Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:51, 7 December 2009

Click to manually purge the article's cache

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Barack Obama article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

Template:Community article probation

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

faq page Frequently asked questions To view the response to a question, click the link to the right of the question. Family and religious background Q1: Why isn't Barack Obama's Muslim heritage or education included in this article? A1: Barack Obama was never a practitioner of Islam. His biological father having been "raised as a Muslim" but being a "confirmed atheist" by the time Obama was born is mentioned in the article. Please see this article on Snopes.com for a fairly in-depth debunking of the myth that Obama is Muslim. Barack Obama did not attend an Islamic or Muslim school while living in Indonesia age 6–10, but Roman Catholic and secular public schools. See , , The sub-articles Public image of Barack Obama and Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories address this issue. Q2: The article refers to him as African American, but his mother is white and his black father was not an American. Should he be called African American, or something else ("biracial", "mixed", "Kenyan-American", "mulatto", "quadroon", etc.)? A2: Obama himself and the media identify him, the vast majority of the time, as African American or black. African American is primarily defined as "citizens or residents of the United States who have origins in any of the black populations of Africa", a statement that accurately describes Obama and does not preclude or negate origins in the white populations of America as well. Thus we use the term African American in the introduction, and address the specifics of his parentage in the first headed section of the article. Many individuals who identify as black have varieties of ancestors from many countries who may identify with other racial or ethnic groups. See our article on race for more information on this concept. We could call him the first "biracial" candidate or the first "half black half white" candidate or the first candidate with a parent born in Africa, but Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source which reports what other reliable sources say, and most of those other sources say "first African American". Readers will learn more detail about his ethnic background in the article body. Q3: Why can't we use his full name outside of the lead? It's his name, isn't it? A3: The relevant part of the Manual of Style says that outside the lead of an article on a person, that person's conventional name is the only one that's appropriate. (Thus one use of "Richard Milhous Nixon" in the lead of Richard Nixon, "Richard Nixon" thereafter.) Talk page consensus has also established this. Q4: Why is Obama referred to as "Barack Hussein Obama II" in the lead sentence rather than "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr."? Isn't "Jr." more common? A4: Although "Jr." is typically used when a child shares the name of his or her parent, "II" is considered acceptable, as well. And in Obama's case, the usage on his birth certificate is indeed "II", and is thus the form used at the beginning of this article, per manual of style guidelines on names. Q5: Why don't we cover the claims that Obama is not a United States citizen, his birth certificate was forged, he was not born in Hawaii, he is ineligible to be President, etc? A5: The Barack Obama article consists of an overview of major issues in the life and times of the subject. The controversy over his eligibility, citizenship, birth certificate etc is currently a fairly minor issue in overall terms, and has had no significant legal or mainstream political impact. It is therefore not currently appropriate for inclusion in an overview article. These claims are covered separately in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Controversies, praise, and criticism Q6: Why isn't there a criticisms/controversies section? A6: Because a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praise and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article, per the Criticism essay. Q7: Why isn't a certain controversy/criticism/praise included in this article? A7: Misplaced Pages's Biography of living persons policy says that "riticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." Criticism or praise that cannot be reliably sourced cannot be placed in a biography. Also, including everything about Obama in a single article would exceed Misplaced Pages's article size restrictions. A number of sub-articles have been created and some controversies/criticisms/praises have been summarized here or been left out of this article altogether, but are covered in some detail in the sub-articles. Q8: But this controversy/criticism/praise is all over the news right now! It should be covered in detail in the main article, not buried in a sub-article! A8: Misplaced Pages articles should avoid giving undue weight to something just because it is in the news right now. If you feel that the criticism/controversy/praise is not being given enough weight in this article, you can try to start a discussion on the talk page about giving it more. See WP:BRD. Q9: This article needs much more (or much less) criticism/controversy. A9: Please try to assume good faith. Like all articles on Misplaced Pages, this article is a work in progress so it is possible for biases to exist at any point in time. If you see a bias that you wish to address, you are more than welcome to start a new discussion, or join in an existing discussion, but please be ready to provide sources to support your viewpoint and try to keep your comments civil. Starting off your discussion by accusing the editors of this article of having a bias is the quickest way to get your comment ignored. Talk and article mechanics Q10: This article is over 275kb long, and the article size guideline says that it should be broken up into sub-articles. Why hasn't this happened? A10: The restriction mentioned in WP:SIZE is 60kB of readable prose, not the byte count you see when you open the page for editing. As of May 11, 2016, this article had about 10,570 words of readable prose (65 kB according to prosesize tool), only slightly above the guideline. The rest is mainly citations and invisible comments, which do not count towards the limit. Q11: I notice this FAQ mentions starting discussions or joining in on existing discussions a lot. If Misplaced Pages is supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, shouldn't I just be bold and fix any biases that I see in the article? A11: It is true that Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and no one needs the permission of other editors of this article to make changes to it. But Misplaced Pages policy is that, "While the consensus process does not require posting to the discussion page, it can be useful and is encouraged." This article attracts editors that have very strong opinions about Obama (positive and negative) and these editors have different opinions about what should and should not be in the article, including differences as to appropriate level of detail. As a result of this it may be helpful, as a way to avoid content disputes, to seek consensus before adding contentious material to or removing it from the article. Q12: The article/talk page has been vandalized! Why hasn't anyone fixed this? A12: Many editors watch this article, and it is unlikely that vandalism would remain unnoticed for long. It is possible that you are viewing a cached result of the article; If so, try bypassing your cache. Disruption Q13: Why are so many discussions closed so quickly? A13: Swift closure is common for topics that have already been discussed repeatedly, topics pushing fringe theories, and topics that would lead to violations of Misplaced Pages's policy concerning biographies of living persons, because of their disruptive nature and the unlikelihood that consensus to include the material will arise from the new discussion. In those cases, editors are encouraged to read this FAQ for examples of such common topics. Q14: I added new content to the article, but it was removed! A14: Double-check that your content addition is not sourced to an opinion blog, editorial, or non-mainstream news source. Misplaced Pages's policy on biographies of living persons states, in part, "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims." Sources of information must be of a very high quality for biographies. While this does not result in an outright ban of all blogs and opinion pieces, most of them are regarded as questionable. Inflammatory or potentially libelous content cited to a questionable source will be removed immediately without discussion. Q15: I disagree with the policies and content guidelines that prevent my proposed content from being added to the article. A15: That's understandable. Misplaced Pages is a work in progress. If you do not approve of a policy cited in the removal of content, it's possible to change it. Making cogent, logical arguments on the policy's talk page is likely to result in a positive alteration. This is highly encouraged. However, this talk page is not the appropriate place to dispute the wording used in policies and guidelines. If you disagree with the interpretation of a policy or guideline, there is also recourse: Dispute resolution. Using the dispute resolution process prevents edit wars, and is encouraged. Q16: I saw someone start a discussion on a topic raised by a blog/opinion piece, and it was reverted! A16: Unfortunately, due to its high profile, this talk page sees a lot of attempts to argue for policy- and guideline-violating content – sometimes the same violations many times a day. These are regarded as disruptive, as outlined above. Consensus can change; material previously determined to be unacceptable may become acceptable. But it becomes disruptive and exhausting when single-purpose accounts raise the same subject(s) repeatedly in the apparent hopes of overcoming significant objections by other editors. Editors have reached a consensus for dealing with this behavior: Efforts by established single-purpose accounts to introduce such poorly-sourced content will be summarily deleted. On the second such attempt, the source in question will be immediately reported to the reliable sources noticeboard for administrative assistance. New editors who wish to engage in discussions on previously rejected content are encouraged to ensure that their sources do not violate any of Misplaced Pages's policies and sourcing guidelines. Other Q17: Why aren't the 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns covered in more detail? A17: They are, in sub-articles called Barack Obama 2008 presidential campaign and Barack Obama 2012 presidential campaign. Things that are notable in the context of the presidential campaigns, but are of minimal notability to Barack Obama's overall biography, belong in the sub-articles. Campaign stops, the presidential debates, and the back-and-forth accusations and claims of the campaigns can all be found there.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance). Template:USP-Article United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections. Barack Obama (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Barack ObamaWikipedia:WikiProject Barack ObamaTemplate:WikiProject Barack ObamaBarack Obama Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. U.S. Congress High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) person(s). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Illinois High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Hawaii Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaii, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hawaii on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HawaiiWikipedia:WikiProject HawaiiTemplate:WikiProject HawaiiHawaii Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Kansas Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Kansas on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KansasWikipedia:WikiProject KansasTemplate:WikiProject KansasKansas Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Chicago Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Columbia University Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Indonesia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Africa: Kenya Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Kenya (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. African diaspora Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Spoken Misplaced Pages This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages Template:WPCD-People

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Jose Antonio Vargas (August 17, 2009). "The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph. Alison Stewart, Rachel Martin (2008-04-03). "'Round the Clock: Obama, Clinton Wiki-Warfare". The Bryant Park Project, NPR. Brooke Gladstone, Bob Garfield (2008-04-04). "Editors in Chief". On The Media, NPR. Eve Fairbanks (2008-04-09). "Wiki Woman". The New Republic. Jesse Brown (2008-04-10). "Hillary's Wiki Defender". Search Engine, CBC Radio One. Tom Foreman (2008-04-11). "Misplaced Pages Wars". This Week..., CNN. John J. Miller (2008-04-21). "Liberal Web". National Review. Kelly Heyboer (2008-05-28). "Clinton's entry in Misplaced Pages has a watchdog". The Star-Ledger. Paul Murnane (2008-05-28). "NJ Man Appoints Himself Misplaced Pages Watchdog". WCBS Newsradio 880. Noam Cohen (2008-11-09). "Updating a Reference Site on the Fly". The New York Times. Adrian Bridgwater (January 22, 2009). "Obama Misplaced Pages page under possible security attack". ZDNet. Aaron Klein (March 8, 2009). "Misplaced Pages scrubs Obama eligibility". WorldNetDaily. Joshua Rhett Miller (March 9, 2009). "Obama's Misplaced Pages Page Distances President from Wright and Ayers". Fox News Channel. Mark Coleman (March 10, 2009). "Barack Obama 'receives preferential treatment on Misplaced Pages', report claims". The Daily Telegraph. Noam Cohen (July 19, 2009). "Misplaced Pages May Be a Font of Facts, but It's a Desert for Photos". The New York Times.

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

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84

Special discussion pages Article probation, Incidents Historical diffs, Weight, Race

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 7 sections are present.

RFC: The Use of slang or informal language in a featured article.

I have started this RFC to avoid the back and forth editing over the use of the phrase "Rising star" in the article. The issue, as I see it, depends on two conflicting ideas, and I am not sure what the appropriate way to handle this is. Here, from my take, are the two ideas that are the source of the conflict:

• Misplaced Pages:Featured article criteria mandates that a featured article is "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard."
• It is also important that Misplaced Pages article faithfully represent the information in the source material they cite.

