) biracial is a very notable, undisputable fact. Although I could personally see it going either way, the long-term consensus among editors here is that this is simply not quite important enough to merit a mention here. The sources that have emerged since the consensus was reached don't seem to tip the balance, and in fact there is less and less public discussion about Obama's race. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

99.238.18.213 (talk) 06:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Last I remember Obama went on cnn and said he identifies himself as black /african american and stated that his mother was white. Sure there are lots of White Americans like George Bush who probably has mexican ancestry or Jefferson or Coolridge and Harding who have documented black ancestry, but none of them are called bi-racial. Heck people in wiki oppose listing jfk jr and jackie onassis as mixed race even though they have documented black muslim ancestry according to pbs. Why, because they look white or seemingly identify themselves as white. Race is a social construct, its not really objective. Why Obama would be listed as bi--racial doesn't make any more sense than listing every other black person on wiki as biracial because back in the slave days white men were raping all the black women, and white women were running away with black men and white men were having sex with indian women just look at mexico (had american indians been darker we'd probably have huge meztizo population) so everyone is biracial. How Barack Obama is any less black or any more biracial than say Colin Powel or Eric Holder makes no sense to me. Everyone is mixed in America.Reply

"Race is a social construct, its not really objective" - Agree

"the long-term consensus among editors here is that this is simply not quite important enough to merit a mention here" - Agree

NickCT (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just read the article about Miami Vice star, Phillip Michael Thomas. There it talks about him being "mixed race" because he is German, Native America, African and Irish. Why does Obama have a different standard? Is Wikipedia afraid of a backlash if it tells the truth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.44.92 (talk) 01:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

This bio has long included the word "multiracial" and gone into an in-depth explanation of the contrast between his parents' racial identities. One more post feigning ignorance of that fact will be taken as vandalism and the thread hatted. Read the damn article before getting coy about standards and "the truth". Abrazame (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Another question would be what does the actor in question regularly refer himself as? If for example Phillip Micheal Thomas identifies himself as mixed race and is often called that by reliable sources it would have no bearing here since neither of those things is true for Obama and that would mean that there is no reason for this article to match that one. The reason being that we would have two completely different situations. Also if the opposite is true (ie Micheal Phillip Thomas as well as reliable sources regularly only calls him Black or German etc) it should be that article changed to reflect the more common identification to not this one using the less used one.--76.66.180.54 (talk) 04:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think in the article we should say that he is the first mixed-race president, but is commonly recognized as the first African-American (or black) president. F1rocks 01:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editadam (talk • contribs)

Man people make this too complicated. Terms like 'white' and 'black' are used to describe race. 'African American' is used to describe ethnicity. He is racially mixed. He is ethnically African American.98.242.242.207 (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why can't we say that Obama is the first Biracial president with Black or African American ancestry to hold office of the President? Educatedlady (talk) 09:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

If everyone is mixed in America then Obama should be classified as Mixed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Educatedlady (talk • contribs) 09:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

We can't since reliable sources use the term African American and not mixed. We cannot decide to overrule the vast properdenece of reliable sources based on our personal views. If at some point in the future historians decided to on mass not to use the term African American there may be a case but at this point our rules are clear and we need to use the term reliable sources almost always use and that is not mixed race.--76.66.189.59 (talk) 23:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why, oh why, is the photo of Obama giving a press conference shot from outside the room in the bushes? <sarcasm>Are sex predators now contributing photos to wikipedia?</sarcasm>

I suggest removing the photo or getting a good one. WB Frontier (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm guessing you are talking about the image to the right. Yeah, it's pretty awful. There have to be far better images of his press statement that night. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Is that in the article? I think you both are right, I don't see what use that particular picture has in the main article. Dave Dial (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've removed it. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 19:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Image cropped and levels crushed a little, maybe loses a little of the remoteness but gains some emphasis from the enhanced image clarity. -- Felix (talk) 09:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think it is packed full of irony and metaphor, the foreground branches are a bit too heavy though, especially on the left. The POV of the photographer suggests intimacy with the environment and it is most certainly taken by someone who is within an inner sanctum yet detached from the actual proceedings. I like the way Obama is framed in the window pane, detached and yet the focus of the room. I actually like it but I am not sure the article is the correct place for it. On a lighter note, maybe it is Obama viewed from a Bush POV.-- Felix (talk) 06:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

@Felix, Punny, very punny. Cliff (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

The closure was proper perhaps, but per a discussion on Jimbo's talk page it was perhaps a little less than courteous and welcoming to a new account. I'm okay with a "see also" link but I'm not sure that would gain consensus. One issue is that last time people checked (and that was a long time ago) there were already hundreds of articles that were primarily about Obama or the Obama administration, far more than we could link from a single parent article. So some entire articles are inevitably two clicks away, perhaps one if you count the templates. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, closing it like that might perhaps seem abrupt and arbitrary to a new editor.

"Tenebris", the way I see it is that this is a biographical article, and should only contain biographical material. "Widespread beliefs or opinions not supported by any reliable source" about people does not count as biographical material for WP's purposes, because that would be unencyclopedic. If such beliefs and opinions are notable and well-documented enough, they might merit an article of their own, which in this case they have (at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories). If there was any reliable source demonstrating that anything about those conspiracy theories was in fact actual valid biographical material, then that could go in this article. But there's not. It's not a conspiracy, it's just the way Wikipedia works.

Please don't be too discouraged by this outcome -- we rely on the expression of concerns like yours by people like you to help "keep us honest," too! ;) Regards, WikiDao ☯ 02:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Barack Obama self-identifies as a feminist. This makes him the first President of the USA to describe himself this way. I think that this is significant and should be mentioned in the article, or at least Obama should be added to a category such as Category:American feminists. Here is a source - http://www.cnsnews.com/node/42881 Thanks. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 05:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Your source doesn't say "he self-identifies as as feminist" at all.TMCk (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, this is a feminist conference at which they declare Obama an honorary feminist. That may belong in some article, but is not significant enough for this one vis-a-vis the broad scope of his life and career we're covering here. Feminism is not currently a part of the US national political discourse, and the term / concept itself has expanded to the point where it doesn't have a core meaning. No doubt they're trying to rally and find a core at that convention, but to the world as a whole proclaiming that someone is a feminist does not mean a whole lot. If Obama's overall agenda is perceived as pro-woman (or however you're supposed to say that) it might belong in the "presidency of..." article. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

The next US politician who says he doesn't support half the voters will be the first. The definition of 'feminism' is flexible, and is now the equivalent of supporting baseball, mom and apple pie. I would think Category:American feminists should be limited to those who have focused primarily on women's rights - the few major leaders, not every supporter. Flatterworld (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Re-read the article, it clearly states - She said when she met Obama, “He immediately offered, ‘I am a feminist.’” That is a self-identification. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

If he really said this (and we only have her word on this) it is as much self identification as "ich bin ein Berliner" I'd say.TMCk (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

• First of all, that's not a reliable source for this type of information. Secondly, it doesn't have a lot of meaning or context. Someone said someone else said something. Lastly, in no way is Obama the first President to support 'feminism'. In fact, Teddy Roosevelt was proclaimed the first American feminist President(much better source), and many after him have also embraced over half of the voters in America. Dave Dial (talk) 02:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Is there any reason why there is no appearance of the word Libya in the main article? This should be in foreign policy section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.43.65 (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Assuming that should be in this article, we should wait so we can provide the full story. SMP0328. (talk) 21:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Also, this is Obama's biography. This little skirmish in Libya is of little biographical significance and we cannot know if it will become significant in the future. This current event is better suited to Wikinews, with perhaps some coverage in the article concerning the Presidency itself. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

On cnn it is said that this is Obama's war. I don't see any reason to skip this war, as looking that in the main article it is already Iraq war and war in Afghanistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.146.115 (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Maybe we should add a subsection under foreign policy about the on-going operation in Libya? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.177.58 (talk) 05:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I would be forced to agree, opinions aside, that if we're going to have sections about Iraq & Afghanistan, we will need one for Libya. Even though it is not technically a war in the sense that we have not declared war on Libya, we also never declared war on Iraq or Afghanistan and both have previously been agreed on as relevant to this article under the foreign policy section as wars. Jarland (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't place Iraq or Afghanistan on the same level as Libya with Obama. The U.S. didn't even proposed the UNSC resolution. I think we should see it plays out to see how it effects him and his presidency.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I would yield to your point on this. Some matters are best written of after the smoke has cleared. Jarland (talk) 04:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

No, this is front page news. The fact that Barack Obama won the presidential election was reported here in his Wikipedia biography within minutes. His decision to take action against Libya, as well as criticism from the anti-war movement, should be reported here with the same speed. It is irresponsible to refrain from this topic because "the smoke hasn't cleared." If it's reported in multiple reliable sources, and there's no question of that, then the only remaining question is weight according to WP:WEIGHT; and I would suggest that any time an American president chooses to use military force, that decision has an enormous anount of weight. The decision is controversial. Comparisons to Bush's invasion of Iraq are already being made. And Wikipedia has been accused in reliable publications such as The Daily Telegraph of whitewashing this article. We need to report this in a fair and neutral manner, giving space to criticism. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

You can't be serious about your comparison with him winning the election, or are you?TMCk (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

My goodness. So you are comaring enforcing the UN imposed no-fly zone to the first African-American becoming the POTUS and the invasion of Iraq? That just goes to show your perspective is entirely skewered and the manner in which your claims are presented are totally biased. Absolutely absurd. Dave Dial (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

According to reliable source CBS News, Obama said this: "Colonel Qaddafi needs to step down from power, you've seen with great clarity that he has lost legitimacy with his people." [4] So it's clear that he wants regime change, just as Bush did in Iraq. The difference is that unlike Bush, Obama has not obtained bipartisan approval from Congress. This is a very controversial decision. The Tomahawk missile strikes have killed dozens of civilians. While the importance of the story is not equal to Obama's electoral victory, our coverage of these events (while not giving equal WP:WEIGHT) should be equally prompt and responsible. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

There are plenty of similarities and differences between the two events, and many of them won't be known until events unfold and/or until we see how the sources regard it. Not getting congressional approval is one of a dozen or two aspects to the domestic political implications. There's also domestic approval polls, criticism that it took too long, that we're letting UN approval be the deciding factor, that the US isn't asserting a lead role, that we don't have a clear goal, etc., etc. It seems likely that this will be seen as at least a moderately important event in Obama's career (worth half a sentence) to a significant one (worth a paragraph), but we just don't know, and anything we write now is going to be tentative. If Qaddafi quickly capitulates and attention now moves to other countries, it could basically be a footnote like the Reagan-era missile attacks of Clinton-era bombing in Serbia. There are any number of scenarios where it could evolve or blow up into something far more significant. I think it's safe to say something very brief and neutral for now, something to the effect that after initially hesitating to use force, Obama authorized military involvement in Libya after Arab League and UN approval, saying that Col Qaddafi should be removed from power. Forgive me, but that's a very loose inexact hash at it. Whatever the weight and approach here, it's about 2-4 X as important to the "presidency of" article, as that article not only focuses on his term in office but also encompasses things his administration does including the state department, military, etc. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well, perhaps(or in all probability) this event may end up being included in this article. But the better place for it to be argued is the Presidency of Barack Obama article. I would also note that Obama called for President Mubarak to step down in Egypt, and that is not in this article either. It's not even in the Presidency of Barack Obama article. Dave Dial (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

