Jump to content

Talk:Barack Obama

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GVU (talk | contribs) at 14:45, 9 October 2009 (→‎Controversial award). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Click to manually purge the article's cache

Template:Community article probation

Featured articleBarack Obama is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 4, 2008.
In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 12, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
August 18, 2004Today's featured articleMain Page
January 23, 2007Featured article reviewKept
July 26, 2007Featured article reviewKept
April 15, 2008Featured article reviewKept
September 16, 2008Featured article reviewKept
November 4, 2008Today's featured articleMain Page
December 2, 2008Featured article reviewKept
March 10, 2009Featured article reviewKept
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on November 5, 2008.
Current status: Featured article

Ethnicity in first sentence

Per MOS:BIO, Obama's ethnicity does not belong in the introductory sentence. This has been discussed before, for instance here, where it was decided that discussing his ethnicity after the introductory sentence was better. The most recent FA version doesn't contain it in the first sentence.--Cúchullain t/c 20:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[4]

Read it again: "Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." I think being the first ethnic-minority president is very notable. It would be the same if Hilary won the presidency (God help us). Sceptre (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your comment. However, I respectfully note that the parenthetical clause in your comment, "It would be the same if Hilary won the presidency (God help us).", does not add to the discussion of the article (i.e., WP:NOTAFORUM). Regards, and thanks, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was jokingly referring to Hilary's reputation among comedians for henpecking her husband, not for any real reason. Sceptre (talk) 00:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree (not about the Hilary thing), which is why I reverted the change the first time. Tad Lincoln (talk) 23:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously Obama's ethnicity is notable and should be included in the lede. It is currently in the very next sentence, (as it was from at least the time of the above-linked discussion last December until recently). But to be included in the very first sentence, as if being the "black President" was equally important as being president in the first place, is overreaching, and I would think somewhat patronizing. Almost no other article on a U.S. president says anything other than the fact that they were president and when they served. JFK is not listed as the "35 president of the United States, and the first Catholic elected to the office", though this was also very groundbreaking.--Cúchullain t/c 13:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
JFK is not listed as the "...the first Catholic elected to the office". I agree that this is very important, and think that the article should be updated to note this. --4wajzkd02 (talk)
No, I removed the reference to Kennedy's religion (which is the same as mine) as being inappropriate for the lead; a subsequent editor restored it in a more subtle, more suitable way. This article should follow the example of the JFK article. Radiopathy •talk• 18:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The JFK article lede says "Kennedy is the first and only Catholic president,". --4wajzkd02 (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) This is what it said before I deleted it; even at that, it's not in the first paragraph of the lead, and I still don't believe it belongs in the lead at all.

In all fairness, if you go back a few months in this article, you'll see that some attempt was made to work in Obama's ethnicity without the blatant undue weigh in this version, for example. Radiopathy •talk• 20:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't view the placement of text within the lede (1st paragraph vs. a subsequent one) as being significant. The text in both articles seems fine to me. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2009 ( UTC)
4wajzkd02, the issue here is not whether Obama's ethnicity belongs in the lede, the issue is whether it belongs in the first sentence. I think most everyone can agree it should be mentioned in the lede, but not everyone agrees it should go in the first sentence, so discussing it later in the lede is a good compromise.--Cúchullain t/c 12:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the issue. I think the "the first sentence" of the lede versus "later in the lede" is a difference without a distinction, and a waste of time and resources. Discuss away, however. I've provided my point of view. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that his ethnicity belongs in the lead at all, because it's covered accurately in the body of the article. However, since it looks like it's going to stay, it should be moved down a bit in accordance with it's importance: name, birth, attainment of Presidency should all go in first paragraph; his ethnicity - a secondary, cultural characteristic - can be covered later in the lead, if at all. Radiopathy •talk• 16:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sources tend to indicate that his being African-American, and the fact of his being the first, are of great (one could say monumental) importance in American politics. It's not really a question of whether one agrees or not. In a perfect world it would not be a big deal, and people would see him simply as the President... or could mention race as an interesting cultural characteristic like being left-handed or a basketball fan. But the world is not perfect, and his being the first black president of America represents a historical shift in race relations. Perhaps ten years from now societal mores will change and it will not figure so prominently. Wikipedia as an encyclopedia is a product of its times, and inasmuch as it draws on sources with cultural biases, it is a product of the various cultures that produce the sources it cites. It's not practical to try to achieve objectivity through logical analysis - that's also a form of bias. Wikidemon (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps FAQ Q2 can be updated when this discussion is closed. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 17:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I don't have a personal opinion exactly where in the lede Obama's race should first be mentioned, I suggest no major change to the FAQ or lede at this time. The FAQ reflects a stable consensus reached among dozens and probably hundreds of editors over the course of a couple years of editing. Nothing has changed since the last few times we had that discussion, although I think it's entirely possible that his race will become a less prominent issue in current politics and in hindsight once people grow accustomed to the fact and as he generates a longer trail of actions and issues as president. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it' been moved to the end of the lede, which I'm okay with too. Either way is fine. I cleaned it up a bit to remove extra wording - "the first president" doesn't need to be repeated, "hail from" is informal, "of African American descent" should simply be African American. I've also taken the liberty of removing the true and important, but relatively less important, factoid, that he was the first major party AA nominee. There were so many firsts that came so quickly - first viable candidate, first to win any primaries, etc., which are all overshadowed so quickly by the one that really matters, that he was elected and then inaugurated as president. I think that one mention is enough. Wikidemon (talk) 05:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to a few footnotes