So here is the crux of the problem. The source article, which is from a reliable source, uses the phrase "rising star". The idea that is trying to be expressed here is not under dispute. He was clearly a "rising star" in the sense of having a meteoric rise in popularity and importance due to his democratic senate primary win in 2004. The fact that such a rise in popularity and importance occured is not under dispute at all. Such an occurance is well documented in reliable source, and as such, it should most certainly have a prominent place in the article. The fact is a very important one, and should not be minimized or marginalized in any way. The problem is that the term "rising star" is slang, it does not represent writing which is "brilliant, and of a professional standard" as should be expected of an encylopedia article. The source material uses the phrase, but there must be some way that we can capture the concept while using language which is appropriate to the encyclopedic nature of this article. This RFC is intentionally being narrowly defined as how to deal with the phrase "rising star" from linguistic point of view. This is not an open debate over Obama's politics or importance or anything else. I just want to know how should we faithfully represent the source material without resorting to using the same slang that the source material uses. --Jayron32 20:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Put it in quotes "rising star" to indicate it is the wording of the source, and not a product of the article prose/style? Tarc (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a novel idea, but rather self-evident once you put it like that. What about taking it a step further. Why not do something like this:

"His landslide win in the Democratic Party primary during the 2004 Illinois Senate race, caused USA Today to call him a "rising star" in the Democratic Party."

Such phrasing would maintain the integrity of the source material, but also make it clear that Misplaced Pages is repeating the use of slang in another source; such direct quoting would seem to be a reasonable solution to the problem, since it attributes the informal tone to the source material, rather than leaving it as part of the article. That seems a very reasonable solution. I think as long as we both directly quote the phrase, and directly name the source in the article, it solves the problem. What does anyone else think? --Jayron32 21:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That makes to much sense and would end this matter. Where is the drama in that :) j/k. Nice logical suggestion :) --Tom (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion. QueenofBattle (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. Well done. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, sounds good. Grsz 21:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, looks good and keeps to the source. Brothejr (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If the informal phrase "rising star" is used, it should be used as a direct quote to a source. However, I would prefer to avoid the informality of that term altogether, and provide a more encyclopedic wording of the same concept. There are occasionally catch phrases that become closely identified with a biographical subject, and are used by many sources. For example, Reagan as "the Teflon president" might ascend to this, or "Friend of Bill " might. Both of those are informal, but have become almost tropes, and might be mentioned as such. The term "rising star" is used much more generically, with little specific affinity to Obama; he has been described that way in many sources, but many other politicians have also been so described. Hence there is no special reason to insist on the informality for this article. LotLE×talk 22:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This RfC—based on Jayron32's unsubstantiated personal opinion that "rising star" is "slang"—is unfounded. The proposal to use scare quotes and attribute the description "rising star" to only a March 18, 2004 USA Today article—one of multiple, authoritative, cited sources for the description—is unneeded, inappropriate and unacceptable. Newross (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Rising star

1. Jayron32's October 21, 2009 edit removing this sentence added to the lede six months ago by QueenofBattle:

   His prime-time televised keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004 made him a rising star nationally in the Democratic Party.

   is an improvement in accuracy—his U.S. Senate primary election landslide victory in March 2004 made him a rising star nationally in the Democratic Party; being a rising star nationally in the Democratic Party led to his selection to give the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004.
2. Unitanode's October 21, 2009 edit removing "as a star" from this 2004 U.S. Senate campaign subsection sentence revised eight months ago by Happyme22:

   a combined 9.1 million viewers saw Obama's speech, which was a highlight of the convention and elevated his status as a star in the Democratic Party.

   left it three words shorter.
3. Unitanode's October 21, 2009 edit removing "rising star" from this 2004 U.S. Senate campaign subsection sentence revised seven months ago by me (Newross):

   In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won an unexpected landslide victory with 53% of the vote in a seven-candidate field, 29% ahead of his nearest Democratic rival, which overnight made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party and started speculation about a presidential future.

   and rewriting it to say:

   In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won an unexpected landslide victory with 53% of the vote in a seven-candidate field, 29% ahead of his nearest Democratic rival, which raised his prominence within in the national Democratic Party almost overnight, and started speculation about a presidential future.

   left it awkward, inaccurate and unfaithful to the cited sources.

The noun "rising star" is:

• not a WP:Peacock term, as claimed by Jayron32 and Unitanode
• not Way too biased, as claimed by 67.60.50.5
• not slang, as claimed with no substantiation by Jayron32 using silly comparisons to actual slang phrases like "cool dude" and "the bitchinest cat on the block"
• not a colloquialism or "informal English", as claimed with no substantiation by Jayron32
• not found in reference works like:

  Cassell's dictionary of slang
  Informal English : puncture ladies, egg harbors, Mississippi marbles, and other curious words and phrases
  McGraw-Hill's dictionary of American slang and colloquial expressions
  NTC's dictionary of American slang and colloquial expressions
  The Oxford dictionary of modern slang
  The concise new Partridge dictionary of slang and unconventional English
  Slang! : the topical dictionary of Americanisms
  Stone the crows : Oxford dictionary of modern slang
  etc.

• according to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 242 years old and defined as:

  a person or thing that is growing quickly in popularity or importance in a particular field <a rising star in politics>

• used in professionally written newspaper news articles over the last quarter century about the selection of these Democratic and Republican National Convention keynote speakers:

  Mario Cuomo (1984), Ann Richards (1988), Thomas Kean (1988), Bill Bradley (1992), Phil Gramm (1992), Evan Bayh (1996), Susan Molinari (1996), Harold Ford, Jr. (2000), Barack Obama (2004), Mark Warner (2008).

• used in professionally written Encyclopædia Britannica articles about:

  politicians Eric Cantor, Brian Joseph Lenihan, Peter Mandelson, George Osborne, Najib Abdul Razak
  physicist Enrico Fermi
  History of Central Asia - The Middle Ages - The Mongol epoch - Mongol rule (Timur)
  Japan - Domestic Affairs (Book of the Year 2001)
  The U.S. 2002 Midterm Elections (Book of the Year 2002)
  Germany - Government and Politics (Book of the Year 2003)
  The U.S. Election of 2004 (Book of the Year 2004)
  etc.

The noun "star" is:

• according to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, over eight centuries old and defined as:

  5a : the principal member of a theatrical or operatic company who usually plays the chief roles
  5b : a highly publicized theatrical or motion-picture performer
  5c : an outstandingly talented performer <a track star>
  5d : a person who is preeminent in a particular field

• used once in the professionally written Encyclopædia Britannica article about Barack Obama

  (which is one-fourth the length of this amateurishly written Misplaced Pages article about Barack Obama)

These U.S. and international newspaper, newsmagazine, news service, and television and radio news networks reported that Barack Obama was a "rising star" in the national Democratic Party after his March 17, 2004 U.S. Senate primary election landslide victory and before his July 27, 2004 Democratic National Convention keynote address:

1. The Boston Globe
2. Chicago Sun-Times
3. Chicago Tribune
4. Christian Science Monitor
5. Daily Herald (Arlington Heights)
6. International Herald Tribune
7. The New York Times
8. Newsweek
9. Peoria Journal Star
10. The Philadelphia Inquirer
11. South Florida Sun-Sentinel
12. St. Petersburg Times
13. USA Today
14. The Wall Street Journal
15. The Washington Post
16. The Washington Times
17. Daily Nation
18. The Globe and Mail
19. The Independent
20. Associated Press
21. Newhouse News Service
22. ABC News
23. CBS News
24. NBC News
25. CNN
26. MSNBC
27. PBS
28. NPR
    etc.

in professionally written news articles such as:

1. Tilove, Jonathan (Newhouse News Service) (March 18, 2004). "Barack Obama: black Senate candidate a rising star." Mobile Register, p. A6.
2. Howlett, Debbie (March 18, 2004). "Dems see a rising star in Illinois Senate candidate". USA Today.
3. Harwood, John. (March 31, 2004). "Presidential politics overshadows rise of state-level stars." The Wall Street Journal, p. A4.
4. Romano, Lois (April 10, 2004). "Kerry sprinkles jobs message with attacks on Iraq policy." The Washington Post, p. A4.
5. Fornek, Scott (April 12, 2004). "Obama's poll puts him far ahead of Ryan." Chicago Sun-Times, p. 7.
6. Kelley, Kevin (April 13, 2004). "Obama ahead in US Senate race." Daily Nation.
7. Kuhnhenn, James (May 24, 2004). "With seven retirements, control of Senate is at stake in election." The Philadelphia Inquirer, p. A02.
8. Kinzer, Stephen (June 26, 2004). "Candidate, under pressure, quits Senate race in Illinois." 'The New York Times, p. A8.
9. Schoenburg, Bernard (June 26, 2004). "Ryan quits Senate race; state GOP braces for a tough fight against popular Democrat." Peoria Journal Star, p. A1.
10. Mendell, David (July 7, 2004). "Fundraising has set record, Obama says; $4 million raked in in the last quarter." Chicago Tribune, p. 1 (Metro).
11. Healy, Patrick (July 13, 2004). "Kerry hones campaign themes; with the big event two weeks away, picks up pace, cash." The Boston Globe, p. A3.
12. Sweet, Lynn (July 14, 2004). "Dems plan to showcase Obama, Reagan." Chicago Sun-Times, p. 26.
13. Zuckerman, Jill; Mendell, David (July 15, 2004). "Obama to give keynote address." Chicago Tribune, p. 1.
14. Krol, Eric (July 15, 2004). "Convention spotlight to shine on Obama." Daily Herald (Arlington Heights), p. 15
15. Gibson, William E. (July 18, 2004). "Parties prep for prime time, but networks cut coverage of conventions." South Florida Sun-Sentinel, p. 1A.
16. Miller, Steve (July 21, 2004). "Ryan hangs on to Illinois ballot; delay in withdrawal worries GOP, blocks new candidates." The Washington Times, p. A04.
17. Lannan, Maura Kelley (Associated Press) (July 22, 2004). "Times get tougher for Ill. GOP; in the land of Lincoln, one Senate candidate dropped out, and replacements aren't jumping in." The Philadelphia Inquirer, p. A03.
18. Wills, Christopher (Associated Press) (July 25, 2004). "Ready to take his place on national stage; Democrats' rising star will give speech at convention." The Herald-Sun (Durham, North Carolina), p. A5.
19. Zeller Jr., Tom; Truslow, Hugh K. (July 25, 2004). "Democrats, lend me your ears." The New York Times, p. 12 (Week in Review).
20. Smith, Adam C. (July 25, 2004). "The true Kerry may emerge in Boston." 'St. Petersburg Times, p. 1A.
21. Brackett, Ron (July 25, 2004). "The Parties' big parties." St. Petersburg Times, p. 10A.
22. Knowlton, Brian (July 26, 2004). "Convention themes aim for the center; Democrats in Boston." International Herald Tribune, p. 1.
23. . (August 2, 2004). "Star Power. Showtime: some are on the rise; others have long been fixtures in the firmament. A galaxy of bright Democratic lights." Newsweek, pp. 48–51.
24. Milligan, Susan (July 27, 2004). "In Obama, Democrats see their future". The Boston Globe, p. B8.
25. Paulson, Amanda (July 27, 2004). "Showcasing a coterie of new Democratic stars." Christian Science Monitor, p. 10.
26. McCarthy, Shawn (July 27, 2004). "Minorities looking for gains in battle for the presidency; support seen as critical in key states." The Globe and Mail, p. A3.
27. Cornwell, Rupert (July 27, 2004). "Democratic Convention: an unknown rookie, but can Obama be first black president?" The Independent (London), p. 5.
28. Merzer, Martin; McCaffrey, Shannon (July 27, 2004). "Looking ahead with eye on past." The Philadelphia Inquirer, p. A01.
29. Chancellor, Carl (July 27, 2004). "A rising star gets a key role tonight; Barack Obama, the keynote speaker, already has proven he can reach across societal divides and win support." The Philadelphia Inquirer, p. A10.
30. Wertheimer, Linda (July 27, 2004). "Obama to rise to stage in Boston." Morning Edition, NPR
31. Brackett, Elizabeth (July 27, 2004). "Rising star." The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, PBS
    etc.