In the context of threatened airstrikes against Iranian nuclear sites, Obama also had this to say regarding presidential authority to use military force without congressional approval: "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." [5] Reported in reliable source The Boston Globe. So he has contradicted his own position on the issue of presidential authority for unilateral military action. Glenn Greenwald has criticized him for this at Salon: [6] This is noteworthy enough for a half-sentence in the last paragraph of the lede, and for a sentence or two in the appropriate section; the Presidency of Barack Obama article is also an appropriate place for this, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned here at all. Obama ordered the firing of Tomahawk cruise missiles and human lives have been lost. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sheesh. Once again, that does not apply and the fact you are asking for this to be in the lede shows that you are totally misreading the situation. How does that apply to UN approved actions? The Security Council approved no-fly zone? NATO and UN approved enforcement? This is definitely not the action you describe. Dave Dial (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to sign out soon and I'll be scarce, but I think we're all talking too much about substance and analysis of the real world situation. That's all very important in its own right, but this article really has to reflect the weight of what people (i.e. the reliable sources) are saying. The questions of presidential powers, and posturing over why the US and its president sometimes act and sometimes do not, are no doubt there, as is the predictable punditry and criticism over that. But as I said above they are among dozens of other issues raised. One or two sources (or even twenty) plus an argument as to why it's important doesn't amount to a convincing case for inclusion here. The real argument is that it's one of the major issues that the collective body of sources mention in connection with the presidency. And again, I think it's just too early to know. Best, - Wikidemon (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Wikidemon, as I see you use double standard! You say only that we should wait for the end of the war. But war in Afghanistan is still ongoing and that is already in the main article. So what is the difference between the war in Libya and the war in Afghanistan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.42.18 (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Eventually there will be a section in this article (and other related articles) on the policy decisions that President Obama takes concerning the change that is taking place throughout the Middle East right now. US involvement in the UN intervention in Libya will certainly be a part of that. But there is a lot that is not clear right now. Best to wait and get it right. Something we can put in the article should start to take shape sometime soon, certainly within the next few weeks. A lot also depends on how things play out in Libya over the next few days. WikiDao ☯ 01:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Double standard indeed! The Afghanistan operation has been going on for 9+ years. The Libya operation is in its second day or so? Neither is a war in the classic sense, and so far the two are quite different. We don't have to wait 9 years to change the article, but perhaps another week. Anyone who wants up to the minute current events news can find better sources than Wikipedia, as we do not operate on a deadline. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think the situation is noteworthy enough, and supported by sufficient RS that we can make a small mention of it now. We can make absolutely certain that whatever goes into the article mainspace is 100 percent accurate. Anything that is remotely questionable, about which there is even an iota of a shadow of a doubt, can be kept out. But I repeat, Wikipedia has already been accused by respected, mainstream, reliable sources of whitewashing this article. Therefore a few basic facts should be added immediately. We can expand and change the section later, or even remove it if Qaddafi capitulates quickly. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I agree with that. It's just, President Obama's policy on this has not been too definitively expressed yet. A major policy speech would help a lot, hopefully that will come soon. WikiDao ☯ 19:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Clearly, Obama ordered the Tomahawk missile strikes. Clearly, he did it without congressional approval. We can report those facts and the controversy they've caused (since they're covered by abundant reliable sources) and later, we could add any policy statements Obama may choose to make. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

He's not required to have congressional authority. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

He said himself, two years earlier, that he's required to have congressional authorization. "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." [7] Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Obama could say that the president has the power to grant titles of nobility, it doesn't mean he legally does. His statements in interviews do not carry legal weight. Besides, define "imminent threat to the nation," certainly the pirate situation off of Somalia has shown us that ships that travel through the Mediterranean are of import to our national security and well-being, and a newly openly hostile Gaddafi threatens that. It isn't a defined term. Later in the same article he noted that it is always "preferable" to have the prior consent of Congress, not that it was "mandatory." --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't think a BLP article is the place to add 'Gotacha' style arguments that are obviously false. Unless you believe that Obama included the actions of GHWB, Clinton and GWB enforcing the Iraq no-fly zone, which he obviously did not. I know that some on the fringes of the left, and the right, are making these types of claims but they don't hold up to reality. And the vast amount of reliable sources bears that out. Now, we can search news articles for Obama's statements on military action that has been approved by the UN Security Council and NATO, and look at the 1973 War Powers Act, but it should be a waste of time when all we have to do is use common sense here and know there is a huge difference between an invasion(March 2003-Iraq) and enforcing UN/NATO backed no-fly zones. Let's wait until there is time for the actions and policy to be written about and vetted. Dave Dial (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

A section on Libya was added by a user who hasn't even commented here. I'm not convinced it is appropriate at this time. We are two days into the campaign, and at this point, it is impossible to tell the long-term, historical context of this action in the life (not just the presidency) of Obama. Grsz 11 00:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

It definitely did not belong as it was, based on length and detail it was larger than the sections of Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Dave Dial (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, way too detailed for now. It was an F-15 that crashed too.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your note here. Let me raise some issues with your whole-scale reversion of my addition, however. First, WP is not designed to wait for a "long-term, historical context". That it is kept up-to-date is its greatest strength. Second, this is significant and is reported that way in all the US and world press because it is the first military action that Obama has taken without inheriting it from Bush - and clearly if Afghanistan, Iraq and Israel have their own sections in this biography (and they do), then Libya also belongs here. Third, we are four days into the campaign, not two days into the campaign, and we have already fired more than 160 Tomahawk cruise missiles and lost an F-15 fighter in the conflict - this is not a minor affair and there is no reason to try to censor this out of Obama's page. Fourth, I am quoting Obama directly in two cases - so I do not appreciate your claim of POV. And fifth, blanking of text from WP is normally reserved for additions that are questionable or uncited - but I am using reliable sources (Washington Post, NYTimes, RTT news, CBS news) and can easily find multiple sources for every thing I've cited if you question the significance of any of this.

Nevertheless, I've changed my addition to remove the cited details of the F-15 loss and number of missiles that I previously added, since I can see your point that it may be too much detail. It is now comparable in length to the other subsections (Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel) in this section. I hope you are pleased with my revised version. If you wish to make any changes, though, then I ask you to please modify the text that I have added, rather than reverting out my whole addition as you just did. Please bear in mind that I took time and effort to research and properly cite the text I added, and a complete reversion of it is generally against WP policy. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Comment; The world will not end if this is not added immediately - "as a record of history it must necessarily be a few steps behind current events." Wikipedia is Not News. See WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. See also: Wikipedia:Notability (events)." KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Although I do mostly agree with the removal of the Israel section, I reverted the article to before the 2nd attempted addition of the Libya section. And once again, before it's added here we should wait, and even then, it probably won't be as large as the 2nd attempt. Dave Dial (talk) 02:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am fully aware of the page you referred me to, having read it many times. However, it appears that you are in need of another look at the page yourself. You have failed to answer an essential question about your blanket reversions of any mention of Libya from this article - namely, what is the advantage to waiting several weeks to include this highly relevant information? Since there is no apparent advantage, one is forced to conclude that there is censorship going on here - and let me remind you that Wikipedia is Not Censored. See WP:NOTCENSORED. You may personally find it unpleasant to include the fact that Obama has initiated a military action against a foreign country, but your personal views are clearly irrelevant. This is a significant and highly newsworthy step that Obama has taken, and it should not be censored out of this article. Let me quote: "Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive".

Your contention that this is "routine news" comparable to things like "announcements, sports or celebrities" is ludicrous. This is a military action against a foreign country initiated by Obama who has stated that the US is in a leadership role. We have already fired hundreds of cruise missiles into this country and made hundreds of fighter jet bomber runs over the country, and we have crashed one of our fighter jets in the country in the process. As my citations make clear, this is being covered in every news outlet in this country and the world. And you're comparing it to "celebrity announcements"?

Since no one has found any issues with the paragraph I included, other than to compare it to "celebrity announcements" which it clearly is not, I have re-added it. If you take issue with the cited sources, perhaps you could raise your issues here - what is wrong with the Washington Post, CBS News, etc.? Please do not delete this again - please remember that you do not own this article; it is a joint project contributed to by many editors. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it is a question of sourcing, but one of relevance. The question that needs to be asked is "is the bombing of Libya connected to Obama the person (i.e. this article) or the Obama presidency (i.e. Presidency of Barack Obama). This only started within the last week or so, so it may be too soon to say if the Libya action is indelibly linked to Obama in the way that Bush is to Iraq or LBJ and Nixon were to Vietnam. And please take care with the "censorship!" thing, that is not something to be tossed lightly into conversation. Tarc (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Given President Obama's stance on war in general and his whole campaign the fact that he authorized this attack is definately notable and historic. We have RS's to spare that are talking about this event. There is no reason it cannot be incorporated in a neutral tone, and is quite ridiculous to imply that will have no lasting impact. Arzel (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

It sounds like you are trying to add this material in order to set up a "he said X, but now does !X" type of hypocrisy assertion. Tarc (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I was making no assertation about the specific merits of the information. I noticed it was deleted as WP:SYNTH and it is clearly not synthesis of material. I restored is as an improper use of WP policies. Arzel (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

As I noted about, it wasn't even the U.S. that proposed the UNSC Resolution. This wasn't like Iraq or Afghanistan where the whole effort was U.S. led. The U.S. spent the last week trying to pass off military command and control to someone else but only an organization like NATO has the ability aside from them. And, after only a few days of bombing, who says this war will be as protracted? I agree with the "wait" votes here. I think Obama is walking a fine line with the crisis now and is there is still more to be seen before it is notable and important enough to be in his bio.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Tarc's comment about "hypocrisy assertion" is right on the mark. It is a clear and unadulterated case of WP:SYNTH. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Can we try to keep our alleged breeches of policy straight here? Reflecting what reliable sources like CBS News say may be considered undue weight, but it's certainly not WP:SYNTH. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

No, but adding three different pieces all together in the same paragraph, one after the other as happened in this case, in order to reach a larger conclusion, is. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

That second paragraph, below, used one reference. I don't see you point.--NortyNort (Holla) 06:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Although I have retired from this debate I will try to explain the point one last time. Yes, of course if you have the second part of the paragraph covered by a single citation you are covered, there is no SYNTH. It is when you try to graft this to the larger event of the Libyan mission approved by Obama where SYNTH by construction happens, i.e. not the SYNTH as given by the definition per se, but the SYNTH that happens when you connect two events of unequal importance and you present a distorted picture to the reader by making the lesser event (second paragraph) look as big as the main event (The Libyan mission, presumably approved by a larger margin than the disapproval numbers of a few senators). So yes it is not textbook SYNTH but still the grafting of two events to create a novel and misleading perception. But when I was writing my edit summary reverting I was not remotely expecting all this flak, otherwise I would not have done it. Please see this also. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 06:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