One of the problems with articles such as this is that the need to cite everything makes the main page a mess. There's a new citation option (see WP:LDR) which allows the bulk of the referencing to be done in the referencing section. In addition, I've found that one can include multiple citations in a single footnote, thereby reducing the need for consecutive footnotes int he main text.

I've tried this in two instance, first the three citations in the first cited paragraph referencing Kansas. Formerly footnotes 8,9,and 10, it is now one footnote with three citations.

Second, in the state legislator section, I looked at the footnotes relating to the primary vote, formerly two separate footnotes with a total of seven citations, and made it into a single footnote.

Before, the main text included this mess:

original citations for one point

<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/ilh.htm |title=Federal Elections 2000: U.S. House Results - Illinois |publisher=[[Federal Election Commission]] |accessdate=April 24, 2008}}. See also: {{cite web|url=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14502364|title=Obama's Loss May Have Aided White House Bid}} and {{cite news |first=Janny |last=Scott |title=A Streetwise Veteran Schooled Young Obama |date=September 9, 2007 |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/us/politics/09obama.html |work=The New York Times |accessdate=April 20, 2008}}</ref><ref name=McClelland20070212>{{cite news |first=Edward |last=McClelland |title=How Obama Learned to Be a Natural |date=February 12, 2007 |url=http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/02/12/obama_natural/ |work=Salon |accessdate=April 20, 2008}} See also: {{cite news |first=Richard |last=Wolffe |coauthors=Daren Briscoe |title=Across the Divide |date=July 16, 2007 |work=MSNBC |url=http://www.newsweek.com/id/33156 |work=Newsweek |accessdate=April 20, 2008}} {{cite news |first=Scott |last=Helman |title=Early Defeat Launched a Rapid Political Climb |date=October 12, 2007 |url=http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/12/early_defeat_launched_a_rapid_political_climb/ |work=Boston Globe |accessdate=April 20, 2008}} and {{cite news|url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-10-24-3157940059_x.htm 24, 2007-3157940059_x.htm|title=Obama learned from failed Congress run |work=USA Today |author=Wills, Christopher|date=October 24, 2007 |accessdate=September 20, 2008}}</ref>

While it now contains: <ref name="Democratic primary">

Much easier to read.

Let me know if you have objections to the approach.

One downside is that I don't see an obvious way to combine unnamed refs with named refs in a single footnote, so I won't attempt to do that.--SPhilbrickT 19:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell are you doing constructively contributing to the article and then collegially explaining your edits on the talk page here?! Can't you see that's not the way people do things around here?!
Just kidding. It's refreshing to find a new editor arriving with something well thought-out that makes everybody's work easier. It seems like your changes will make it infinitely easier to view a section of readable text in the edit window and to scan for the text you mean to be editing. As for me, I welcome you to continue these edits and I thank you. Abrazame (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response, and sorry about not fitting in with the usual climate :) I'll try to tackle a few other examples over the next few days—it makes a modest improvement to the viewing experience for readers, but a meaningful improvement for editors. It's a challenge finding the text in the sea of reference material. (Not a bad thing, the usual articles I patrol are sorely needing of more references).--SPhilbrickT 12:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<- So far, I've moved 18K of reference material out of the main text and in to the reference section, making it a little easier to wade through the material. Will continue, think I've done it all OK, but let me know if you see any mistakes.