The cited March 18, 2004 New York Times and USA Today news articles and the two chapters (pages 235–259)—about the period between Obama's March 17, 2004 landslide U.S. Senate primary election and his July 27, 2004 Democratic National Convention keynote address—in the David Mendell (author of the Encyclopædia Britannica article about Barack Obama) book Obama: From Promise to Power should be sufficient WP:Reliable sources to support this amateurishly written Misplaced Pages article's sentence:

In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won an unexpected landslide victory with 53% of the vote in a seven-candidate field, 29% ahead of his nearest Democratic rival, which overnight made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party and started speculation about a presidential future.

Newross (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

First, I don't think you are going to win any arguements here by continuing to refer to Misplaced Pages in such derogatory terms as an "amateurishly" written article. You seem to be missing the very basics of Misplaced Pages, namely that it is an encyclopedia written not by professionals, but rather by everyday folk. Also, there seems to be little need for the chronology of the sentence's edits, including identifying specific editors, as Misplaced Pages is a collaborative effort. No one owns their individual contibutions. Lastly, haven't we already reached consensus on this?? QueenofBattle (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I find this whole discussion to be incredibly shallow and unnecessary. For Christ’s sake, It’s just wording. It’s laughable.--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 21:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

1. By amateurishly-written vs. professionally-written, I meant written-by-everyday-folk vs. written-by-professional-writers.
   I did not mean to disparage the hard work of editors who have made positive contributions to this article—many of whom have been driven away by its pervasively hostile and unpleasant editing environment.
   This article meets many featured article criteria and is not poorly written, but its strength has never been criteria 1(a): that "its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard."
   My point was that an accurate, reliably sourced term that is not slang, not a colloquialism , not informal language, and is used in professionally-written Encyclopædia Britannica articles, should not be excluded from use in this written-by-everyday-folk encyclopedia article.
2. I noted when the changed sentences were last revised—6 months, 8 months, and 7 months ago—to show that the sentences had been stable.
   I noted who had last revised the changed sentences to show why they might be concerned about the changes.
   I agree that editors do not own their Misplaced Pages contributions, but it is not unreasonable for an editor who has endeavored to find the best available references and carefully word a sentence to accurately reflect those references, would take issue with casual changes to it made for bogus reasons (e.g. claiming—based on unsubstantiated personal opinion—that "rising star" is "way to biased", or a peacock term, or slang, or a colloquialism , or informal English not used in professionally-written encyclopedia articles).
3. No, we haven't already reached consensus on this.

Newross (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Very brief reply

You appeal to authority, citing David Mendell, author of the EB article on Pres. Obama, as someone who used that phrase. Yet, you fail to mention that the article he wrote doesn't actually use the phrase. Do you care to comment a to why you think that might be? We are not a news outlet, a radio talk program, or any of the other sources you cite. That these sources call him that allows us to quote them calling him that, but to call him that in an encyclopedia article seems PEACOCK-y, and not just to me. There are others here who agree that if we use the term, it needs to be in quoting a source, and even Mullen himself didn't put that in the EB article, at all. UA 20:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

1. I was appealing to evidence that ten Encyclopædia Britannica articles using the term "rising star" to describe politicians demonstrates that it is used in professionally-written encyclopedia articles and is not informal English.
2. I did not say David Mendell used the term "rising star" in his Encyclopædia Britannica article about Barack Obama; I said he used the word "star" once in his Encyclopædia Britannica article about Barack Obama.
3. I cited chapters 17, 18, and 19 (pages 235–271) from David Mendell's book Obama: From Promise to Power as one of four sources for the sentence:

   In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won an unexpected landslide victory with 53% of the vote in a seven-candidate field, 29% ahead of his nearest Democratic rival, which overnight made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party and started speculation about a presidential future.

   because it is good source and refers to "his rising star" (on page 247) and being "a rising star" (on page 268).

Newross (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be necessary to say, I concur completely with Newross on the linguistic and encyclopedic appropriateness issues. The very section we are currently writing/reading was titled "RFC: The Use of slang or informal language in a featured article". On that basis several editors weighed in with support of removing the term, and in doing so repeated or expounded on the misnomers "slang" and "informal language". Yet the term in question, rising star, is neither slang nor informal language, and this fact presumably comes as a surprise to those editors who have thus far weighed in. (Making it more surprising when someone claims a consensus has already been reached—on the basis of a collective misunderstanding that has already come to light?!) It seems to me that, at a certain point in time, the fact that Barack Obama was a "rising star" was the argument against him as much as it was the argument for him, so peacockery is an odd complaint now.

Jimmy Carter was anything but a rising star in the party in the years prior to his presidential run, with the popular response being "Jimmy who?" Richard Nixon, on the other hand, was so far from being a rising star as to be thought of as yesterday's news—"You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore". That some people are and others are not rising stars is neither an irrelevant nor a superficial aspect of their path to the White House. I don't see what the problem is with noting that here, given the plethora of reliable sources Newross points out for the term's application to Obama dating to that period of several months alone, that Obama was in fact a rising star.

Where I differ from Newross, however, is the time period for which the term is most appropriately used. Election to the state senate doesn't make you a rising star, it makes you a state senator—one of more than a thousand otherwise anonymous state senators in the country—unless you distinguish yourself otherwise and/or fate or a recognition of your potential results in other doors opening for you. Obama's true rising star period—and the one worth acknowledging in the lead—revolves around his address to the convention, beginning with the second two-thirds of the refs Newross gives, which are about him being picked to give that convention address and not actually about his state senate win—and reverberating across the country with the national press coverage and increased name recognition afterward. It was his fame (and comportment, eloquence and compelling story, etc.) in this period, and not in the pre- and post-state senate win period—that allowed for his swift progression to U.S. senator two years later and president two years after that, a rather swift and biographically quite remarkable ascendancy. (Is a singer, for example, a rising star the moment a local showcase draws the attention of a big-time agent and manager and record company, or at the moment they make their national debut?) Did dozens of local and national media and Dem party people see Obama's potential earlier? Certainly. Is that the part of Obama's rising star status that bears being singled out in the lead? I would argue that it is not. Had Obama not been picked to give the convention speech—or had he fumbled it miserably—his star might well have been limited to that of big fish in the Illinois pond, at least for a few more years. Had Obama won the primary but merely came in a strong second in the general for the state senate, I'm guessing he would've been encouraged from inside and outside the party to run for U.S. Senate anyway, allowing for continued ascendancy. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, and setting a course or breaking a stasis may be the most significant point from the standpoint of the individual, but from the standpoint of the journey—the bio—the "rising" part within the party comes in the shift from a local to a national stage. To give more emphasis on star status in the national party to the state senate win specifically than we do on the convention speech, from pick to delivery to reaction, is I hope an obvious mistake, and I reiterate that Newross' own refs seem to support that.

To the initiator of the RfC, Jayron32, then, from "the linguistic point of view", there is no basis to object to the use of the term, free from quotes or textual attribution, in the manner that QueenofBattle added it (as the result of discussion at the time, if I recall correctly), and the way to deal with it is to restore it as it has stood these past six months (or in some improved way), linked to the period surrounding his convention speech, and not to his state senate win. Abrazame (talk) 08:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Reply to RFC Restricting my commentary to the nature of the language of "rising star," I think Newross' research on this point is conclusive, and it can be used without scare quotes in the narrative voice of the article. Ray 16:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Reply to RFC The term "rising star" is widely used in several fields, it clearly applies here, it has and can be used in professional writing, it is engaging. Thus, it is fine for use in this article without quotes or in-text attribution. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Belated reply to RFC I have to agree with Newross, Ray, Wasted Time R and any others I might have missed - the term "rising star" is completely appropriate for this article. Tvoz/talk 03:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses.
I don't quite understand Abrazame's references to Obama's election to the state Senate.
No one said his elections to the state Senate (in 1996, 1998, and 2002) made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party in 2004.