The Libya material, full of WP:SYNTH, has been inserted yet again by edit-warring. Since this article is under probation, I think editors familiar with the probation terms should handle this. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 20:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

It is not synthesis of material or original research. No novel interpretation is being made. You may not like what is being said, which is fine, but it is not synthesis. Arzel (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please see my reply above: [8]. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I read your comment. No larger conclusion was being made. Arzel (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes it was. In short: Part I: Obama declares action against Libya. Part II: Congress is acting against Obama because he may not have the authority to do what he has done, including use of the weasel word "Some" (congressmen..). Part III: Obama did not keep his election promise. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's SYNTH if there's no source for the conclusion. It's use of unreliable sources (or improper use of primary sources) if we're using an opinion piece. And it's POV, wrong tone or simply not correctly reporting the sources, if we're reproducing on Wikipedia the argument made in external sources rather than including a sourced statement that the argument has been made. If there's sufficiently strong sourcing for the premise that commentators have criticized Obama for saying that the President does not have the authority to do X, then doing X, we could include that as information about what commentators say. However, there is still the weight and relevancy question - is that really the most germane thing about the Libyan conflict, and is that pertinent to this particular article? - Wikidemon (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I agree with your points. If someone reported all the points I referred to and reached a similar conclusion then it wouldn't be SYNTH to report their conclusion. I am also not sure about the weight and relevance of this section as presently written. I haven't followed the politics surrounding this issue so closely as to make a call on this. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Eh..I can see both the pro and con side of the synthesis claim. And you and Wikidemon makes a good points about the reaching. In any case, there should be no doubt about the POV manner in which the section was added, and there are definite weight issues too. I mean, the threat of 'impeachment' was put in because of Kucinich? Based on what? That's just laughably POV and undue weight. I'm pretty sure something will be added here, it's already in the Presidency of Barack_Obama article, in what I would describe as a pretty fair manner. Of course the whole "use of military force without prior congressional approval was constitutional" question is not a real issue at this point. And is probably one of the reasons people should wait on adding it. Everyone knows, and almost every source makes this point when mentioning this, the President has the Constitutional powers to use the military. By both the Constitution and the 1973 War Powers Act. People seem to want to bring up the answer Obama gave the Boston Globe in a Q & A in December of 2007. But people seem to want to leave out the question was specifically about bombing Iran's nuclear sites, and the rest of the answer he gave. I think reasonable minds can all agree that there is a significant difference between bombing Iran's nuclear facilities without even informing Congress, and enforcing a UN/NATO backed no-fly zone over Libya. Dave Dial (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Wikidemon, thank you. Dr.K, if you agree with Wikidemon, then I will ask you to take the trouble to read the only reference that is used in the second paragraph that I added and which you reverted out, apparently without reading. If you take the time to read the cited article from CBS news, you will see that my paragraph is not SYNTH, but a condensation of the points of that article.

Here is the full text I added that Dr.K deleted:

• Obama ordered the US military to take a lead role in air strikes against Libya as part of enforcing United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. Obama called for Tomahawk missile and B-2, F-15 and F-16 fighter bombing strikes^[1][2] against Libyan targets: "'The way that the U.S. took leadership and managed this process ensures international legitimacy, and ensures that our partners, members of the international coalition, are bearing the burden of following through on the mission,' the President said."^[3]
• Some members of the US Congress questioned whether Obama had the constitutional authority to order this non-defensive military action and whether his action was impeachable^[4] In a 2007 interview with the Boston Globe, then-senator Obama stated: "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."^[4]

I will address the question of weight and relevancy separately, once we have agreed that this is not SYNTH. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) @Jgui: First I object to you using my name in relation to the revert because I was not the only one who reverted the section. Second I don't appreciate your assertion that I did not read what I reverted because I did. Adding two events i.e. the Obama action regarding Libya and the Congressional reaction in the same paragraph but from different sources is a kind of SYNTH because we don't know what is the weight of the Congressional reaction versus the legitimacy of the Obama action. Let me put it another way. If Obama's action has great legitimacy and everyone is cheering him on and then you add the grumblings of a few senators from a political commentary and from another source in the same paragraph you are actually creating SYNTH by construction. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 03:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

DrK, in addition to reverting out my change with the curious claim of SYNTH, you accused me of "edit-warring" and threatened that "editors familiar with the probation terms should handle" my edits. Do I need to remind you that reverting out a well researched and cited addition to an article is not a good way to make friends? Jgui (talk) 04:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Is there any way when you address me you don't misread facts? How did I threaten you by simply deferring to other people more knowledgeable than me about the sanctions to see if any edit-warring continued? And I did not accuse you of edit warring. I just let you know that the reversions in this article should be limited. Finally I was not planning to make friends, I was trying to improve this article as best I could. As far as SYNTH please read the rest of my comments. And one more time now, I was not the only one who reverted your edits. This means your edits are problematic to say the least. So please do not make this personal once more. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry if you considered that personal. My point was that you made a very aggressive edit and personal statement about my editing at the very start of this section. If you fail to see that, we'll have to agree to disagree. Furthermore, it is curious to me that you are bothered by my stating that you reverted my edit, when you did. My comment about making friends was an attempt to be light-hearted - the important point that I was trying to make is that WP is a joint project, and blanking out a relevant, well-researched and properly cited edit made by another editor is not approved of here. I'll let you have the last word, but don't see the point in continuing this discussion. If you wish to continue, please take it to my Talk page. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 04:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

My statement was not personal because I did not refer to you personally but to your edit. I am sorry if you felt slighted by it, it definitely was not my intention. But just check this: one of the few times your edit was reverted and it was not by me. And your comment about blanking out was a little below the belt when addressed to a fellow good-faith editor but I will just let it go, all in the spirit of cooperative editing. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 05:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

In fact, now that I checked the article history, I can assure you, that I was not referring to you at all. You did not do any edit-warring at all with respect to my edit. Another editor reverted me and I was referrring to their edits when I created this section. I hope this clears the confusion. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 05:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Nowhere close. Undue weight, yes; synthesis, no way. Even if that is what had happened here, (and it isn't; there was one paragraph about the attacks and another about the adverse reactions) there is no requirement that new paragraphs be created every time a new source is used. Picturing an encyclopedia created under such rules is downright comical. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Maybe from too much laughing you didn't hear what I said. I said that first we have to establish the acceptance and approval of the Obama action. If it is high, then adding a few grumblings at the end of the, let's say, massively approved Libya action, is WP:UNDUE and constructively speaking we create an artificially negative opinion of the action to advance a new position. This is the very definition of SYNTH. It may not be textbook SYNTH by adding two different facts from two different sources to advance a new position but it is SYNTH by constructing two events of unequal weight to create a false perception. This is what I meant by SYNTH by construction. Having said that I see from the reactions here that the environment is a bit heated and with this I withdraw from this discussion and from borderline uncivil comments. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

DaveDial, I can see your point about talk of impeachment. Although the cited article discusses impeachment, it is apparently only Kucinich, so I would support removing the "and whether his action was impeachable" from the first sentence (I struck it out above). On the other hand, there are multiple members of congress, of both parties, who are complaining of the unconstitutionality of his action so I believe that should stay. Jgui (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I agree it isn't synth; the CBS News blog connects Libya and his statement. But, I do also agree with the comments above about source (blog) reliability and whether it belongs in Obama's biography. I did quick search and found FoxNews, CNN and MSNBC 1 2 references on it, so I don't doubt the Congress battle isn't notable but I don't think it belongs in the biography right now. Also, Congress feels more left out rather than it being unconstitutional. If it became serious enough that there were hearings and this issued garnered much more attention, I agree it should be in the article. Otherwise, I think it is covered in the presidency article. Continuing this discussion may be more fruitful when the situation is developed more.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for finding those. I found many others which I can list if desired. One of particular relevance is from Politico ("Did Obama lose Congress on Libya") that opens with this: "President Barack Obama is facing growing anger from lawmakers who believe he overstepped his authority by launching missile strikes into Libya without first seeking the consent of Congress.The criticism is from all directions: from moderates, like Sens. Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Dick Lugar (R-Ind.); from those on the far left and right, like Reps. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and Ron Paul (R-Texas), who believe the president acted outside the Constitution; and from the establishment on both sides, including House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson of Connecticut and Republican Rep. Candice Miller of Michigan, a self-described “hawk.”" Jgui (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

This comment is directed at Jgui. Please do not re-thread my comments. That is twice today you have removed my intended threading and replaced it with your preference. The only reason to alter another editors threading is to avoid confusion or if the other editor makes a threading mistake. That definitely did not fit either of your alterations of my comments. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 03:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Fine, I'll just adjust mine to match yours, if you refuse to set yours to match those of the other editors you are having a discussion with. Sorry if comment indentation is a sensitive topic for you. Jgui (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I agree that this article ought to mention Libya now. I think Jgui's currently proposed addition is about right in weight, neutrality, and content and would support adding it or a version of it to the article at this point. WikiDao ☯ 05:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Agree in principle, disagree in the specifics. I don't see any realistic doubt that some part of this needs to be included in this article as the previous bombing of Libya and the relatively minor invasions of Panama and Grenada are in the bios of the presidents then in office. I don't think the added/reverted/proposed change is right at this time. The first paragraph contains unnecessary detail; "air and missile strikes" would suffice without specifying the specific missiles and four aircraft type involved; similarly, "a UN resolution" is enough. The quote is fluff, and the space could be better used for a brief explanation of the reason for the UN resolution, as is (was?) found in the Presidency article. If we need to say "a lead role", it should mention, based on RS, that this lead role was somewhat involuntary, being necessitated by the reluctance of European allies to take such a lead.

The second paragraph is questionable. Jgui has already agreed to the removal of the impeachment comment, but I'm not sure how big a deal it is that members of Congress got their feelings hurt because Obama didn't ask their permission before exercising his authority as CinC. This seems to fall into the argument for "wait and see" others have favored above. Otherwise, in order to be NPOV the article would need to not only identify the "some" congressmen involved, but also reflect the counter-arguments as shown in the CBS News cite, pointing out the actual Constitutional authority involved, 60 years of precedent for unilateral presidential action, and the provisions of the 1973 War Powers Act. This seems a bit much at this point without finding out whether there will be any lasting effects of the criticism. Fat&Happy (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Let me remind everyone that Wikipedia, as an institution, is under a great deal of external scrutiny from not only the conservative press, but also the moderate mainstream press, for our treatment of this article. Allegations of a whitewash are becoming more and more frequent. Here we have a presidential decision that has exposed Obama to substantial criticism not only from the right, but from the left. And still there is an effort to exclude it, or at least delay its inclusion for as long as possible. Questions about Obama's authority to take this action without congressional approval are coming from such experts as a Yale law professor and other noteworthy legal scholars. It isn't going away, and it can't be dismissed as mindless mudslinging from the far right.