So far everything looks good. As these changes are not controversial and are not really removing important refs you won't see a problem here. The main issue that the edit wars happen here are over controversial and/or POV editing. Your stuff is actually improving the article while keeping the content the same. Good stuff and keep it up. Brothejr (talk) 20:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK done first pass.
  • 250 footnotes reduced to 211 (no citations removed)
  • 26K of footnote material moved out of the main text into the reference area, making the main text easier to navigate.
There still are some assertions with multiple footnotes, but these are footnotes used more than once, so I don't see how to easily reduce the number of footnotes showing in the text.
It is also possible to take the single footnotes and convert to the new style, which will also move more material out of the main text and into the reference section, but there is less "bang for the buck" compared to the multiple cited footnotes, although I note some "single footnotes" have multiple citations, so they may be worth tackling. Perhaps later, now I'll take a bit of a break.--SPhilbrickT 01:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abject humiliation

Closing this per WP:NOT#OR and WP:SOAP
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Why deny his communist thinking? We should embrace it. Communism means that everyone is equal and that everyone is wealthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.131.112 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Spoken Word on this article.

The spoken word audio on this article is out-dated and phrased back to when Obama was still running for Presidency, last year. I suggest we take the audio off until someone makes a new one. Thanks. --A3RO (mailbox) 14:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should create an "audio tzar" to take care of that pronto.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add "first green president"?

Add "first green president"? http://knowledge.allianz.com/en/media/galleries/obama_green_policies.html unsigned comment by 99.155.155.17 (talk) 06:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No objective way of measuring same, so no.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is not exactly a neutral, reliable source, and I could probably find more (and better quality) sources referring to Teddy Roosevelt as the first "green" POTUS. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 11:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obama failed his presentation for olympic games

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/02/olympics.2016/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.46.13 (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, too bad for people who were hoping the Olympics would be in Chicago; good news for sports fans in Brazil! Although sourceable and noteworthy I don't think the President's unsuccessful stumping for the Olympics is a significant enough event to add to this article, which focuses on his entire life. It might belong somewhere else in the encyclopedia though. Wikidemon (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At very least, I assume it should be/is mentioned in articles about the 2016 Olympics themselves. But indeed, per Wikidemon, this is not anything close to a major life event for Obama, and this isn't the article for it. LotLE×talk 20:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
`Completely agree. Tvoz/talk 19:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been, very successfully I might add, been downsized to just the nuts and bolts. Bravo. Yet there seems to be a growing number of articles that seem to mention Obama, whenever possible. Even when the connection is not notable.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent our plan is working!!! muhahah, the world will only know of obamas political gains and not his losses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.227.59.134 (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No matter how you twist it, the Olympics is not a political loss. Grsz11 21:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But, folks, I'd ask you to reconsider the notability quotient by answering the question of how many times before has a president traveled on Air Force One half way around the world to directly address the IOC immediately before the selection? Surely that helps to make this as notable as a speech regarding Islamic-American relations? QueenofBattle (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now lets remove the politics from this topic for a moment. If you remove the political implications, innuendos, and hyper-partisanship you will find that there is not much here other then he went to the IOC to make a bid for the games along with the national leaders of the other three bidding cities and the Chicago bid was not the one that won. The best would be a mention in the page written for the Chicago bid or some related page, not in this summary style article. Brothejr (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Friends in college

Closing this per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Why is there no mention of how he befriended blacks, chicanos, marxist professors, feminist and punk rockers.[5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Asfukzenski (talk • contribs) 18:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Racial makeup of friends is not notable, as for his Marxist proffesors, all college students kiss teacher ass. Everyone does it so again, not notable. Noting that he had women (feminist) friends isnt notable, it wasnt an all male college. As for Punk Rockers, I had no clue he befriended punk rockers, my guess though, It wouldve been The Dead Kennedys. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but that whole argument is based on your own personal analysis. John Asfukzenski (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all John, everything you've said appears to be original research. Second of all, someone's friends in college, unless their was a particularly close relationship with a high-profile person, are non-notable. Also, please see WP:SOAP. Tad Lincoln (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


If you can deduce that my arguement was personal analysis, you know that yours was aswell, both have no place in a Wikipedia article. Glad you realize that. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joker Poster up for deletion

I nominated the image of the "Obama Joker Poster" (not the article on it) for deletion. If you are interested please check out Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 October 4.Borock (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Travels to Pakistan

Curious. In his different books he mentions travel to Pakistan during his College years and that helped him understand that part of the world. Why no mention in Wiki article? Jrcrin001 (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it's important, add it and cite it. Say why it's relevant. Be bold; it may stay, or it may end up being removed. Falconusp t c 00:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third president from Illinois . . .counting how?

The article says Obama is the third president from Illinois.

I embellished that a bit by mentioning that the first two were Lincoln and Reagan (interesting facts vis-a-vis Obama). Reagan was elected as a Californian, but was born in Illinois (Tampico). Lincoln was elected as an Illinoisan, but was born in Kentucky.