• I am not recommending using "rising star" in the lede, which per WP:LEADCITE is a summary of the article and does not cite any references.
• I am saying that in the 2004 U.S. Senate campaign subsection of this article, "rising star" is the best and most historically accurate description of Obama's status in the national Democratic Party the morning after his March 16, 2004 U.S. Senate primary election landslide victory—as reported in the cited references: David Mendell's 2007 book Obama: From Promise to Power and in contemporaneous news articles "As quickly as overnight, a Democratic star is born" in The New York Times and "Dems see a rising star in Illinois Senate candidate" in USA Today.
• Obama's status as a rising star in the national Democratic Party and the favorite to win an important Republican-held U.S. Senate seat (the U.S. Senate was then narrowly divided with a 51-49 Republican majority), landed him on the Kerry campaign's short list of potential Democratic National Convention keynote speakers along with several Democratic governors from swing states: first-term Governors Jennifer Granholm, 45, of Michigan; Janet Napolitano, 46, of Arizona; Mark Warner, 49, of Virginia; Bill Richardson, 56, of New Mexico; and second-term Governor Tom Vilsack, 53, of Iowa.
• Kerry selected Obama as keynote speaker after being impressed by Obama while campaigning with him in Chicago on April 8–9, 2004 and again on June 29, 2004,—four days after E. J. Dionne's Washington Post column "In Illinois, a star prepares" and the withdrawal of Obama's Republican opponent Jack Ryan,—and one day after the July 5, 2004 issue of Time magazine hit the newsstands with a large color picture of Obama accompanying the two-page article "Dreaming about the Senate" on pages 34–35, followed on page 36 by the article "Leaving blacks cold" about the Kerry campaign's tepid support by blacks. On July 2, 2004, the Kerry campaign informed Obama that they had chosen him to be the DNC keynote speaker.
• After the Illinois Senate adjourned at 8:13 pm CDT on Saturday, July 24, 2004, Obama flew from Springfield, Illinois to Boston to appear on three of the five television network news Sunday morning talk shows.
  • As the lead guest on Tim Russert's Meet the Press on NBC, Russert's second question to Obama was about Ryan Lizza's Atlantic Monthly article "The Natural. Why is Barack Obama generating more excitement among Democrats than John Kerry?"
  • As the lead guest on Bob Schieffer's Face the Nation on CBS, the show began with:

    SCHIEFFER: So we'll ask our guests, Senator Obama, and we must say Senator Obama is now being talked about as being kind of a rock star of Democratic politics. He's run a sensational race for the Democratic nomination for the Senate out here. And he has been chosen to give the keynote address. Do you feel any pressure?

Newross (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• The last I'll say about this is, I thought we were writing an encyclopedia article, not a magazine article. If one person in this discussion can cite even one example of an encyclopedia article using such a term without it being a direct quote from a source, I'll completely cede the point. I don't think you'll find such an article, because that doesn't sound like encyclopedic language. UA 02:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

IMO using a metaphor such as "landslide victory" doesn't seem encyclopedic either. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Newross, I acknowledge that the rising of Obama's star notably includes his primary and electoral wins. But as I pointed out, 2/3 of your usage references in your main post here are actually from the time after he was chosen in July to give the DNC keynote speech. Even in your response most recently above, your quoting of questions dated to July 25 and reference of then-yet-unpublished articles support my assertion, not your own, as of course the velocity of the rise in his "rock star" status had just been given the turbo boost of its first national evidence: the gathering decision and ultimate choice in July as the convention's keynote speaker. That trajectory would not have been spoken of so frequently in that period if Kerry had chosen Bill Richardson or Tom Vilsack, as you note having been on his short list, to give the keynote instead of Obama, and Obama had not had that opportunity to take the national stage.

I do have that timeline straight. My apologies for condensing the broader election cycle timeline in my statement—his progression to U.S. senator was a few months later, not two years later. Indeed, there are only 100 actively serving U.S. senators at a given moment, unlike the thousand-plus state senators; there are two major party nominees for each seat that is up, so that particular point of mine is diluted though not nullified. I also take your point that you are speaking about the article, not the lead, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity to stand corrected on both points.

Obviously he was everything he was in either timeframe, and obviously the leap in going from state senator to U.S. senator is automatically a hugely significant one in notability, national relevancy and "stardom", so it's not that I'm disagreeing with you or your refs, nor would I object to the usage of the term where you suggest, I simply think it's more appropriate (and, again, supported by the refs) for the period a few months later, represented by the following paragraph in the bio, where it originally had been.

To Unitanode and Gordon Ecker (and Newross), and most relevant to the question posed in this RfC, am I also mistaken that Newross has correctly cited the Encyclopædia Brittanica as using the term "rising star"? After the two supportive replies following my post, the most recent two posts here completely ignore the bulk of Newross' statements above. Do the Encyclopædia Britannica articles of which Newross speaks cite quotes by others rather than using the language themselves? Could we get quotes featuring a couple of those usages to help us clarify the encyclopedic issue and make/revise our decisions here? Abrazame (talk) 07:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Obama's March 2004 U.S. Senate primary election landslide victory made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party—as reported by news articles from March 17, 2004 to July 14, 2004.
• Obama being a rising star in the national Democratic Party led to his selection as Democratic National Convention keynote speaker—as reported by news articles from July 15, 2004 to July 27, 2004.
• If Obama had not been selected as DNC keynote speaker, the Atlantic Monthly would still have published Ryan Lizza's article "The Natural. Why is Barack Obama generating more excitement among Democrats than John Kerry?" (which does not mention the Democratic National Convention nor Obama's selection as its keynote speaker) on the first day of the Democratic National Convention on July 26, 2004.
• If Obama had not been selected as DNC keynote speaker, then like the other rising stars on the short list to be keynote speaker but who were not selected, he would have had another prime-time speaking role at the convention.
• If Jennifer Granholm had been selected as DNC keynote speaker over Obama instead of vice versa, Obama may have only appeared on one of five television network news Sunday morning talk shows (e.g. Bob Schieffer's Face the Nation on CBS).
• Being selected as the keynote speaker of a national political party convention is an honor, but it doesn't make someone a political "rock star" if they are not already at least "rock star-esque":
  • Fornek, Scott (April 12, 2004). "Obama's poll puts him far ahead of Ryan." Chicago Sun-Times, p. 7:

    Vying to become only the third African American elected to the U.S. Senate in the last 100 years, Obama has enjoyed mostly positive media coverage since his victory, with party leaders and pundits invariably dubbing him "a rising star." Last week, a CNN reporter dubbed Obama a "rock star-esque candidate."

Some professionally-written Encyclopædia Britannica articles using the term "rising star":

• "Abu Abbas." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  Abbas grew up in a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria and, under the nom de guerre Abu Abbas, became a rising star in Ahmad Jibril's Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine–General Command, which was known for its daring, ruthless, and frequently disastrous attacks on Israel.

• "Jerry Bailey." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  Bailey enjoyed considerable success around the country prior to establishing his presence as a rising star on the New York state circuit in 1982.

• "Anne Bracegirdle." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  Bracegirdle retired at the height of her career, about 1707, when she began to be eclipsed by the rising star of Anne Oldfield.

• "Eric Cantor." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  After his election to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000, Cantor was considered a rising star among House Republicans; he became chief deputy whip of the Republican caucus after only two years.

• "history of Central Asia." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  Furthermore, instead of seeking the assistance of petty eastern European princes, Tokhtamysh hitched his wagon to the rising star of Timur, with whose support he reasserted Mongol supremacy in Russia.

• "John Zachary DeLorean." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  A rising star in the automotive industry, DeLorean helped to revitalize Packard before leaving in 1956 to join General Motors.

• "Enrico Fermi." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  In 1929 Fermi, as Italy's first professor of theoretical physics and a rising star in European science, was named by Italian Prime Minister Benito Mussolini to his new Accademia d'Italia, a position that included a substantial salary (much larger than that for any ordinary university position), a uniform, and a title (“Excellency”).

• "Cathy Freeman." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  Cathy Freeman's silver medal in the 400-metre run at the 1996 Games in Atlanta, Georgia, U.S., introduced this rising star from Australia to the Olympic world.

• "Neil Gaiman." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  The work established them as rising stars in the comic world, and soon the two were noticed by publishers on both sides of the Atlantic.

• "Jan Lechoń." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  Lechon was considered a rising star of new Polish poetry.

• "Brian Joseph Lenihan." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  Well regarded for his affable manner, he was seen as one of the rising stars of the Fianna Fail party, along with his ally Charles Haughey--later prime minister--whom he succeeded as minister of justice in 1964.

• "Peter Mandelson." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  He promoted Kinnock’s modernization agenda and ensured high media profiles for some of Labour’s rising stars, then in their 30s, such as Blair and Brown.

• "George Osborne." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  Osborne entered Parliament in 2001, and he was quickly seen as a rising star.

  * "Najib Abdul Razak." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  Early in his parliamentary career, Najib Razak smoothed relations between the government and the hereditary ruling class in the Pahang region, and he was seen as one of the rising stars within the United Malays National Organization (UMNO).

• "Rick Rubin." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  After hearing “It’s Yours,” Russell Simmons, who was already a rising star in the hip-hop scene, joined Rubin at Def Jam.

• "The U.S. 2002 Midterm Elections." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

  At one point Republicans appeared poised to replace a rising Democratic star, Sen. Robert Torricelli of New Jersey, who was admonished by his Senate colleagues following an ethics investigation into his campaign contributions and acceptance of personal gifts.

Re: landslide victory

• Multiple contemporaneous news articles described Obama's March 16, 2004 U.S. Senate primary election win as a "landslide victory":
  • Fornek, Scott; Herguth, Robert C. (March 17, 2004). "Obama defeats Hull's millions, Hynes' name; Consistent effort results in landslide for Hyde Parker." Chicago Sun-Times, p. 2:

    Maybe it wasn't such a bad ballot name after all. Barack Obama, who went from Hawaii to Harvard to Hyde Park, won a landslide victory in the Democratic primary Tuesday, bringing him one step closer to becoming the only African American in the U.S. Senate.

  • Mendell, David (March 17, 2004). "Obama routs Democratic foes; Ryan tops crowded GOP field; Hynes, Hull fall far short across state." Chicago Tribune, p. 1:

    Barack Obama, an African-American state senator and former civil-rights lawyer from Hyde Park, won a landslide victory over six competitors Tuesday to assume the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate, setting the stage for a crucial contest in November that could tip the balance of power in Congress. Obama, 42, whose initial campaign strategy was to build a coalition of blacks and liberal whites, instead surprised even his strategists by amassing broad support from throughout the party. He won over not only urban black voters, but also many suburban whites. With 89 percent of precincts reporting around the state, Obama led his next closest rival, Illinois Comptroller Dan Hynes, by 54 percent of the vote to 23 percent, as expected strong support for Hynes from Chicago's Democratic machine failed to materialize.

  • Moe, Doug (March 18, 2004). "Tommy and Co. disliked paper." The Capital Times, p. 2A:

    Barack Obama, who won a landslide victory in Tuesday's Democratic U.S. Senate primary in Illinois, is "of counsel" with the law firm Miner, Barnhill and Galland, which has offices in Chicago and Madison. Obama was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review and a highly-sought-after attorney upon graduating. He picked the Miner, Barnhill and Galland firm because of its strong reputation as a civil rights firm. "A spectacular guy," Chuck Barnhill said Wednesday of Obama, who, if elected, would be the third black ever to serve in the U.S. Senate. One of the others, Carol Moseley Braun, also was an attorney with the Miner, Barnhill firm.