Questions along the lines of "is this Obama the person or Obama the president" are ridiculous. The two are inseparable. If he were not the president, he would merit an article about 1/3 this long — as a guy who served as a senator from Illinois for four years and quit. Being president is what makes Obama this notable. Accordingly, this enormously notable source of criticism must be included in this article. The only realistic and reasonable arguments are (A) how long the section should be, (B) whether to mention it in the article lede, and (C) the exact wording. Let's get it done. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Flinging around bullshit about editing under the watchful gaze of ideological critics, and labeling other editor's opinions "ridiculous" while codifying your own as "the only realistic and reasonable" one is just beyond the pale, IMO. If you cannot edit a controversial topic collegiality, then go spruce up the Easter bunny article in time for the holidays or something. Tarc (talk) 11:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. This Libyan thing is not (yet) biographically relevant. There are other articles where the Libyan issue can be explored. There is always an overeagerness to add things to this (already long) article, which should be regarded as the very top level of a topic tree. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

The US bombing campaign has entered its sixth day. We have launched hundreds of cruise missiles. We have had five nights of non-stop bombing runs. The targets of this bombing are now the Libyan military ground forces. The US congress is angry, including members of Obama's own party.

So lets consider the remaining argument against including this information in this article - namely that this is "not yet biographically relevant". This is a rather amazing statement when one considers the other "essential" information in this biographical page. Gems such as this:

• Obama is a well known supporter of the Chicago White Sox, and threw out the first pitch at the 2005 ALCS when he was still a senator.^[1] In 2009, he threw out the ceremonial first pitch at the all star game while wearing a White Sox jacket.^[2] He is also primarily a Chicago Bears fan in the NFL, but is known to also support the Pittsburgh Steelers, and openly rooted for them ahead of their victory in Super Bowl XLIII 12 days after Obama took office as President.^[3]

So let me get this straight; other editors are arguing that space in this article is so precious that we can't mention the military action Obama started in Libya, but we should spend a full paragraph worrying about his favorite sports teams? Seriously???

p.s. An editor who is serious about editing "a controversial topic collegiality[sic]" should refrain from accusing another editor of "flinging around bullshit". Thank you, Jgui (talk) 10:53 am, Today (UTC−4)

My goodness, the accusations claiming the "Whitewashing" of the article is a familiar screed. And totally a legit reason for inclusion. Eyes are everywhere, I guess. In any case, I will still side with the wait and see approach. Since there obviously is not agreement on the specifics, and the accusations from those who have included this into the article border on some kind of hysteria. Dave Dial (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

"Hysteria"? Perhaps you should give the previous discussion a re-read. I see an attempt to include an extremely newsworthy and relevant topical incident in an article, with reasoned arguments supporting its inclusion. Try to respond to the arguments being made, rather than your mis-perceived paranoia of the editors involved. Thanks, Jgui (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps you have a problem understanding what a biography is supposed to be:

A biography is a detailed description or account of someone's life. A biography is more than a list of impersonal facts (education, work, relationships, and death), it also portrays the subject's experience of those events. Unlike a profile or curriculum vitae (résumé), a biography presents the subject's story, highlighting various aspects of his or her life, including intimate details of experiences, and may include an analysis of the subject's personality.

It is important that a biography has a good blend of personal and professional aspects, so stuff about Obama being a White Sox fan is as biographically-relevant as whether or not he fulfilled an election promise. Every piece of information must be carefully weighed with these goals in mind. What it is not is a blow-by-blow account of current events, which is what this Libya thing is. The conflict in Libya may yet prove a significant moment in Obama's life story, but right now it plainly isn't. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps if Obama had not campaigned so adamently against the war in Iraq and against war in general it probably would not be as big of a deal. But since he was an anti-war candidate this becomes are very integral part of his biography. To simply ignore the obvious doesn't do anyone service. Arzel (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

See, this is the type of intellectual dishonesty and complete disregard of reality that puts me on the side of exclusion of this type of 'gothcha' attempted inclusion. Anyone who has listened to the debates and read what Obama had to say knows that he has specifically stated he is not 'against war in general', but that he is opposed to 'dumb wars' orchestrated by 'armchair, weekend warriors' who attempt to cram their own "ideological agendas" down our throats. In fact, many believe that if the first President Bush had helped the rebels in 1991, enforcing a no-fly zone, and overthrow Saddam Hussein none of the arguments in 2002-2003 would be necessary. In any case, these types of arguments are useless when ideologues have their minds made up already. As your comments seem to prove. Dave Dial (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Give me a break. So I guess this is not a "dumb" war because Obama is doing it? Arzel (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

This is not even a "war", as you persist in describing it. At best, it's a UN-backed police action designed to protect civilians by enforcing a no-fly zone. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Like the Vietnam Police Action that LBJ got heavily involved in? — Rickyrab | Talk 01:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I actually think it's close to being significant enough to include. Something along the lines of what is currently in the Presidency of Barack Obama, with Fat&Happy last edit. Although I would take issue with the portion about whether the President has the Constitutional authority to order the military to launch a UN backed no-fly zone enforcement, since almost every source makes it clear that he does have that authority, based on both the Constitution(CiC) and the 1973 War Powers Act. I think reasonable minds can understand the difference between ordering enforcement of a no-fly zone that more than likely will not last past the 90 day limit in the WPA, and launching strikes against a Country like, say North Korea or Iran. The later would most assuredly last more than 90 days and become an actual 'war'. Dave Dial (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, that one was pretty much a quick patch for weight and NPOV, relying on existing cites and one I happened to stumble upon two minutes earlier. For my current take on the issue and the content, see the post above at 06:19 UTC. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I just read it and that is as good of an breakdown of facts here. I agree. Dave Dial (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think this issue has gotten significant enough for inclusion under Foreign policy. I am drinking my morning coffee and reading the news; the issue is growing in prominence and isn't going away in the near future. Further, a sub section under Foreign policy could cover the whole MENA crisis as well. Libya is a big part but his foriegn policy in that region is significant and applies to other countries. I think we can all agree that this is a watershed moment in the MENA and Obama's foreign policies will most certainly grow in significance, if not already. The U.S. has many interests in this area.--NortyNort (Holla) 23:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Good luck, NortyNort. I've been lurking on this page for over two years and participated actively on a limited basis, and the results have been very discouraging. Not only is anything that resembles criticism and controversy excluded from the article mainspace or cut down to a few words, but even whole issues, events and people (Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Rod Blagojevich and Tony Rezko, for example) that might give rise to C&C are given the same treatment. The usual method is banish them to the presidency article, or some other article that isn't even linked here, such as William Ayers or Jeremiah Wright controversy, with editors who tried in good faith to introduce such material blocked or banned — and the result is something similar to the Taliban, with Obama taking the place of the Prophet Muhammad. Meanwhile, Wikibios about British and Canadian prime ministers and other American presidents are packed from top to bottom with C&C.

Today, the American military involvement in Libya enters its second week, every news network and daily newspaper has carried the war as the top story of the day for a week, and still the Barack Obama biography at Wikipedia remains serenely ignorant of these important and supremely notable events. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

For goodness sake. The police action in Libya is not a war, and it continues to have little biographical significance. This is entirely the wrong article to be trying to document a current news event, and there are several "child" articles that are more appropriate. Furthermore, your reference to faux controversies of the past almost certainly outs you as one of the WB74s of this world who battled to get that crap into this article at the time. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's a civil war. Government forces and rebel forces are blazing away at each other with RPGs, artillery, rockets and automatic weapons. A civil war is a war. Calling it a "police action" sounds like you're actually saying, "Nothing to see here folks, time to move on." There are several editors here who agree that it has sufficient biographical significance at this point to include in the article mainspace, and if you can't see them above your latest post, it's because you just don't want to see them: WikiDao, Wikidemon, Arzel, Fat&Happy, NortyNort, Jgui and myself. There is clearly consensus for inclusion, at least seven editors. Your reference to outing suggests to me that you're trying to WP:OWN the article by any means necessary. Please stop. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Is there a reason why we're citing the mobile version of Salon.com[9] and not the regular version?[10] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I removed that reference along with the use of "scholars" believing in unconstitutionality. Both were opinion pieces, one didn't even mention Libya. So, then we were just left with "scholar" and I didn't think it was necessary.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dumb question: is the issue the "constitutional" authority or his authority under the War Powers Resolution? The War Powers Resolution is probably unconstitutional, but neither side has really wanted to test it out in court. Ever since it was passed, Presidents have gone to congress to ask for authority, but they maintain they were doing so as a "courtesy", not that they were required to do so. Obama might be in violation of the War Powers Resolution, but not the constitution. --B (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Actually, it passes both, since he did inform Congress within 48 hours. If the mission exceeds 90 days, under the WPA, he would have get Congressional approval. The language of the Constitution, and the War Powers Act, may conflict, but I don't think it applies in this instance. Enforcing situations such as the Iraqi no-fly zone, Darfur and other United Nations security council resolutions differ from normal military actions that involve a commitment of ground forces and plans for occupying territories. Dave Dial (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well, you're only focusing on the reporting responsibilities. Section 2 of the WPR says that the President is not allowed to send the troops to begin with unless he has a declaration or war, congressional approval, or there is "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." That's the part of it that he disobeyed. Section 4 (the reporting requirements) are a separate issue and he did obey that part. But that isn't my question. My question is whether the issue that these congresspeople are raising should be phrased as only one of constitutionality only, or as one of constitutionality and the WPR. --B (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hmmmm...I don't know where you are getting your interpretation from, but the sources I've seen definitely do not make that claim. Even reading the Bill and the summaries do not state that. I know some on the left make this claim, but I don't see many sources, politicians or scholars that would agree with it. The WPR does state the President contact the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the Senate within 48 hours, but there are no restrictions based on "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces". Dave Dial (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't have my old books around me now but I studied this in school as it pertained to Congressional investigations of CIA/Executive power in the 1970s. There was also controversy when the U.S. bombed (tried to assassinate) Qaddafi in 1986, as it pertained to EO 12333. The WPR sounds right and I know he worked with the National Security Council as well which is a requirement as well. I will do some more research but from what I studied, he is in the legal zone. The reform was designed to give the president time-flexibility when responding to national security threats without having an all-out war.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Regarding Abrazame's revert, I was trying to find major objections in this discussion to include the Obama/Congress Libya controversy. I pinged their talk page as well. More so, after Obama's speech, the complaints continue. I don't think any encyclopedic account of the Libya intervention should be absent of the controversy. I would've re-reverted it but that would push the boundaries of 1RR and I figured someone else may have some additional insight.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

As far as I can tell the constitutional question still has not risen to the level of biographical or long term significance, nor is it a primary source of public concern over Obama's handling of foreign affairs. Rather it looks like the latest articulation of a political constant, the inevitable opposition to anything a president does. There is one significant larger issue germane to his presidency, which may or may not be a biographical issue in the end, namely that his use of so called gunboat diplomacy harkens back to an earlier era of assertion of US power, and goes against the more recent patriotic invocations of war. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I would have left it in. In fact I have. I think it's borderline, and that we had agreed to have a small mention of it. But I can see that given the fact that most sources point out the 'complaints' do not have basis in fact, and this really doesn't have much significance in the bio of Obama, editors want to leave it out. At least for now. Dave Dial (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Correction: one editor wants to leave it out. Others think it's more appropriate to show the existence of criticism. The complaints do have basis in fact, Dave because even the War Powers Resolution (Section 2) requires an imminent threat or congressional approval before the president can use military force. If "most sources" are saying that, I'd like to see proof of that, Dave. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well, I don't have a strong opinion either way. The statement as written is true, and adding "in addition to cost" etc., puts it in context as being one among several other objections / criticisms. Whatever the WPA and constitutional separation of powers say, the question regarding inclusion here relates to the significance for Obama. I think we'll have more perspective in a few weeks or months, and be in a better position to decide whether the issue has legs as they say. If it spawns a congressional vote against the uprising, or an amendment to the war powers act, it would definitely be significant. In other scenarios the issue may soon be forgotten. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

My edit showed something nobody arguing for that point bothered to mention, which was that the U.S. Senate unanimously passed bipartisan resolution calling for a no-fly zone, and urging Gaddafi to resign. Not only was that bipartisan Congressional approval, but the gist of it was that it should be done as soon as practicable, not after further Congressional branch rigamarole.