User DKqwerty removed my edit, explaining that since Lincoln wasn't born in Illinois, he shouldn't be considered as being a president from Illinois. Yeah, OK. Ahem - Obama was born in Hawaii - why is the article saying that HE is a president from Illinois then? Further - Lincoln, like Obama, was a US Senator from Illinois when he was elected!

Since there have been no presidents both born in Illinois and elected out of Illinois, maybe there has been NO president from Illinois!

Given that, what does 'third president from Illinois' mean?

Manburger 486 (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, where a president is considered to be from is based on where he was elected from. Because of this, Lincoln and Obama are both considered to be from Illinois, but Reagan is actually considered to be from California. Not sure why it says that Obama is the third president from Illinois. He is generally considered to be the second. Tad Lincoln (talk) 23:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ulysses S. Grant was elected from Illinois. He lived in Galena, Illinois following the civil war. Deserted Cities (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely with Deserted Cities, Your elected from the state in which you reside. Only Grant an Obama fit this description. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 03:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I said "by that logic", as in, "I'm following your logic to its natural conclusion" not "this is my opinion". If the criteria is where the President was born, then Lincoln fails this; If the criteria is where the President was elected from, then both Grant and Reagan fail. That was my only point.
For those interested: I agree that the criteria should be from what state a President was elected, not the state of their birth. DKqwerty (talk) 03:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took the "n'th President from Illinois" line out entirely. I suggest it not be put back. It's not a big deal exactly, and leads to too many trivial squabbles. PhGustaf (talk) 03:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, Lincoln was not a Senator and, in fact, was never a Senator, at that time nor at any other time. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get an agreement not to edit war over any claim about being from Illinois, and to leave it out until there is consensus? The article was fully protected due to this squabbling, which is not really tenable. Thanks. Wikidemon (talk) 03:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, where are the FARC clowns? Grsz11 04:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Democraplypse, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Lincoln was living in Springfield, IL when he was elected. Tad Lincoln (talk) 03:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois is powerful. Else we wouldn't still have such awkward currency as Lincoln dollar notes and Lincoln pennies. Even the Canadians have gotten beyond that. My suggestion is that it's not really important whether Obama is the second or fourth President to hail from Illinois, and that it's best to just let the matter be. PhGustaf (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tad, Im sorry I forget to account for your fathers state of residency, Nevermind then, Lincoln, Grant and Obama, My bad, sorry. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 04:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Tad Lincoln (talk) 04:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So Fantastic Article

Closing this per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Soooo…… fantastic!!! A feature article from 2004!!! And Who in 2004 knowed that he would be a American President? A miracle!!! --TBG (talk) 11:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel Peace Prize winner