  • Fornek, Scott (March 18, 2004). "Obama's appeal spans racial lines; Dem Senate candidate built diverse coalition on universal issues." Chicago Sun-Times, p. 9:

    He ran television commercials featuring images of white and black Democratic icons—from the late Sen. Paul Simon to the late Mayor Harold Washington. He built a coalition that spanned racial, ethnic and religious lines. He talked about issues with universal appeal to Democrats—from his opposition to the war in Iraq to his call to repeal President Bush's tax cuts. And he embraced his African-American heritage while reaching out to all voters. Those were the building blocks of Barack Obama s landslide victory in the Illinois Democratic primary for U.S. Senate. But the foundation was the candidate himself. The product of a racially mixed marriage, he had a stellar resume that includes a Harvard education, years of community activism and experience as a state senator from Hyde Park, factors that contributed to his ability to win votes across racial lines.

  • Polansek, Tom (March 18, 2004). "No rest for the winners; Obama, Ryan hit campaign trail after primary wins." The State Journal-Register, p. 7:

    In Tuesday's Democratic primary, Obama won a landslide victory with 53 percent of the vote in a field of seven candidates. On the Republican side, Ryan won 36 percent of the vote in an eight-way race.

  • Howlett, Debbie (March 19, 2004). "Dems see a rising star in Illinois Senate candidate." USA Today, p. 4A:

    Three weeks ago, state Sen. Barack Obama appeared to be an also-ran among the eight Democrats running in Illinois for the nomination to an open U.S. Senate seat. Today, three days after his landslide victory in that crowded field, the self-described "skinny guy with the funny name" is the odds-on favorite to win in November and become the only African-American in the Senate and only the third black senator since Reconstruction. Partisans in Washington consider him a shooting star in the November elections. A few whisper about a presidential future.

  • Polansek, Tom (May 3, 2004). "Winning strategies differ among black politicians." The State Journal-Register, p. 1:

    Days after Barack Obama won a landslide victory in the Democratic U.S. Senate primary, former Gov. Jim Edgar said skin color had ceased to be an issue in Illinois politics. Obama, an African-American state senator from Chicago, ran strong in white areas and beat opponent Dan Hynes in Hynes' own Chicago ward.

• The noun "landslide" is:
  • according to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 171 years old and defined as:

    2a : a great majority of votes for one side
    2b : an overwhelming victory

• The term "landslide victory" is used in many professionally-written Encyclopædia Britannica articles, including:
  • "Calvin Coolidge." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

    Running on the slogan “Keep Cool with Coolidge,” he won a landslide victory over conservative Democrat John W. Davis and Progressive Party candidate Robert La Follette, gaining about 54 percent of the popular vote to Davis's 29 percent and La Follette's nearly 17 percent; in the electoral college Coolidge received 382 votes to Davis's 136 and La Follette's 13.

  • "Dwight D. Eisenhower." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

    Democrats again selected Adlai E. Stevenson and named Senator Estes Kefauver of Tennessee as his running mate, but Eisenhower's great personal popularity turned the election into a landslide victory, the most one-sided race since 1936, as the Republican ticket garnered more than 57 percent of the popular vote and won the electoral vote 457 to 73.

  • "Indian National Congress." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

    Nevertheless, her New Congress Party scored a landslide victory in the 1971 elections, and for a period it was unclear which party was the true rightful heir of the Indian National Congress label.
    
    In the parliamentary elections held in March 1977, the opposition Janata Party scored a landslide victory over the Congress Party, winning 295 seats in the Lok Sabha (the lower house of India's Parliament) against 153 for the Congress; Gandhi herself lost to her Janata opponent.

  • "Labour Party." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

    This “New Labour” agenda, combined with highly professionalized political marketing, produced a landslide victory in the general election of 1997, returning Labour to power after 18 years of Conservative Party rule and securing Tony Blair's appointment as prime minister.
    
    In 2001 the party won a second consecutive landslide victory, capturing a 167-seat majority—the largest-ever second-term majority for any party in the House of Commons.

  • "Richard M. Nixon." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

    Renominated with Agnew in 1972, Nixon defeated his Democratic challenger, liberal Sen. George S. McGovern, in one of the largest landslide victories in the history of American presidential elections: 46.7 million to 28.9 million in the popular vote and 520 to 17 in the electoral vote.

  • "Scotland." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

    After Labour won a landslide victory in the general elections of May 1997—in which the Conservatives lost all their Scottish seats and the SNP took 6 seats in Parliament—the Labour government of Tony Blair called a referendum for establishing a Scottish Parliament with a broad range of powers, including control over the country's education and health systems.

  • "Margaret Thatcher." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009.

    Thatcher won election to a second term in a landslide—the biggest victory since Labour's great success in 1945—gaining a parliamentary majority of 144 with just over 42 percent of the vote.

Newross (talk) 00:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Restored longstanding sentence with historically accurate description from multiple cited authoritative contemporaneous WP:Reliable sources:

In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won an unexpected landslide victory with 53% of the vote in a seven-candidate field, 29 percentage points ahead of his nearest Democratic rival, which overnight made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party and started speculation about a presidential future.

Newross (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

And, I have undone it. You surely have the most words here about this subject, but you are the only one who feels the wording "rising start" is appropriate. The clear consensus is to leave the wording as it is, which is what my reversion has restored. QueenofBattle (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no clear consensus or justification whatsover for YOUR revert. Newross (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You mean other than all the discussion above?! I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you about this; it's plain to see that you are the only one toting this wagon. QueenofBattle (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No, actually, several editors responded to the RFC in support of the wording "rising star". Tvoz/talk 03:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

If I may be so bold, both QueenofBattle and Newross are incorrect. Newross has clearly (and amply) presented the basis for "rising star" as encyclopedically appropriate wording, whether anybody wishes to acknowledge it or not. However, the longstanding use of the term in the article, as I indicated and defended as most appropriate, was in reference to his keynote address, and not where Newross has added it at the primary win. I realize there has been a lot of verbiage involved in this discussion but editors are quick to dismiss one or two points, as QueenofBattle's post of 25 October shows. I'm quite disappointed that nobody has weighed in on this since the most recent (1 November) spate of Newross' thorough research. When an editor so fully throws himself into tracking down watertight evidence supporting usage, etc., it should not simply go ignored for weeks. I would request that my own points also be adequately responded to. Abrazame (talk) 05:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I still think we should try to use more formal, less poetic language when it is practical. I'll bring it up on Misplaced Pages talk:Words to avoid. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

On balance I would go with "landslide" but try to find more formal and precise ways to say "rising star" and "overnight". Though a metaphor, landslide is specialized and widely used term with respect to election results, and there is no better way to say it as far as I know. "Rising star" is almost always used imprecisely, and begs the question of what they are a star of. I'm surprised that Encyclopedia Brittanica uses it outside of the entertainment field (music, films, and perhaps sports) where it does serve as a specialized term. It can probably be said more precisely, e.g. that Obama was perceived within the Democratic Party as a viable / attractive future candidate for high office. "Overnight" is usually hyperbole should only be used if literally true; otherwise we should be more specific, e.g. "in the next several days" or "by the end of the week", etc. But even if true it sounds like hyperbole and we should use a term that makes it clear we mean it, e.g. "by the next morning". We source facts to reliable sources, not necessarily word choice and tone. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Rising star which I have never considered to be slang. Newross's evidence clearly shows that this is true. The current version (using prominence) is incredibly awkward, and, as mentioned above, doesn't keep the integrity of the sourced material. Deserted Cities (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that it's informal speech that uses a metaphor that doesn't describe the situation completely or squarely - not that it's slang as such. A star is a stellar object in the night sky; a "rising star" by extension is a metaphor for something that, having appeared faintly on the horizon thereafter rises and thereby become more visible. In common speech a star is a person who has gained fame and adoration, not necessarily respect or power, among a wide part of the populace - without respect to their reputation among experts or insiders. The term is most commonly used to describe entertainment personalities so using it to describe politicians is a metaphor about a metaphor. To say that Obama became a star doesn't mean he became a real contender, or entered the corridors of power. It is to say that a large number of political non-insiders became fans. Is that specifically what we want to say about him, or could we describe it more precisely? Perhaps he did capture the popular imagination then. But he also showed himself to be an up-and-coming political candidate then, which is a somewhat different thing. Taking this back to entertainment, you might say that Sean Penn became a "rising star" after Fast Times at Ridgemont High. But you could not say that Mickey Rourke became a rising star after Diner (film) or Rumble Fish, even though among critics and film lovers that was a much more auspicious beginning. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The noun rising star may have arisen centuries ago as a metaphor, but according to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, since 1767 it has been defined as:

a person or thing that is growing quickly in popularity or importance in a particular field <a rising star in politics>

and used this way in professionally-written encyclopedia articles.

Newross (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Much informal speech has old origins. "Rising star" is clearly colorful as opposed to precise language. That particular dicdef is not quite right, although "particular field" hints at the issue; there is a connotation of fandom and popular support with respect to a certain group, not importance as such. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break to aid navigation

How about if everyone takes a look at the current text, which avoids the controversial and POV-ish term "rising star"? It seems to present the operative point in an encyclopedic manner. QueenofBattle (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

"Rising star" isn't controversial or POV-ish. Its a common term. So common, in fact that Encyclopedia Brittanica uses it, as do many newspapers, including one that specifically mention BHO. Deserted Cities (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Common? Perhaps given its use in EB. POV-ish? I think so given that one doesn't refer to another they may dislike as a "star". Controversial? Clearly so given the many, many paragraphs of text discussing it on this very talk page... QueenofBattle (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to be sure, assuming you mean the following, I believe it is accurate, neutral, and well written:

... In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won an unexpected landslide victory with 53% of the vote in a seven-candidate field, 29 percentage points ahead of his nearest Democratic rival, which quickly raised his prominence within the national Democratic Party, and started speculation about a presidential future. ...

--4wajzkd02 (talk) 04:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

QueenofBattle’s dislike of Obama is not a valid reason to remove a neutral, well-sourced, historically accurate description of Obama as a rising star in the national Democratic Party, which led to his selection to give the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

This narrowly framed RFC: The Use of slang or informal language in a featured article was initiated on October 22, 2009 by Jayron32
based on their unsubstantiated claim that "rising star" was slang or informal English not used in professionally-written encyclopedia articles.
Both of these claims have been thoroughly refuted with extensive references to many dictionaries and many professionally-written Encyclopædia Britannica article.

For seven months—from March 24, 2009 to October 21, 2009—this featured article said:

In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won an unexpected landslide victory with 53% of the vote in a seven-candidate field, 29 percentage points ahead of his nearest Democratic rival, which overnight made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party and started speculation about a presidential future.

fully supported by a citation to these contemporaneous WP:Reliable sources:

• Mendell, David (March 17, 2004). "Obama routs Democratic foes; Ryan tops crowded GOP field; Hynes, Hull fall far short across state". Chicago Tribune, p. 1.
• Davey, Monica (March 18, 2004). "As quickly as overnight, a Democratic star is born." The New York Times, p. A20.
• Howlett, Debbie (March 19, 2004). "Dems see a rising star in Illinois Senate candidate." USA Today, p. A04.
• Scheiber, Noam (May 31, 2004). "Race against history. Barack Obama's miraculous campaign." The New Republic, pp. 21–22, 24–26 (cover story).
  