That fact is directly contradicted by the claims of editors (I note inaccurate claims by User:Phoenix and Winslow) who User:NortyNort is alleging have established consensus for this nonsense to appear in the bio. I will assume good faith that they were ignorant about it because sources they chose to read on it happened for some reason to omit this detail.

I venture to guess there has never in the history of our nation been any action that some few Congressmen haven't wanted to know more details about, or the cost, if not completely objected to, but that is not biographically relevant to any president simply on the face of it; otherwise, for every statement about every president there would be the final sentence "N, M and O from state X, Y and Z asked questions" or "expressed reservations". Which is what I meant by the second half of my edit summary, "horseflies go without saying". You don't culminate your review of a beach resort with complaints about sand in your shorts, unless you are making a joke.

The administration including 2008 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and current (and Bush-era) Defense Secretary Robert Gates spelled out for the public discourse the caveat that establishing a no-fly zone would entail bombing military airstrips, planes, anti-aircraft missiles, communication facilities, etc., and would "look like war", for all who lately seem taken by surprise there would be, gasp, missiles, of this, that and the other sort. This is something any member of Congress would already know, given that we have enforced, and they have paid for, such zones elsewhere. And any member of Congress should be able to recognize the difference between decisive but limited military action and a declaration of war. Who doesn't have questions about what things will cost. But anybody that thinks there is an actual answer that isn't going to change based on facts on the ground is naïve. We don't note in Bush's biography that anyone questioned the cost of the Iraq war, or the difference between initial estimates and what was borne out, and in fact we don't even mention the total cost of that war there.

2008 Republican presidential nominee and current Armed Services ranking member John McCain of Arizona; ultraconservative current Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky; ultraconservative Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, current chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs and of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Airland, who straddles both parties. 2004 Democratic presidential nominee and current Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry of Massachusetts and current Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin from Michigan. All of these individuals and others like them were calling definitively for the no-fly zone. Not only was there a consensus in the voices of the current Congress but the consensus was that it should be done as soon as possible. Not one of these individuals recommended drawing out the issue with a debate in the House of Representatives, nor in these three weeks leading up to the action did the House start a debate, to my knowledge. And Sessions and current Republican Senator from South Carolina Lindsey Graham (a former JAG who was on the judiciary committee during the impeachment of Bill Clinton) said "Obama was within his authority as commander in chief to launch the military action currently under way". Libya's own people, including their deputy UN Ambassador called for the zone to protect the people fighting for their civil rights and freedoms. Most of Europe was clamoring for it. To the region, everyone from AIPAC to the Arab League called for the no-fly zone.

Bill Clinton called for a no-fly zone. Bill Richardson. Previous (and alleged future) Republican candidates including Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and Tim Pawlenty all called for swift application of a no-fly zone (some of them "yesterday"), even though most of them were denying that or backpedaling on it later. Had they been president and done it "yesterday", they would have acted in advance of a UN mandate to do so, and that would have been more legitimately controversial insofar as it would have been going against the grain of international bodies, which would have vastly different implications for whose responsibility things are or would be if they become, in the Pottery Barn rule Iraq sense, "broken". None of these individuals questioned the cost.

To NortyNort, of course there would be valid controversy were Reagan's government to try to assassinate Gaddafi in 1986 (if that's what they tried and failed to do), because both Republican President Gerald Ford and Democratic President Jimmy Carter had established that this sort of assassination was beyond the scope of the U.S. government, something Reagan had agreed to be governed by with his own order mentioned above by NortyNort. But the only assassination attempt mentioned in Reagan's bio was his own. Obama's government is making no such departure from law or precedent in this regard, the way Reagan and Bush had, which was the lion's share of the controversy with both of those men, and why those actions are biographically relevant to them (despite that it does not appear there) while this is not (despite that it did appear here). If anything is biographically relevant in that regard it is that Obama not only followed national and international law here, but that he learned the lessons of both Bush (who jumped the gun on the UN resolution that called for WMD inspections that Hussein was allowing which were finding none) and Clinton (who deeply regretted not making a humanitarian intervention in Africa when similar threats were made there) — something noted by a CNN anchor a few days ago — rather than repeating either's mistake or breaking with or rewriting any precedent of law or executive order or ignoring a dictator bent on genocide.

The questions about the constitutionality of a president's authority to initiate military actions are general and have nothing to do with Obama biographically because what he did was called for by the unanimous bipartisan resolutions in the U.S. Senate and such a broad spectrum of the international community. I think Jimmy Carter, a former Naval Lieutenant, is the only president of the last 70 years who didn't exercise presidential authority to initiate a military offensive or all-out war, and originalists and Constitutionalists have raised this question every other one of those presidents for doing so. How many times is that? Nearly 120 times since 1973. Very few of those times was there a true "national emergency" and only in the case of the Afghanistan War was it truly precipitated by a major attack on the country resulting in a true, full-fledged war. The Articles of the Constitution split the responsibility, saying the Congress shall have power to declare war, while saying the president shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy. The criticism is not of this president for following precedent here, but of the government at large for allowing that precedent. I don't think this is an insignificant question in the broader historical picture, and I respect those in and out of government who raise this issue every time it comes up, because someday if not in recent memory, you could have a loose cannon really killing people unnecessarily, spending trillions, damaging our standing in the world. But unless and until Congress or the Supreme Court decides differently (and again, considering the historical precedent, even then), this is a broader issue, biographically irrelevant to Obama. Webb's statement in that ref was telling: if the Congress intended to maintain their Constitutional authority to declare war, and thought war may be called for in Afghanistan, or in Iraq, or in Libya (and those three are irresponsibly conflated, as there is no similarity between them in the run-ups to those wars), then they would not have passed resolutions authorizing or calling for actions. Perhaps they feared after the Capitol had been targeted in 9/11 there might be a situation where there could not be a quorum, or where an open session was not possible or put them in inordinate danger if it was literally on the eve of such a war. Perhaps they feared it would come up when they were out of session back in their districts, and precious time would be lost in the dozen or more hours it could take to get to D.C. and open session. But whatever their reasons, they have explicitly and implicitly conceded the authority to the president, and how many of those other 120 times since 1973 do we have this constitutionality thing rising to due biographical weight?

None of this is to say that any and every military action shoud be examined, discussed, understood — questions are important if the upshot is that people actually do some thinking about them, and make a real effort to answer those questions. But critics who raise invalid points and should know better (and those that don't know better) are not interested in being a part of that understanding, and so we shouldn't be presenting them as such at an encyclopedia in any context but the self-interested obfuscation it is much less a biography of someone else.

What User:NortyNort and User:Phoenix and Winslow have reverted into this article twice in the past day is not the consensus of editors at this page. What they are reverting is "questions" with a sentence split into two areas, one about constitutionality, and another about cost, structure and aftermath. The only discussion here is one of constitutionality, with editors basically split on the issue as to whether is is unconstitutional and nobody really getting to the gist of whether and why it is biographically relevant in this instance. I see no discussion or consensus here on cost, structure and aftermath. Of course random members of the House of Representatives have questions about just about anything; what makes their questions relevant to this section and not to other sections in this or other bios about the cost of various projects? It's absurd to say that this is biographically relevant here. It is on record that the U.S. military does not take orders from anybody but the U.S. military chain of command, if that's what is meant by structure, so those questions are hollow. As to aftermath, following the bungling of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, I'd surely hope people are giving some thought to the aftermath, but as this is not a war but a no-fly zone, it's not really the same kind of aftermath we're talking about: there are no troops there, and I'm sure the question of our involvement will have everything to do with whether Gaddafi steps down or not, which is what world leaders have called for but which the UN resolution does not direct shall be enforced.

Apologies for the long post, I had presumed my edit and its sources would stand on their own and not require any elaboration in this already overlong thread. Abrazame (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

No need to apologize. I have a better understanding of your standpoint. My perspective for inclusion was not due to my opinions or the opinions on other editors regarding whether he is in the right or wrong. Simply, there isn't too many articles that I read about Libya and the U.S. that don't mention the controversy with Congress. That, I believe, gives it due weight for inclusion; not much but due weight. The text in the article shouldn't detail the controversy but mention it as a significant part of the story at this point.

I think the constitutionality has lesser basis in the complaints when compared to aftermath, cost and organization (I used "structure" to avoid plagairism, I am sure their is a better word). I understand the complaints in news articles because the U.S. President is commander-in-chief and when he has the military engaged, he is the leader and ultimately responsible. Structure or organization refers to who is leading the internvention, etc. U.S. troops under a NATO/UN command would obey orders from their commanders which is based on the overall commander who is sometimes not U.S. military. Regarding Regean's bio, this conflict is more protracted, multi-national and severe but I am a bit surprised it isn't in there.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

A Senate resolution is not a congressional resolution. It avoided the House of Representatives. The controversy should be mentioned. Yes, we do mention in the George W. Bush biography that there was opposition to the invasion of Iraq. In fact, that biography mentions criticism and controversy several times. This one, not so much. And in the past two months, the MQ biography has become less and less neutral, and more and more critical of MQ. I wonder why? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Because MQ has acted up more and more, and was obviously seen doing so by a lot of people, so of course a "neutral" account of MQ's life would have to take MQ's activities into account. What has BHO done? Try to set up a no-fly zone. It's MQ and the people fighting him that are responsible for the vast majority of the mayhem, and I doubt that the American military had much to do in the conflict so far. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why does Barry Soetoro redirect here? Who the hell is Barry Soetoro? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.159.230.243 (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Lolo Soetoro is/was Obama's stepfather, and Obama took the surname while living in the Phillipines when he was a child. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Indonesia, not Phillipines. Corvus cornix_talk 20:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

obama also registered for college under the alias barry soetero. if i am not mistaken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.9.94 (talk) 07:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please move the summary under Domestic Policy. Flatterworld (talk) 01:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've deleted it until someone chooses to put it where it belongs. Flatterworld (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've placed it under domestic policy; I'm not averse to discussing other locations/headings, but it is clearly not foreign policy in any way. I'm sure it was only there by innocent error at some point. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Looks good where you put it.LedRush (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am sure this has been brought up before, but doesn't it seem odd to state "and ordered the closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp "as soon as practicable and no later than" January 2010." and not mention the fact that this has not happened? It leaves the reader with the impression that the camp was closed. I'm not sure if the whole issue should be moved to foreign policy (or even domestic policy) and omitted from the first days section; or if a brief explanation in the first days section can just clearly state that this hasn't happened (and that Obama has changed his opinion on this matter).LedRush (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Suggest adding