President Barack Obama just won the Nobel Peace Prize [6]--Josecarlos1991 (talk) 09:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's now in the lead and has its own section - though reactions to it need to be added as they come to light. SGGH ping! 09:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...he'll be asleep at the moment, wont he? SGGH ping! 09:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We will probably need an own article for reactions and other stuff related to his Nobel Peace Prize. Pantherskin (talk) 09:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it should be in the lead because it is a major honor (though I am personally incredulous) and probably the fact and a couple of pro and con reactions from major figures once they wake up. And start its own article. What about Public reaction to Barack Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize? And what are they Storting in Oslo?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stortinget (the Norwegian Parliament) appoints the Norwegian Nobel Committee, which selects the Laureate for the Peace Prize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.92.17.193 (talk) 09:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am making a pun on "snorting".--Wehwalt (talk) 09:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not disregard "public reaction" and have a main article that can contain much of the information, include the public reaction? SGGH ping! 09:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think including public reaction is a good title. Steven Walling 09:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a similar example we can model the title after? If not, maybe Award of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama would be an idea if we don't want public reaction in the title. Either way, no doubt the Birthers will be saying it is the first Kenyan to win it ...--Wehwalt (talk) 09:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Public reaction still makes more sense to me. People will naturally confuse the verb and noun use of award. I also think having it focus on the uproar which is bound to ensue due to all the controversy around him makes the article look less like a case of recentism and more like it's deserved because of his unique place in history. Steven Walling 09:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just have a 2009 Nobel Peace Prize article that can also contain information about other potential candidates, besides the public reaction, prize citation, Obama's acceptance speech, future impact etc. ? Abecedare (talk) 11:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{editprotectedarticle} The article says that he is only the second president to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. He is actually the fourth after: Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Jimmy Carter. {/editprotectedarticle} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.204.101 (talk) 09:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've tweaked the lede to "On October 9, 2009, Barack Obama became the fourth US president to win a Nobel Prize, winning the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts in international diplomacy." because I thought it flowed better. Hope that's alright with people. Ironholds (talk) 10:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The language is fine, but please don't add a fifth paragraph, this is a featured article and WP:LEAD SECTION limits it to four. Also, there is no need to add a reference after the statement as it is adequately covered in the body.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm well aware of the requirements for featured articles - I've written three of them. I did not add a reference to anything, nor did I add a fifth paragraph to the lede. Are you looking at the current version of the article? Ironholds (talk) 10:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be good to mention that to the person who did, then. The way this conversation is structured makes it seem to a casual observer (and indeed, me) that the comments were directed at me. Rather than posting on a talkpage the editor might not even read, would it not be better to a) find out who did it specifically and b) talk to them? Ironholds (talk) 10:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • By that argument, your comment about tweaking the lede was directed at the IP who was talking about the number of presidents who have won the prize. I think more eyes are likely to see it here than on some editor's talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly not. My comment was started with a bullet point. Yours was a *: after my *, which is commonly used to denote a "thread" - see the format we're using right at this moment? Your intent, I assume, was to indicate to the editor that this sort of thing violates the MOS. If that's the case then "more eyes" isn't important since none of them belong to to the person who made the edit, and a talkpage post would be far more logical. Ironholds (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. Your personal feelings aside, "more eyes" is a good idea. Had Wehwalt's comment been hidden on an individual user's talk page, I (and others, I assume) would not have learned about WP:LEAD. For that matter, had you not taken offense, I wouldn't have learned about the convention (which I consider counter-intuitive, but I bow to your greater, duly cited experience) that a bullet indented under another bullet is taken as a direct reply, but a bullet indented under a non-bulleted paragraph is not. That's useful info. sharpner (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wording needs some tweaking, but I have gone ahead and reduced the Nobel sentence in the lead - having the exact date and all the info about other winners is really too much for a lead already filled with essential info. Joshdboz (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Most political experts agree that Obama is likely to win all the peace prizes for the years 2009-2017." are there any sources for this? it seems highly unlikely —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.227.89.35 (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already removed as vandalism. Regards SoWhy 13:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Nobel Peace Prize

I created this article a short while back and it is already seeing Obama related vandalism. Would help if more people added it to their watchlist and also helped edit/expand it. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 12:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice succinct title compared to some other possibilities. Joshdboz (talk) 13:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But do we need a separate article for it? We never had any for any other years, so it should rather be integrated into this article, shouldn't it? Regards SoWhy 13:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may be brought to AfD, but there's much too much info to squeeze it all into this already packed article. Even the current section is likely too much (after all, we've still got 3-7 years of presidency to go, plus post-presidency). Joshdboz (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How much more can be said other than "he won, 4th president to do so, here's why" ? This is a singular news event, which is why wikinews exists, IMO. Tarc (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial award

I can't edit it. This is a BLP. That uncited stuff about it being "controversial" in Norway needs to be removed immediately.

No, it needs to be mentioned that the award is controversial because it is highly controversial. This has nothing to do with BLP at all. The controversy is thouroughly cited in the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize article, with the leaders of the two main opposition parties as well as other parties criticizing the award, which is highly unusual. The award has also been the subject of criticism abroad[7]. Only mentioning the praise and not the criticism would be a violation of WP:NPOV, our core policy which every article must adhere to. GVU (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One Norwegian politician and the OpEd of a newspaper do not a controversy make. Tarc (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not one politician. Here's Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125509603349176083.html GVU (talk) 14:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its the head of the opposition party. Is the head of one political party criticizing their opponents newsworthy? Didn't think so. Tarc (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GVU: You've posted an editorial, a non-English source, and a Wall Street Journal article (the WSJ is owned by News Corp., whose CEO is Rupert Murdoch); see WP:COI. Please source with something more substantial than references which violate various Wikipedia policies. DKqwerty (talk) 14:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a "controversial" award; Obama has done a lot to bring the world together. This is a BLP; adding inappropriate and controversial statements to the bio is not acceptable. AdjustShift (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Obama has done a lot to bring the world together" – please, get yourself a blog. This is an encyclopedia and your edits are totally unsuitable for this article. It is a controversial award because it has been widely criticized. GVU (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's at least worthy of note that the award was met with "surprise" by Nobel observers, as he was nominated only two weeks into his presidency. That's the way it's being described on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News. Supporter of Obama or not, there is no question that it is a controversial award: the top five articles on CNN right now are all discussing whether or not he deserves it in the first place. »S0CO(talk|contribs) 14:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my point. GVU (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skepticism greet Obama's Nobel Peace Prize

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/09/obama.nobel.international.reaction/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.243.248 (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&oldid=318875827"