• Finnegan, William (May 31, 2004). "The Candidate. How far can Barack Obama go?" The New Yorker, pp. 32–38.
• Dionne Jr., E. J. (June 25, 2004). "In Illinois, a star prepares." The Washington Post, p. A29.
• Mendell, David (2007). Obama: From Promise to Power New York: Amistad/HarperCollins. ISBN 0060858206, pp. 235–259.
  • p. 247: "Word of Obama's rising star was now extending beyond Illinois, spreading especially fast through influential Washington political circles like blue-chip law firms, party insiders, lobbying houses."
  • p. 268: "His campaign fund-raising was now moving at a furious pace and the buzz around him as a rising star was increasing by the hour."

This historically accurate, reliably sourced sentence should not have been revised, as it was, by Unitanode on October 21, 2009,
in response to 67.60.50.5's comment just 55 minutes earlier on October 21, 2009 that this article was Way too biased,
changing:

• "overnight" → "almost overnight" (changed by QueenofBattle on November 15, 2009 → "quickly")
  • this article should be historically accurate and follow the cited reliable sources and say "overnight".
    • Why be inaccurate and say "almost overnight" or vague and say "quickly"?
• "made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party" → "raised his prominence within the national Democratic Party"
  • this article should be historically accurate and follow the cited reliable sources and say "made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party".
    • What prominence in the national Democratic Party did Obama previously have that was raised?
    • Are "rising stars in the national Democratic Party" often selected to give the keynote address at Democratic National Conventions?
    • Or are "raised prominences within the national Democratic Party" often selected to give the keynote address at Democratic National Conventions?

Obama's rapid rise to national prominence in 2004:

• from February 2004 when he was in second place—and the least-known—of the five top Democratic U.S. Senate primary candidates in Illinois
• to December 2004 when he was on the cover of the year-end double issue of Newsweek as "Who's Next"—on the newsstand next to the year-end double issue of Time magazine with George W. Bush on the cover as Man of the Year

is one of the most important parts of his biography, and this article should be historically accurate and follow the best, contemporaneous WP:Reliable sources available.

Newross (talk) 05:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

WTF?! "QueenofBattle’s dislike of Obama is not a valid reason to remove a neutral, well-sourced, historically accurate description..." Who in the hell said I disliked Obama? How about we stick to the article and shy away from trying to assess other editors' motivations? Hell, I wasn't even the latest to remove the term "rising star"! It's uncivil and just plain uncalled for. My opposition to the use of the term "rising star" is largely because it is unencylopedic opinion, despite the many, many (and many, many) paragraphs Newross has devoted to defending or somehow attempting to justify it. Clear evidence that there is controversy surrounding the use of such a term. We don't win any arguments around here by dumping our homework on the table and giving an A to the heaviest pile. Pursuasion, compromise and consensus is the trick; yes, I'm sure I've read that somewhere... QueenofBattle (talk) 10:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

About the rising star. I don't see how this term is POV or incorrect in anyway. For someone to go from a single parent home to being the first African-American President, if that isn't someone who could be described as a "rising star" than it would be incorrect to call Einstein a genius, the Pope Holy, or to say Google's a search giant. His opposition can label him a 'celebrity', but 'rising-star' is far-fetched? Oh yeah, I forgot, 'celebrity' is, apparently, derogatory. 174.0.198.29 (talk) 05:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course, "genius" is a definitional term reserved for one with a very high IQ, while "holy" is a term for one who has been vested with certain religious trappings. "Rising star" and "giant" used as has been suggested are NPOV opinion, no matter how many times they are used in the press. QueenofBattle (talk) 11:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Instead of offering any evidence whatsoever, QueenofBattle's arguments are:

• POV-ish? I think so given that one doesn't refer to another they may dislike as a "star".
• Who in the hell said I disliked Obama? How about we stick to the article and shy away from trying to assess other editors' motivations? It's uncivil and just plain uncalled for.
• My opposition to the use of the term "rising star" is largely because it is unencyclopedic opinion.
• We don't win any arguments around here by dumping our homework on the table and giving an A to the heaviest pile.

Newross (talk) 22:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Pardon, recall this article is on probation, so we should all try extra hard to WP:AGF, be WP:CIVIL, not turn into a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and, of course, WP:LSMFT. The latter being a humor injection attempt --4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

And, Newross, exactly what is your point? I've been subjected to an ad hominem attack from you for which civility demands an apology, and your response is to repeat my comments as though one cannot easily read them no more than an inch of computer screen above. Am I the only one who's trying to figure our what kind of goofy parallel universe we have fallen into here? The term rising star is of an unencyclopedic tone and it is opinion, hence its use is not appropriate here. How many different ways do I need to say that?! QueenofBattle (talk) 01:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(<-) Gosh, am I the only editor old and dumb enough to actually have smoked unfiltered Luckies?

• I completely agree that the accusation of QoB's political bias is unconstructive and unwarranted. Speculation of editors' motives is fruitless and generally "fighting words"; I'll also add that while I've not agreed with every edit QoB has made, I don't question that editor's scrupulous good faith.

• I also don't believe this (to me) minor issue of wording is worth the Sturm und drang. We've had more than one version of the text. The current text seems fine to me.

• I recognize that others haven't weighed in on this issue lately, but perhaps like me they thought it was already resolved? Or perhaps the issue isn't imprtant enough to bother?

Respectfully, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see much of a difference between the two edits that seem to be causing so much back and forth. Perhaps if someone quoted a Democratic official proclaiming Obama a 'rising star' that could be inserted, but otherwise, what does it matter? Honestly, both entries seem relevant. Isn't there some sort of compromise that can be worked out? I don't see any real WP:POV pushing here, just wording differences. DD2K (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed alternate version

I don't really care if we go with rising star, but I think the current phrasing (as cited by 4wajzkd02 above) is too wordy and somewhat awkward. Is the following better:

In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won in an unexpected landslide, finishing with 53% of the vote in a seven candidate field, and beating the runner-up by 29 percentage points. The win drew the attention of Democrats nationwide, prompting speculation about a possible Presidential campaign.

I dropped victory after landslide because its redundant (you wouldn't say he won in an unexpected victory). I also think the part about finishing 29 points ahead is currently too long. And most relevant to the issue at hand, changed out the last phrase to a more conversational form. Deserted Cities (talk) 05:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I am also fine with this proposed wording (or something substantially similar to it). QueenofBattle (talk) 10:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Even better than the current version. I hope this issue can close soon. -4wajzkd02 (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Seeing no objection to my version, I've switched it. This doesn't close the issue on using "rising star," etc. Deserted Cities (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Changing:

• "landslide victory" → "victory"
• "29 percentage points ahead of his nearest Democratic rival" → "beating the runner-up by 29 percentage points"

is not a big deal; and hinges on whether you think "beating the runner-up" is more encyclopedic than "ahead of his nearest Democratic rival"; and whether you think reinforcing that the win was against Democratic primary opponents is helpful.

The purpose of the last half of the sentence (which Deserted Cities broke off into a second sentence) was to highlight that Obama's unexpected landslide victory in the March 16, 2004 U.S. Senate Democratic primary election
made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party overnight and
started speculation about a presidential future overnight,
as supported by the cited best available contemporaneous WP:Reliable sources.

• Being a rising star in the national Democratic Party guaranteed him a speaking role at the 2004 Democratic National Convention and put him on the shortlist to be considered—along with other rising stars—as a possible keynote speaker.
• Speculation in the news media about a possible presidential future, begat more speculation in the news media about a possible presidential future:
  • in news profiles before his July 3, 2004 selection as convention keynote speaker
  • in news profiles after the July 15, 2004 announcement of him as convention keynote speaker
  • in news interviews at the convention before his July 27, 2004 keynote address
  • in news commentary after his July 27, 2004 keynote address

But Obama's unexpected landslide victory in the March 16, 2004 U.S. Senate Democratic primary election did not:

• directly "draw the attention of Democrats nationwide"
• directly "prompt speculation about a possible Presidential campaign”

The sources for this sentence report (and emphasize the suddenness with which)
Obama's unexpected March 16, 2004 U.S. Senate Democratic primary landslide victory made him
overnight (i.e. on March 17, 2004) a rising star in the national Democratic Party
(which is responsible for planning the Party's quadrennial presidential nominating conventions) and
overnight (i.e. on March 17, 2004) started speculation about a presidential future:

• Brown, Mark (March 17, 2004). Voters warmed to Obama, the next hot politician. Chicago Sun-Times, p. 2:

  Obama has the potential to be the most significant political figure Illinois has sent to Washington since Abraham Lincoln.
  
  If he is elected in November, Obama will immediately replace Colin Powell as the person most talked about to be the first African-American elected president of the United States. That's a heavy load to put on any 42-year-old. Everybody who goes to the U.S. Senate thinks he's going to be president someday. Obama is one of the handful who really could be.

The sources for this sentence report Obama becoming a rising star "in the national Democratic Party"—
not "among Democrats nationwide":

• Fornek, Scott (April 12, 2004). Obama's poll puts him far ahead of Ryan. Chicago Sun-Times, p. 7:

  To some degree, the numbers mirror the primary results. Obama, 42, a state senator from Hyde Park, won a majority of 53 percent against six Democrats, while Ryan, 44, a Wilmette investment banker-turned-schoolteacher, won his eight-way nominating contest with a plurality of 36 percent.
  
  Vying to become only the third African American elected to the U.S. Senate in the last 100 years, Obama has enjoyed mostly positive media coverage since his victory, with party leaders and pundits invariably dubbing him "a rising star." Last week, a CNN reporter dubbed Obama a "rock star-esque candidate."

I propose restoring the historically accurate, fully sourced sentence that was stable in this featured article for seven months—
from March 24, 2009 to October 21, 2009—prior to changes by:
Unitanode on October 21, 2009, QueenofBattle on November 15, 2009, and Deserted Cities on November 16, 2009
but making "national Democratic Party" wikilink to: Democratic_Party_(United_States)#Current_structure_and_composition
to make it crystal clear that Obama:

• was only a "rising star" in the national Democratic Party
• was not a "rising star" among Democrats nationwide
• was not a "rising star" to the public at large
• was not a "rising star" to those who dislike Obama:

  In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won an unexpected landslide victory with 53% of the vote in a seven-candidate field, 29 percentage points ahead of his nearest Democratic rival, which overnight made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party and started speculation about a presidential future.