"As of March 9th, 2011, the political fact checking site PolitiFact rated this as "promise broken."^[4]

KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

One should keep in mind what our article on Gitmo itself has to say, that the closing of the camp has been prevented by congressional action and that Obama has continued (at least as recently as January of this year) to try and work with congress to get it closed. They won't authorize the funding needed to move prisoners. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

That doesn't make the language here any less misleading for a reader.LedRush (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

OC, do you have a cite for that? I'll be happy to rewrite, or add an additional sentence, but we'll need a reference. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

LR, it means we have to take care when using loaded statements like "Obama broke his promise," we have to take care to report the facts. KC, from our Gitmo article, I have the following: Senate blocks funds following initial Obama order http://www.webcitation.org/5jPWyaCDq Obama continues process towards closure (as much as he can without the power of the purse) following the congressional action http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-closure-dentention-facilities-guantanamo-bay-naval-base and Obama signs the Defense Authorization Bill in January 2011 while expressing opposition at language preventing the transfer of detainees and saying he will continue to fight them http://federalnewsradio.com/?sid=2226350&nid=35 --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well obviously we must be succinct. We cannot have the level of detail here as in the Gitmo article. What do you suggest for verbiage, OC? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Possibly?:

In his first few days in office Obama issued executive orders and presidential memoranda directing the U.S. military to develop plans to withdraw troops from Iraq.[112] He also ordered the closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp "as soon as practicable and no later than" January 2010,[113] but during his first two years in office he has been unable to persuade Congress to appropriate funds required to accomplish the shutdown.[OC's source(s)]

Fat&Happy (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Looks good to me. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Looks good to me, too. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Me too.LedRush (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

OK, I added the above phrasing. I substituted a substantially similar msnbc.com article for the one from Breitbart in order to forestall any questions as to whether the latter is a reliable source, even though both articles are from the AP. I also tweaked the wording of the paragraph a bit – what I consider minor stylistic changes, but if anyone disagrees I won't object to those parts being changed back.

Adding: I just noticed the whitehouse.gov ref title says "Dentention Facilities". I'm not sure what the MoS says on this, I've left it for now. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Are the air strikes against Libya or Muammar Gaddafi's forces? Seems the latter to me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've modified the statement accordingly in the course of a few other edits. Just a note here if it's not obvious. I don't think the point counterpoint style (obama said "blablabla", however earlier he said "albalbalb") is the right way to present the fact that there's criticism & a constitutional issue (however weak) over presidential authority and legitimacy. We just present the facts, we aren't supposed to do that in a way that implies hypocrisy or inconsistency. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

What if Obama really has been hypocritical and inconsistent? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Barack Obama is the 43rd president of the US president as Grover Cleveland served 2 non-consecutive times

131.227.157.34 (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: that makes Cleveland thus #22 and #24. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

The wonderful thing about standards is there are so many of them. If one does not suit your purpose then another is sure to work. Wikipedia however follows the majority of published scholarship. Every history book I can remember lists Cleveland as both #22 and #24, making Barack Obama the 44th U.S. president. --Allen3 ^talk 20:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Currently in the main article "Obama ordered the use of Tomahawk missiles...in order to protect civilians..."

but from 2011_military_intervention_in_Libya: "Libyan health ministry claims 114 civilians killed and 445 wounded.[11] The U.S. military claims it has no knowledge of civilian casualties.[12]"

Here this should be also added to balance the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.83.186.52 (talk) 02:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's amazing how dictatorships consistently build paediatric hospitals so near to and with the same design as weapons factories, isn't it? Shamelessly stolen from the Liberal Democrat Voice forums Sceptre ^(talk) 22:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

That one isn't even really trying hard to convince the world media. Seems to be to busy fighting for his own life.TMCk (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Very clever, Sceptre. But its even more obvious to everyone but you that raining cruise missiles and 500 pound bombs down on a country will kill civilians. Jgui (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well, duh, obviously there will be collateral damage. But I'm not sure if the Libyan health ministry, or, indeed, the US Army, are actual RSes when these claims tend to be more propoganda than anything. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Is there independent confirmation of the number of dead civilians? I agree with Sceptre, there is always collateral damage in this type of conflict and also propoganda is not uuncommon as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

No, as of yet there is not independent confirmation. I've been watching CNN, MSNBC, FOX and Al-Jazeera since the fighting started. Al-Jazeera is probably the most critical of the action, and reports the Libyan government's statistics on civilian casualties, but doesn't provide confirmation. In addition, I believe recently a CNN journalist says he was present when a casket was open and shown to be empty. Finally, U.S. Secretary of Defense is claiming that the Libyan government is moving corpses from city morgues to locations where the coalition strikes occurred in order to make the casualties appear higher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.18.249.204 (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

This is all missing the point. The language in the article makes it clear that the PURPOSE of the attacks is to protect civilians from Gaddafi. Whether or not that purpose is ultimately successful is a separate question. --B (talk) 01:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm a staunch Democrat and Obama supporter, but it's fair to say that's he received a fair share of criticism (we only have to look at approval polls to realize that). I think this should be in the intro - otherwise the article looks too biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.212.212 (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Actually, almost all opinion polls for Obama the man (what this article is about) are favorable. What little legitimate criticism there has been (and by "legitimate" I am referring to the stuff which isn't just partisan garbage from the right) has been directed toward his presidency (which is a separate article). Putting that kind of criticism (such as it is) into this article's intro would fall foul of WP:WEIGHT. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Also please see FAQ #4-7 at the top of this page regarding the conclusions the community has reached on this question and why. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

You've got to be kidding me. His approval ratings are in the 40's like Bush's, and your argument that the article is about the man instead of the president is laughable, and has a liberal bias. How old are you? I saddens me that you are in charge of editing this article. I see why it has such a liberal bias.75.69.20.8 (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm afraid that in addition to having to resort to personal attacks, you have your facts wrong:

"AP/GfK poll shows that not only are Obama’s approval ratings remaining steady at 53%, but an incredible 84% said that the president is a very likeable person. Obama’s job approval rating is still at 53% which is where it has been since January. Obama’s personal approval rating was 59%, which is a four point increase since November. A majority of Americans (50%) believe that Obama should be reelected." (source)

-- Scjessey (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

" A majority of Americans (50%) believe that". No, that is only half. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.145.7 (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

The Gallup daily tracking poll has shown Obama below 50% for a very long time. And again, I will point out that Barack Obama would merit an article about 1/3 this long if he had not been elected president. He would be a one-term senator from Illinois and after the results of the 2010 election, with Mark Kirk as the new senator, Obama would probably be an instructor at a law school right now. Being president is what makes him this notable, and the majority of the article mainspace is about his presidential campaign and his presidency. Therefore some space must be devoted to notable criticism of his actions as president. You can't have it both ways, Scjessey. This article is what it is because Obama is president. Obama the man and Obama the president cannot be separated, and no effort at all has been made here to separate the two — with the sole exception of criticism and controversy, which has been deleted and its proponents blocked and banned at every opportunity. Stop it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

The high forties and low fifties are only a few percentage points apart and the 2010 election was a knee-jerk reaction to the 2008 election, which in itself was a knee-jerk reaction to an economic and fiscal crisis in the private sector. Yes, Obama the president affects Obama the man, and Obama the man affects Obama the president; criticism should be included, but not given undue weight. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

The article's length or weight under any hypothetical is irrelevant - he's President Obama, not Senator Obama or Professor Obama. With that being said, his approval rating is in the high 40s, and he's received criticisms on virtually every subject, from the recession to foreign policy with regards to the Middle East and Libya to not being vocal enough on social issues such as gay marriage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.212.212 (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, he's received those criticisms; but do they appear in this article in the same way that similar criticisms appear in the Wikipedia biographies of other presidents and prime ministers who polled in the 40s? No, they do not. Some of those other biographies are Featured Articles, and should be capable of being used as a guide for improving this article. But we are told that the level of criticism in those Featured Articles doesn't belong in this particular Featured Article. Anyone care to explain? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Criticism in the intro would most likely be a violation of WP:UNDUE if not handled carefully. I think we need to take cues from the articles on Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, who both tracked in the 40s around this time into their first terms; they only mention the major criticisms in as objective a way as possible, and not in a way that detracts from the article: in the Clinton article, his impeachment, and in the Reagan article, Iran-Contra, are given a sentence each in each article. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that constructive input — are Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan Featured Articles? We shouldn't compromise the integrity of this Featured Article by using anything of lesser stature and quality as our guide. Only biographies of world leaders that are currently FAs (or, at the very least, were FAs at one time, or are currently rated as Good Articles) should be used for guidance here. Tony Blair, for example. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've checked — Bill Clinton has never been a FA and is a former (not current) GA, so it should not be used as a guide. But Ronald Reagan is a current FA, so it should be able to provide some guidance on the amount of criticism to include here. The Iran-Contra affair receives three paragraphs of space and a subsection header, a considerable amount of weight. Similar weight should be allocated to criticism and controversy in this article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

FAs are like a car's MOT test: passing FAC doesn't mean that it will always conform to the FA standards; it just means it conformed when it was reviewed. There are some FAs that wouldn't pass FAC today, and the diligent reviewers at FAR often get rid of such when they get around to them. Anyway, Iran-Contra warrants a sentence in the lead section, and three neutral paragraphs in the article. And this is for something where Reagan was found to have committed war crimes.

There's also a danger that in how we write the content of the lead section may end up in us writing his legacy for good or bad. We're a top-ten website, so we have an ethical duty to ensure that, well, we don't. We have no way of knowing what his legacy will be, unlike Reagan, Ford, Clinton, or the other forty. I'm fine with the article's lead section as it is, just listing what major legislation has taken place. I do agree, though, that the section on health care might need a little expansion, no more than two or three sentences, detailing Republican opposition and legal challenges to the PPACA. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why should approval ratings have anything to do with mention of criticisms and accomplishments? — Rickyrab | Talk 01:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I find this article to have a strong liberal bias, like most of the articles on Wikipedia. I find it awfully strange that there are no criticisms in the intro. George Bush's intro contains criticisms. There is no mention of the birth certificate issue, although it is turning out to be a major one. According to a recent poll, 43% of all Americans either think that Obama was not born in America, or they are not sure that he was born in America. Compare that to any president since the inception of mass media, and it is a massive issue. Donald Trump, a very possible candidate for president, also believes that he was not born in America. The issue is no longer one that anyone can avoid, regardless of how much of a liberal bias they have.