Newross (talk) 02:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal rejected. As you note, several editors have made edits to bring us to this point. Edits that have generally been met by acceptance in the spirit of collaboration by almost everyone except you, who seems to be failing to get the point. The current text is fine and reflects much consensus on this point. Enough is enough. QueenofBattle (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Or:

• retain the opening of Deserted Cities' November 16, 2009 revision:

  In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won in an unexpected landslide, finishing with 53% of the vote in a seven candidate field, and beating the runner-up by 29 percentage points. The win drew the attention of Democrats nationwide, prompting speculation about a possible Presidential campaign.

• make the election results parenthetical with em dashes,
• change "and beating the runner-up by 29 percentage points" → "29 percentage points ahead of the runner-up"
• restore the closing of Newross' March 24, 2009 revision that accurately reflects the cited sources
  and was stable in this featured article for seven months until October 21, 2009:

  In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won an unexpected landslide victory with 53% of the vote in a seven-candidate field, 29 percentage points ahead of his nearest Democratic rival, which overnight made him a rising star in the national Democratic Party and started speculation about a presidential future.

• change "in the national Democratic Party" → "within the national Democratic Party
  (the national attention mentioned in the cited sources was from leaders of the national Democratic Party, specifically: presumptive U.S. Presidential nominee John Kerry, U.S. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairman Terry McAuliffe, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) chairman Jon Corzine):

  In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won in an unexpected landslide—finishing with 53% of the vote in a seven candidate field, 29 percentage points ahead of the runner-up—which overnight made him a rising star within the national Democratic Party and started speculation about a presidential future.

Newross (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Nope, still rejected. You haven't addressed the concerns of any of the other editors, you have merely restated your arguments. You have offered no collaboration, no compromise, no nothing. Until you do, we are going to have a real tough time moving forward on this. QueenofBattle (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I have very patiently addressed, at length, concerns of other editors. Newross (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

New version

The entire basis for this RfC:
an unsubstantiated claim that the term rising star was slang and/or informal English not used in professionally-written encyclopedia articles,
has in the assessment of most editors who have commented here, been thoroughly refuted by evidence to the contrary.

Seeing no discussion of the legitimate issue that I have raised: that the latest revision no longer accurately reflected the cited sources,
I have implemented a version which does accurately reflect the cited sources:

In the March 2004 primary election, Obama won in an unexpected landslide—finishing with 53% of the vote in a seven candidate field, 29 percentage points ahead of the runner-up—which overnight made him a rising star within the national Democratic Party and started speculation about a presidential future.

• Mendell, David (March 17, 2004). "Obama routs Democratic foes; Ryan tops crowded GOP field; Hynes, Hull fall far short across state". Chicago Tribune, p. 1.
• Davey, Monica (March 18, 2004). "As quickly as overnight, a Democratic star is born." The New York Times, p. A20.
• Howlett, Debbie (March 19, 2004). "Dems see a rising star in Illinois Senate candidate." USA Today, p. A04.
• Scheiber, Noam (May 31, 2004). "Race against history. Barack Obama's miraculous campaign." The New Republic, pp. 21–22, 24–26 (cover story).
  
• Finnegan, William (May 31, 2004). "The Candidate. How far can Barack Obama go?" The New Yorker, pp. 32–38.
• Dionne Jr., E. J. (June 25, 2004). "In Illinois, a star prepares." The Washington Post, p. A29.
• Mendell, David (2007). Obama: From Promise to Power New York: Amistad/HarperCollins. ISBN 0060858206, pp. 235–259.
  • p. 247: "Word of Obama's rising star was now extending beyond Illinois, spreading especially fast through influential Washington political circles like blue-chip law firms, party insiders, lobbying houses."
  • p. 268: "His campaign fund-raising was now moving at a furious pace and the buzz around him as a rising star was increasing by the hour."

Newross (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"Seeing no discussion ... have implemented a version...". Pardon, but no discussion should not by itself give leave to make a change, nor do I see that their has been consensus on your issue. Additionally, RFCs expire in a month. This was opened 1 month and 9 days ago, but discussion was still being held 17 days ago (a quick review indicates). So, as I understand it:

• if still open, I believe a change is procedurally incorrect,
• if closed, then the RFC can't be used to justify a change not documented as agreed to in the RFC.

Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Before anybody reverts this, I'd like to advise we check ourselves and make sure our actions are not determined by dudgeon or prejudice, by which I mean perception of the "slanginess" of the Encyclopedia Britannica term "rising star". I do wish Newross would have considered the point I raised with him that the preponderance of his sources were dated to the time surrounding the convention speech and that this actually represents the notable period of ascent, but he is correct in everything he states, including the fact that the opposition to his suggestion had nothing whatsoever to do with the veracity of his claims and sources. 4's points are presumably valid, but protocol shouldn't take preference to the digestion of salient facts in determining the editorial value of so thoroughly researched and reliably sourced a suggestion. While this particular word is not a huge issue with me, the broader issue at play here—editors at this page trying to arrive at balance between facts and ideologies, especially when they are (or they imagined readers would be) put off by terms they wouldn't use, regardless of the preponderance of reliable sources who objectively have. Newross is clearly not of the delinquent ilk that previously marred these pages and it's the flat refusals to revisit initial reactions to consider his (yegads) ample sourcing that seem to be the break with editorial protocol that beg comment here. Abrazame (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You make very good points.

• "Before anybody reverts","protocol shouldn't take preference " - I did not feel strongly enough about either version, nor about the process (What's that saying - there are no rules?) to revert.
• "not a huge issue with me" - nor with me. I suspect this may be why there's been little discussion - others may feel the same way.
• "Newross is clearly not of the delinquent ilk" - agree.
• "ample sourcing" - also agree, but...
• "slanginess" of the Encyclopedia Britannica term "rising star" and "balance between facts and ideologies" - my concern is regarding both issues.

I believe that the term, as used (not in a quote) gives the perception that the article is not-neutral in that section. I thought there was a proposal to provide a quote from a notable source (e.g., "...such that the AP referred to him as a "...rising star in the Democratic party..."). This would address my concerns, and hopefully those of other editors. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk)

Respectfully, I didn't say "slanginess", I said "prejudice, by which I mean perception of the 'slanginess'..." It was an allusion to Stephen Colbert's illusory "truthiness". My point is that, given the usage by the Encyclopedia Britannica, the most highly regarded print encyclopedia, I don't think the previously expressed hunches about the term by a handful of editors at this page are valid. I mean no offense; I have had to admit I was wrong in my understanding of something a time or two at this page.

As to "balance between facts and ideologies", that's something we must not strive for. Facts are facts and belong in an encyclopedia. Ideology is something that exists in a realm irrespective of facts that may or may not support that ideology; ideology causes prejudiced reactions against concepts it vomits back before digesting, rather than absorption of the facts. When current facts fly in the face of ideology, or of once-popular predictions, these editors decide to remove them, regardless of the veracity of the facts. Elsewhere on this page are mysteriously stalled discussions about article edits wherein reliably sourced facts were removed in favor of a neutered POV that ignores the facts. This is not the same as neutral POV, which accepts facts whether or not we like them or wish they had occurred due to some different policy or at some different point in time.

To your suggestion that we use the term in a quote, that misses the whole point of Newross' sourcing. The whole point of all those refs (a thousand points of leitmotif?) is that this isn't a couple of people using the term, it's a good many, enough to warrant the usage outside of quotes. We did this elsewhere when, if I recall correctly, someone here was catering to pessimism about the economy's recovery thus far and so wanted to cite an actuarial fact as the opinion of a single economist. That's not a good editor's default position. We need to do our best to understand what is being discussed in an article and discern facts and figures (that can be simply declared) from feelings and ideologies (which, if relevant at all, would need to be quoted).

Obama's celebrity was universally accepted in 2008, so much so that it was used against him by his detractors. As these many, m-a-n-y references prove, the potential of his celebrity was injected into the bloodstream of and felt throughout his party in the middle and latter part of 2004. This is Misplaced Pages. The whole point is that we are reporting what others have said. We don't need to put it all in quotes in order to make that point, it's a given as it is backed up by the refs. The objection that someone here raised, that someone reading might not use the phrase about Obama, misses the point (and is itself POV by proxy), as the whole point is that we are stating that Obama became this within his own party. This isn't about the presumed ideological prejudices of "someone reading the article", it's about Barack Obama. Dozens of sources acknowledge this as a fact. So clearly we can authoritatively acknowledge this as a fact without singling out one of these many sources. Such a thing would mislead the reader, as it suggests this was a characterization promoted by a single media outlet. The purpose of this article is not to represent the opinions of the AP, and not to cower from the specter of the hypothetical unpersuaded detractor of the president, but to represent facts.

As I said, my persistence in this issue isn't simply to make this point in the service of this one word, but to extrapolate this throughout the discussions of reliably sourced facts that start only to stop short of digestion here. Salient and relevant facts shouldn't be removed, or mitigated, or relegated to quotes pinned on individuals or groups when they are in fact sourced to reliably sourced data and understood and represented in their proper context. Abrazame (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You make more excellent points (and sorry for missing the allusion - I am slow, sometimes). Your key points, I believe, are (a) "enough to warrant the usage outside of quotes" and (b) "Facts are facts" (with the thought provoking note about "stalled discussions about article edits wherein reliably sourced facts were removed in favor of a neutered POV that ignores the facts"). No one should dispute point b. in any way (although I think that the editing process sometimes yields compromises as a counterbalance to long arguments - my recommendation regarding the use of quotes was such a compromise). As for point a., to what extent does WP:CONSENSUS come into play? On this topic, we've had lots of discussion, and even an RFC (which I think is still open), with clear consensus. It may be that other editors don't care enough about the fine point of using the phrase "rising star" or not to care to comment. Then what? You've certainly made me think hard about this issue.

(Outdent) For other editors who don't want to wade through all these millions of words yet would answer our call for them to join or revisit, I would distill and distinguish the elements that need to be addressed as follows:

• The most highly respected Encyclopedia Britannica freely uses the term "rising star" in the context of politicians. In light of this fact about the Encyclopedia Britannica, it's hard to see how consensus at Misplaced Pages would maintain that the term is "unencyclopedic".
• Seeing as how this preeminent usage wasn't represented in this discussion until after several editors weighed in with their prior conceptions that the phrase was unencyclopedic, it would help if they would revisit this particular element of the discussion and, after considering this fact and perhaps reviewing the examples, would declare whether their conception is steadfast in the face of this fact, or if this fact changes their perception.
• At the very beginning of this thread and prior to any referencing or supportive materials by Newross, three editors posited the solution of using quotes as a way of including the term. Reams of references later, all four official respondents to the RfC—three editors familiar to this page including myself and one invited by the RfC—voted unequivocally to support the statement without the use of quotes. This makes five clear-voiced votes to the RfC, subsequent to the references that support the term as encyclopedic and as widespread, in favor of the declarative usage, including Newross. The only clear-voiced vote against, though not officially cast, has been QueenofBattle. In fact, it is nearly only QueenofBattle who has been arguing against, and reverting, this point. For him to argue, in this context, that there is no consensus, simply because he doesn't agree, seems to fly in the face of the concept of RfCs, consensus, indeed the very idea of facts. Gordon Ecker came out in opposition of landslide and didn't weigh in on the shooting star term; however, after announcing that he would raise the issue at Misplaced Pages talk:Words to avoid, he didn't return to announce that there was absolutely no enthusiasm for denouncing the use of metaphor—in fact, our own Wikidemon having articulated the most thorough response against the broad suggestion, given the fact that common, plain language is so full of metaphor that we barely even notice it.