It is also kind of strange that wikipedia doesn't have an article on liberal bias in the media and academia, althogh this fact has been confirmed and reaffirmed in countless studies. Wikpedia seems to be behind the curve on this issue. It is a well known fact throughout our society, and on many other information sites. This, in addition to the fact that wikipedia seems to have an article on every conceivable subject under the sun. I think what it boils down to is the fact that wikipedia has an immense liberal bias, along with much of academia.75.69.20.8 (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

In addition, I understand that wikipedia has an article dedicated to overall, general bias in the media, but it refuses to mention liberal bias by name as a exclusive entity. The article refuses to mention the existence of an overall liberal bias, which definitely exists. 75.69.20.8 (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your scholarly analysis. I'm sure your concerns will be addressed with all possible haste. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

75.69.20.8: Wikipedia's rule on neutrality says that we're supposed to repeat the bias of reliable sources. So if academia has a liberal bias, so will Wikipedia. I doubt that will change anytime soon. But you probably have a point that the citizenship issue has become enough of a political issue that it warrants coverage in this article.

Scjessey: Wikipedia:Sarcasm is really helpful. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ya, don't you know that some people on earth just don't do anything wrong. Its not that there is a bias in the article, its that every time that someone thinks that Obam did anything wrong, they are mistaken, because a consensus says they are.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

About as helpful as your tsk-tsk'ing response was, really. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact, and should not be extended to those with an obvious axe to grind. Tarc (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well, now that Obama has been doing a lot of the very same things that liberals criticized Bush for — keeping Guantanamo Bay open, extraordinary rendition to countries that torture prisoners, warrantless wiretaps, keeping our troops in Iraq past the 16 months he promised during his presidential campaign, and now the bombing of Libya without congressional authorization — perhaps editors with a liberal bias might finally see the value of including some criticism — but only from left-wing sources like Huffington Post, Salon.com and The Nation. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well I must say that per WP:V, its not about truth, but about reliable sources. And the sources say that he is a good president and better than Bush.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

That depends on what sources you're reading, I suppose. William Kristol, a conservative, has praised Obama as a "born again neocon." Maybe we can avoid Scjessey's ban on all criticism by including praise from conservatives. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

From your numerous posts on the talk page, edit summaries and general battleground behavior, I don't think many will believe your intentions here are to improve the article. In fact, you outright state your intentions. So excuse me if any criticism of others from you is taken with a huge grain of salt. Dave Dial (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

My intention is to produce an article that obeys WP:NPOV by including noteworthy criticism, like other articles about presidents and prime ministers. This one does not. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think P&W's attacks on me in these two sections are ridiculous, quite frankly. I made a couple of legitimate points about WP:WEIGHT and suddenly I'm part of some grand scheme to enact a "ban on all criticism". Someone obviously needs to take a step back. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Peace, folks, peace. I don't think the IP observation was particularly helpful for improving the article. It looks like lots of very similar comments from the past and there's little point engaging new editors who come here to advance birther theories other than a polite (*ahem*) "no" and referral to the more appropriate article, FAQ, etc. Now where were we? Wikidemon (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

That FAQ is now so ingrained into the fabric of U.S. society that it may as well be adopted as the 28th Amendment. I'll even word it for you. No discussion, varying the mention of birth status on wikipedia of Barack Obama shall hither be mentioned on said web-site, either on the said talk page, nor on the adjoining pages combined, without the express written consent of Major League Baseball or its underwriters.--JOJ ^Hutton 00:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Not quite, but this particular subject on this particular article does have the momentum of an Arbcom case, 2+ years of article probation, dozens of legitimate long term editors and 100+ banned troll and sockpuppet accounts, so when brand new IP editors comes in amidst a flurry of renewed socking making invalid arguments that sound almost word for word like things that IP editors have said before, we don't exactly ask "how high" when they ask us to jump. WP:AGF and decorum suggest that we be dignified and polite in referring them to the reasons why we have chosen so far not to include this popular fringe theory / partisan attack, but WP:DENY and WP:FORUM, among other things, are good reasons why we like to keep the chatter to a minimum on this page rather than openingup new discussions every week on Wikipedia's supposed liberal bias, WP:CABAL, and all that. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

True, if by 'liberal bias' you mean 'fact-based reality'. One can usually check out what's happening in the Conservapedia article to find out what's triggered the latest reiteration of these arguments. btw - CP blames the Clinton campaign for the birth certificate meme, and totally ignores Tony Martin and Insight magazine and the three Fox News programs. I'd say they need more help in addressing 'bias' than WP does, and you may find it more rewarding to help them. Flatterworld (talk) 05:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

@ the originator of this section, I think you will find the reason for the alleged bias in the fact that the people who choose to edit an encyclopedia are generally highly educated. Many studies have shown a correlation between educational level and liberal, or at least not extreme, leanings. Cliff (talk) 06:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

"Many studies have shown ..." has often been shown to be a prefix for a partisan argument. The left-wing bias at Wikipedia is more accurately explained by the liberal Groupthink tendency to attempt to influence the thinking of others, by gaining control of information sources. Thus the dominance of progressive/left-wing/liberals in the teaching and journalism professions, while equally highly-educated conservatives tend to dominate business management and engineering. Wikipedia is a natural magnet for those liberals who seek to control the sources of information, and thereby control content. Nowhere has this been more evident than on this page. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

^{[citation needed]}, both of you (by which I mean Cliff and Phoenix). — Rickyrab | Talk 01:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I find it hard to work with anyone on Wikipedia who bleats constantly about "left-wing bias", because it is basically an assumption of bad faith aimed at fellow Wikipedians. Editors who constantly make this claim are denigrating the work of others and the project in general, so it bugs me that regular editors are expected to accommodate such people. Hundreds of editors have worked extremely hard to make this article the best they can (and related articles, of course), and their good work is basically shit upon by anyone who comes here and starts banging on about leftists, cabals and socialists. Wikipedia is not a "natural magnet for those Liberals who seek to control the sources of information" et al, but rather it is a natural magnet for anyone who wishes to volunteer their time to aid in the spread of all knowledge. To my mind, this is a noble goal worthy of praise, not condemnation. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Scjessey, every time someone attempts to introduce criticism into this article, or even a topic which might engender criticism, certain editors object. They want it moved to some other article, and often to an article that isn't even linked here. They talk about socks. They run to ANI and Arbitration. Other Featured Articles about heads of state, such as Ronald Reagan and Tony Blair, contain substantial amounts of criticism; and the amount of criticism against Obama in noteworthy, reliable, mainstream sources is likewise substantial. But those articles contain criticism and this one doesn't. Let's focus on the article and try to improve it by bringing it into line with all of Wikipedia's other Featured Articles about heads of state. It's time to include some criticism of Barack Obama. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

P&W, I think that's a self-defeating way of looking at things, the first part at least. There have been persistent socks here, hundreds of sock accounts from several known sources spawning dozens of cases, sullying the work of the legitimate editors around here and costing many thousands of hours to deal with them. I don't think you're going to convince any of the regular editors around here to be less vigilant or suspicious about that, because their suspicions have proven true again and again. Also, most of the people here genuinely want to have a good article and are not intentionally playing politics with it. Everyone has their own way of looking at the world and of course personal opinion does creep into decisions that are supposed to be objective, but accusing people of things isn't going to make them more objective. I think it's fair to say that attempts to add derogatory information to the article are greeted with skepticism, particularly things like birther theories that have been proposed and rejected many times before and that were the subject of earlier shenanigans. Featured articles are a major feat, and doubly so for people whose tales are not yet told and who are the subject of so much current political attention. My hunch is that in the end, when Obama's long gone and his tale is finally told, the strange tale of the birthers will be a footnote in his biography (assuming of course that the theory is bunk - if it were true then obviously it would go in the first sentence). I personally don't like criticism sections and think that most articles about most people are mostly about their positive achievements rather than people's negative (or positive) opinions of them, something that's true whether the subject is Obama, Palin, or Britney Spears. Maybe not Qadaffi, but even there the issue isn't that he is criticized and disliked in the English speaking world but that he did lots of things that upset people. I wouldn't favor adding criticism just for the sake of criticism, but if there's a fact about Obama (including a fact that he made mistakes, or he's the subject of political opposition or critical analysis) I'm definitely open to that and everyone else ought to be as well. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

This discussion has focused primarily on generalities, and not specifics. P&W (or whoever): Is there some specific criticism that you think belongs in the article? If so, what is it and why do you think it should be included? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Wikidemon, I have never attempted to add any birther information. But the disagreement over whether or not to even mention the enormous missile and bombing attacks against Libya, and the many deletions (and the nine different editors who had to speak out and say they supported the content) before it was finally allowed to be in the article, are still fresh in my memory. It isn't birther information, Wikidemon. It's well-sourced, mainstream, multiple reliable sources covering major world events, that were the top stories on every news broadcast on all the networks for a week, with Congressional leaders and notable legal scholars (including a Yale law professor) questioning the president's power to order this action without Congressional approval. And still there was resistance from certain editors. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't trying to justify any abuse directed your way, and you're an old hand around these parts. I was thinking of several recent IP contributions,[11] including the one that started this section.[12] This one[13] (to paraphrase, "I'm an Obama supporter but y'all a bunch of liberal tools") is very familiar, but I can't say if it's because the same editor is back to harangue us or if it's a turn of phrase that naturally occurs to people. Particularly after the hubbub from early 2009 I strongly think we should all give each other the benefit of the doubt and be polite, particularly to newbies acting strangely. But anyway, I think it's pretty obvious that any controversial information faces a lot of discussion before people get around to accepting it. That's as it should be for a stable article, but the problem here is that the world keeps turning faster than Wikipedia can update the article about it. The Libyan action is (was?) a current event so it's not surprising it took a while. Patience... - Wikidemon (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

What I find troubling, WD, is that whenever it's criticism, or a controversial issue that could possibly give rise to criticism, it's always the same people who move like glaciers when getting around to accepting it. But when the world turns fast and produces something that makes Obama look good, like beating Alan Keyes by a 70-30 margin to win a US Senate seat, or winning the presidency or an undeserved Nobel Peace Prize, the same people get around to accepting it with amazing speed. The principal advantage of WP over other encyclopedias is that it can report changes and new events rapidly. In reporting the Libyan adventure in this particular article, we failed miserably. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

You're not comparing like for like. The criticisms you evidently desire to be in this article do not compare in significance or credibility with the events you just mentioned. Transient poll numbers, for example, do not compare in significance to winning the presidency. Similarly, the "birther" nonsense does not compare in credibility to winning a seat in the US Senate. Incidentally, the campaign and election of Obama had a significant effect on the world's view of America (and Americans in general) that may have influenced the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize. I am among those who agree that this "aspirational" award was probably undeserved, but that does not change the fact that he was given it, nor the reasons the prize committee had for doing so. Moreover, your claim that the Libyan issue has not been "reported" properly forces me to remind you that "reporting" is not something we do with Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I repeat, I have never attempted to introduce birther material in this article, Scjessey. What you're using here is called a strawman argument. And when a president's poll numbers stay below 50 percent for a year, they are no longer transient. It represents a long-term malaise in his relationship with the American people. Winning a political campaign does not and cannot substitute for the lifelong dedication to working for peace that the Peace Prize represents, and other recipients of the Peace Prize who share Obama's political perspective (I point this out to emphasize that it isn't just coming from the right wing) agree that he didn't deserve it. His nomination for the prize had to be entered no later than mid-February 2009. He had been in office less than a month. You lecture me that Wikipedia is not a "reporting" service, and yet his electoral victories were reported here within minutes. All of these diversions distract attention away from the fact that whenever negative information finally finds its way into this article it is always amputated down to a few words, long delayed after the events that triggered the notable criticism from multiple noteworthy sources, in all corners of politics and no politics at all. Let's recognize that fact, and try to improve this article to become genuinely NPOV, like Ronald Reagan and Tony Blair, a pair of Featured Articles that contain substantial amounts of criticism. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

There are plenty of articles about the Libyan protests and civil war. What's needed in this article is a link to the main Libyan article, and a one or two sentence summary. We can't even keep all the Arab world protest articles in sync and up to date, so I don't see the point of trying to repeat all that information here as well. When it's all over it will be much easier to see and sum up what are and aren't the most important points. At this point, of course there are going to be different views on what's important and what isn't. That's why we link from one article to another. There's not much to discuss on A won this election by B percent. There's a lot to discuss on Libya, which is why we have an entire series of articles about it. Flatterworld (talk) 03:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

The protests in the other Arab countries don't involve daily airstrikes and cruise missile attacks ordered by the man who is the subject of this biography. There's no American military action in those countries at all, so it's appropriate that they aren't even mentioned here. When Obama speaks out in support of protests in Egypt, etc. then a sentence in the Middle East subsection of the Foreign Policy section is appropriate.

This, however, is American involvement in a civil war. It's costing hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars in US taxpayer money with no end in sight. The lives of American servicemen are in harm's way. And Obama has arguably violated section 2 of the War Powers Resolution by ordering military action without Congressional approval. This has earned notable criticism from the left and the right, which should receive one brief, representative quote here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

That's just not a reasonable description of what's going on in Libya at all. The involvement of the American military began as a UN-sanctioned coalition of forces specifically employed to enforce a no-fly zone, and this later morphed into a NATO-led exercise backed by UN resolution. Decisions made by Obama with respect to Libya are nowhere near as historically significant as, for example, invading Iraq with a massive "shock and awe" campaign. Yet again, you are attempting to make more of something than it really is. I'm not even going to bother replying to your non-answer to my earlier comments. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's a reasonable description. It's a civil war. We are attacking one side. The other side benefits substantially from those attacks, even though we may not be in direct contact with them. We are enforcing a No-Fly Zone which protects not only civilians, but also rebel forces deployed in the No-Fly Zone. we are also attacking ground forces and destroying tanks whenever they threaten civilians. Five minutes earlier or five minutes later, those same tanks could have been shooting at rebel forces. So yes, we are involved in a civil war. George W. Bush is merely a Good Article, not a Featured Article, so we shouldn't be relying on it too much for guidance in our efforts to improve this Featured Article. But that article devotes eight or nine long paragraphs to the war in Iraq and extensive space to criticism. The war is also mentioned at least twice elsewhere in the article, including the lede. It's distinguished very easily from the treatment of Libya in this article, where we have one paragraph, one mention in the lede, and nothing else. All I'm saying is that we should add one brief quote from a critic. The critic can be a left-winger such as Glenn Greenwald if you choose. But I like the way William Kristol called Obama a "born again neocon." Regarding my non-answer, I refrained from replying because I do not want to escalate this disagreement. I choose to remain civil and move on with improving the article. You are choosing to keep fighting. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I think the Libya paragraph we have here is good now. Libya has by no means reached the levels of Iraq yet and this has been ongoing for much less time. As far as the neocon title, that may be valid (and growing in secondary sources) in the future if aside from liberal interventionist 1. I will do some more research but the title seems to accompany more than Libya; Iraq and Afghanistan too. With the biography, specifically citing areas of bias is most helpful. In general, this article will change over the years, especially when he is out of office and reliable secondary sources look back at the effectiveness and result of his policies. I also think Wikipedia can and is viewed as an advocacy platform for both the right and left. It is easy to edit and highly visible in Google searches. I have seen both since I have been here. Since I have been in discussions on this talk page and Obama-related ones, I have seen a slight overreaction to some criticism. I think that is due to the constant socking and POV-pushing. In some cases it is legitimate, in most it isn't. In the end, as has been noted here before, Wikipedia can't always escape bias in secondary sources, the articles reflect it.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

DUH. what did you expect? Thats why wikipedia is not accepted as a source in colleges. Because it is not an encyclopedia. It is an encyclopedia tainted with a great deal of bias and unverifiable claims. Sometimes its political and purposeful in its innacuracies, such as on Barry the Kenyan born Muslim's page where it says hes an american born citizen and a christian. Other times its just because the person who wrote the article believes something to be true, but is wrong. For example on Keshas page it says her eye makeup was inspired by the movie "A Clockwork Orange" when that is actually a rumor with absolutely nothing to back it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.9.94 (talk) 07:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what you mean by "the Keshas page", but if this has a talk page then you can state your objection there. Add piffle about "Barry the Kenyan born Muslim" to some other website, perhaps your own. -- Hoary (talk) 08:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

The link to an internet page stating: "(November 12, 2007). "Obama has never been a Muslim, and is a committed Christian". Organizing for America (barackobama.com). Retrieved February 4, 2010." does not lead to the stated article, yet leads to a direct "get involved/donate now" page for his 2012 re-election campaign. This is a direct conflict of interests and does not support the "Neutral point of view" espoused by Wikipedia.

This link is the first bulleted point in the "Notes" section; #3. The 3rd "Note" is supposed to lead to information about Obama's religious affiliation, yet nothing on that topic appears. There is only the "get involved/donate now" page for his 2012 re-election campaign.

This is an obvious conflict of interest; no link should be provided that is a political promotion of a candidate for future office.Pdburk (talk) 01:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

It was a link to the Factchecking page the Obama campaign used to debunk falsehoods that were being promoted against him, but evidently the campaign is gearing the website up for 2012. I changed the link to a Scribd cache of the webpage as it was. There were no nefarious attempts to direct users to Obama's 2012 election website. Dave Dial (talk) 02:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dave--thanks for taking care of this. Even though the link you provided to fix this shows a page which is difficult--if not impossible--to read, it is much better than leading to a donation page. Pete Pdburk (talk) 11:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. As for the readability of the page, you just have to use the zooming tool. I couldn't find the page at archive.com, or in Google's cache. I wasn't gearing up for 2012, but was for bed. So I am fine if anyone wants to change it to a better link. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Include it in article: [14] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.43.34 (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Text inside a brown box on the DISCUSSION page states, "This article has been placed on article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation for full information and to review the decision. Administrators: when sanctioning an editor for disruption to an article under probation, please be sure to record the action in the appropriate log. The log is linked here, under "decision and log" on the sanction's row in the table."

There haven't been as many problems in one WP paragraph, in years.

1) This text appears to refer to the Article page, not to the Discussion page.

2) It is located at the bottom of a list of templates but whether or not a page can or cannot be edited is paramount. It should be unobstructed.

3) The link at its start points to the top of page addressing sanctions instead of explaining "probation". Pointing to a penalty before rationale is addressed is akin to a government imposing martial law. ("Do as you are told; don't even attempt to understand 'why'")

4) Since WP has tools/rules for preventing change, it doesn't make sense to penalize an editor for doing what editors do.

Can someone post a one-sentence definition of what it means ot be on "probation"?

Kernel.package (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

It simply means that discussions about editing this article has reached some pretty deplorable depths over the years, and that the leeway allowed is much shorter here than one would find elsewhere. The short version; you (the general you, not specifically you) are on a short leash here. Tarc (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Tarc, thanks. I was thinking just this based on "How to avoid being subject to remedies" on the related penalty page. Thanks for making it clear. Kernel.package (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

The hatnote to Barack Obama Sr. seems unnecessary. Being the President's father, he already has a prominent link at the top of the 'early life and career' section. -161 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.54.63 (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

If it were a section hatnote later in the article, I might agree with you. But since the purpose of article hatnotes is primarily to let readers know immediately if they have reached the wrong article, without having to read further in, this one seems appropriate. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Agree with F&H. Tvoz/talk 20:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

We're heading into the election for his second term and his prospective opponents are still making the "Birther" stuff an issue. I say that's notable, if only for its remarkable persistence in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, though I personally have no doubt whatsoever that he was born in Hawaii. For the record my personal bias is conservative, I didn't vote for him, I support him as the CINC and the "birthers" are full of crap. A self-described liberal should make the "birther" edit to avoid the appearance of impropriety.Pär Larsson (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's unnecessary for a "self-described" anyone to make any specific edit. All of us must check our politics at the door when we begin to edit. I'm against adding too much more of the "birther" stuff, mainly because it's been proven false again and again, as you have noted. Just because a few kooks won't let something go doesn't mean we have to spectacularize it. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Anyone searching for 'birther' will be redirected to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, so it's not as if no one can find the material. It's not notable, it's scurrilous. The Elvis Presley article doesn't include the claims that he didn't really die, nor does the JFK article. Wikipedia is already on pretty thin ice on many of the politician articles, getting pretty close to falling into the tabloid waters of tittle-tattle, rumors, lies and innuendo. What's notable for a politician is what s/he does AS a politician, along with some background on his/her life which could be expected to contribute to their views or whatever. Flatterworld (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

On the other hand, the Moon landing article has an entire section on Moon landing conspiracy theories and September 11 attacks has a section on 9/11 conspiracy theories. So fringe conspiracy theories sometimes do get mentioned in a main article. True, those two aren't biographies but that's a WP:BLP issue, not a relevancy / weight issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I would tend to agree with you that it's more of a BLP issue than a weight issue, though both probably could apply. On the other hand, there are now 4 full articles devoted to Obama conspiracy theories, which means both BLP and weight issues have already permitted mention, since those articles would fall under the same kind of BLP umbrella. For all we know, we could be writing that the birther issue was paramount in Obama's 2012 defeat. Though it seems more likely it might be the opposite than that. Still, I would say that right now, on this article, it's not worth adding, on both the points mentioned. And if it is, I agree that whomever adds it doesn't have to be of any political persuasion. Neutrality doesn't have an ideology. Dave Dial (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

There is a WEIGHT issue. Birtherism is so much of a minority opinion that the mere mention would be giving credence to the theory where none exists; I mean, for fuck's sake, Ann Coulter says that birtherism is stupid. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

In any case, the issue is a non-starter unless a Reliable Source or two sees credibility in it, or even meaningful debate about it, PhGustaf (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Maybe we can mention the fake moon landing thing instead :) - Wikidemon (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please don't. Some birther would infer that Obama was born on the moon and smuggled back on Apollo 11. PhGustaf (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Another issue is that this a an article about Obama the person and so far this has not appeared to have any impact on him personally (ie he lost the 2008 general election over it, was removed from office, was the topic of major speeches by Obama). Granted if something happens at a later date due to this issue like it causes him to lose in 2012 and we have reliable sources that make connection we can reconsider at that point but for the time being it does not need to be mentioned here.--76.66.187.132 (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Reply