So while QueenofBattle sees no consensus, I see one person refusing to address the facts (QueenofBattle), one person sincerely considering the deeper issues but not yet having arrived at a position (4wajzkd02), a handful of people who weighed in at the outset with suggestions but no clear position before any references were presented and who have not returned to the discussion in almost a month and a half, indicating no intention to do so, and five people who have officially voted in favor of using the term, sans quotes, in the article. This is our consensus. Three proffering a suggestion but avoiding the discussion like the plague, five for, one against, one on the fence. Sounds like consensus to me. Abrazame (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I missed at least a million of the words in this discussion. But as I have stated before, I continue to dislike the informal metaphor "rising star", and see no reason to use it in this article. There are plenty of other formal and non-metaphorical ways to say the same thing, and I cannot for the life of me imagine why anyone is arguing for the informal metaphor. If it is used, it will not wreck the article, but it will make it every so slightly less well written. LotLE×talk 02:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not refusing to address anything, so let's just lay off that tired attempt, shall we? What I have asked for, and what has yet to be provided, is a pursuasive arguement for making the change. All I see is the same discussion posted over and over, with no response to my questions. No effort to engage in a dialogue. No anything other than, once again, trying to pick a fight with me. If there are several editors "on the fence" (and there are), their views should not be disregarded simply because there are five "for". And, I agree with LotLE's point, immediately preceeding. What I can support is something to the effect of "...which according to made him a rising star over night...," which I believe is in the spirit of NPOV and will help address the concerns of me, 4wajzkd02, (maybe LotLE, too?) and others. So, Abrazame and Newross, please tell the rest of us here, why this may not be acceptable to you, if it is not. QueenofBattle (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Unemployment hits 10.2%

Stimulus kicks in

If you read the article that was used as a source, you will notice that this is exactly what it says.

U.S. GDP rises 3.5% as stimulus kicks in. Gains in consumer spending, inventories, housing drive growth

The U.S. economy expanded at a 3.5% annual pace in the third quarter, as massive government stimulus helped drag the economy out of the longest and deepest recession since the 1930s, the Commerce Department estimated Thursday.

I can understand why it may be premature to say that the recession is over, seeing as how it has yet to be officialy confirmed. However, we already know that the economy grew at a 3.5% pace, and that the article used as a source states that the economy started growing again exactly when the stimulus started to kick in. Therefore, wouldn't it be appropriate to include these things that are already known to be true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joker123192 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:V and WP:OR. Also, note that "as stimulus kicks in" in a headline is not nearly the same as saying "caused by the stimulus package." Furthermore, the article actually states that the cash-for-clunkers program was largely responsible for 3Q growth, and that wasn't even part of the stimulus package. Barack Obama is one of the largest and most highly-visited pages on the encyclopedia, and it is definitely a WP:BLP article, and it's on probation. Edits of the sort you've been making must be very carefully sourced. Please also note that when BLP issues are concerned, it is not considered WP:3RR to continue to revert edits that are inappropriate. Finally, I would say the place to discuss changes to that article is on its talk page, not here. That's where consensus will be developed.  Frank  |  talk  01:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I am moving this thread to the page to which it applies because an edit summary in this article reads "Please see the talk page" and this isn't a personal discussion between just the two of you.

"Kicks in" as used in the source article means begins to show an effect. The stimulus has been meted out for some time, but now that the 3rd quarter numbers are out, it's a part of broad economic history and not simply an article about a particular industry. As to Frank's statement that the cash-for-clunkers program was largely responsible for 3Q growth, what do you think that was? The whole purpose was to stimulate auto sales. If you mean it wasn't part of a single bill, you are missing the point; we're not debating a single bill.

Cash-for-clunkers was stimulus. It was highly targeted, it was rolled out quickly and it worked instantly. You acknowledge that it worked, you're just loathe to use the term. Removing the word "package", if you think readers will interpret that word as indicating this was part of the initial bill, is the sort of semantic discussion we might discuss. But you are mistaken to remove the word "stimulus" when the article clearly does use that word and you clearly attribute the growth to cash-for-clunkers.

For some time we have had every 3% tick in approval ratings, when they mean very little in the real world. We may as well mention a quarterly 3.5 tick in GDP when it is quite meaningful and is in direct response to the stimulus, which was part of Obama's handling of the economy. Indeed, as quarters come and go, whether it continues, flattens out or reverses itself (or zigs and zags a bit, as these numbers often do), we can note that to some extent, and consolidate or remove or zoom away from a certain degree of detail once we have a series of data points. Abrazame (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for being off topic but I wish the people who start these sort if topics (Generally relating to US economy/fringe theories/forum~soap violating discussions) would actually sign their posts for once. Do they want to be anonymous or something? Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

To be fair note that this section was started by Abrazame, who signed his post. The unsigned post by Joker123192 was coppied from the talkpage of Frank, replying to a warning he'd been given on his own talk page.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, understood in this case. Most of them don't though. --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not loath to use any term...as long as it is able to be cited from reliable sources. Your suggestion that I have a particular POV to push is not supported by anything I've done or written, most especially not in relation to this article. I reverted two sets of edits which explicitly stated In the third quarter of 2009, as a result of the stimulus package, the U.S. economy expanded at a 3.5% annual pace, while one of them added bringing an end to the recession to boot. The source that was used to support these edits simply did not say either of those things. It was an open-and-shut case. The editor I reverted made changes that were in line with what the source had published, and the matter was over. And, since the conversation had effectively ended on my talk page, it would have been good form to alert me to its move over to here - not that I believe further discussion is even necessary.  Frank  |  talk  22:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Frank, in my above post I didn't make a "suggestion that (you) have a particular POV to push". I used the words "mistaken" and "missing the point". The idea that there would be some POV on your part comes from you.

The article we're discussing is entitled "U.S. GDP rises 3.5% as stimulus kicks in".

The subhead of that article states "The U.S. economy expanded at a 3.5% annual pace in the third quarter, as massive government stimulus helped drag the economy out of the longest and deepest recession since the 1930s, the Commerce Department estimated Thursday."

The first sentence of the actual article is "Along with improvements in key monthly figures on output and sales, the rise in real gross domestic product means the Great Recession is likely over in a technical sense, even as further job losses occur."

Considering that this isn't buried deep in the source, though, and since you've brought it up, I do wonder why you removed the characterization that stimulus caused this rise.

You and I have encountered one another on talk pages before. I use the word "encountered" instead of conversed or discussed because nearly each time you have declared with your first response that you don't believe you have anything to discuss. (Belief being a point of view.) Talk pages aren't places for hit-and-runs and while you are free to shirk a conversation someone chooses to begin with you, I fail to see why you persist in casting yourself as arbiter of whether a conversation would have merit before you actually participate in it. Considering you often do it in instances where you are factually wrong further discredits your belief.

Since you have opened the door to discussion of your POV, I would contrast your statement "the article actually states that the cash-for-clunkers program was largely responsible for 3Q growth" with the article's own text, "Growth was broad-based in the third quarter, with final U.S. sales rising at a 3% annual pace, the fastest in more than three years. Third-quarter growth was due to higher consumer spending, a slowdown in the reduction of inventories, an increase in residential investments, and robust government spending. Home building contributed to growth for the first time in nearly four years."

While the article notes that "Spending on durable goods surged 22.3%, the most in eight years. The government's cash for clunkers program boosted auto sales. Most of the clunker sales came out of inventories, but production of vehicles rebounded smartly after a sharp pullback earlier in the year. Motor vehicle production contributed 1.7 percentage points to growth, nearly half of the total GDP increase," the article also states that "Most economists don't expect the economy to grow quite as much in coming quarters, but they aren't forecasting a double-dip recession, either. Most see growth in the 2% to 3.5% range. The adjustment in inventories could add to growth for several more quarters."

Frankly, neither pun nor irony intended, it seems that someone not disinclined to add positive data to the economy section—or fundamentally "mistaken" or "missing the point", as I had pointed out—would have found this article a fount of reliably sourced material to be added and cited. (Notice how I did that, in a nod to your habit, I wikilinked two of the most fundamental Wiki guidelines. Unlike yourself, I did so after having followed them.) Okay, that one parenthetical was sarcasm. Again to use your term, the POV of yours with which I take issue is the one that emboldens you to ignore factual points I raise that are relevant to editorial work in an article when it goes to causality and context that is essential to an understanding of the issue. If you are unable or unwilling to examine the facts I raise, you are welcome to stay away; if you do comment, the most constructive way to do so is to process and address the editorially salient factual points raised. I won't insult your intelligence by linking that obvious concept.

One thing you are absolutely right about and for which I apologize is that I failed to notify you that the thread had been moved here. I would note that I failed to notify the other editor as well, so it wasn't personal. It seems that in the five hours after your above post, you didn't notify the other editor either. I've rectified that.

To save the time of other editors, I point out that all five links are to the two pages of the single article referenced in Joker's first edit. Abrazame (talk) 03:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Focusing on the content of the source and the focus of this article, I remain convinced that the original edits were inappropriate. You are parsing words very selectively, and providing links to the article is not the same as actually sourcing claims properly. For example, the lead paragraph, which you rely heavily on, does say, in part: "...as massive government stimulus helped drag the economy out of the longest and deepest recession since the 1930s, the Commerce Department estimated..." Well. There are two very key words in that bit: helped and estimated. The latter, especially, is a major clue that the article is saying something other than what it may appear to be saying at first glance. This view is supported in the following paragraph when it is noted that the recession is not officially over and such a determination won't be made for months. The use of the word estimated is really quite key here, and it is a major clue that the information isn't appropriate for an article about Barack Obama.

As to how to characterize cash-for-clunkers, the source didn't claim it was part of the so-called "stimulus package", and it is inappropriate for us to do so here. That is not a POV; it is adherence to our core principles. In fact, the phrase "stimulus package" simply doesn't appear anywhere in the source.

Regarding POV, you made the accusation by writing You acknowledge that it worked, you're just loathe to use the term. I've already responded to that; I'm merely pointing out here the specific place where you accused me of a POV, a claim which you denied.  Frank  |  talk  11:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Rich that you're interpreting the words "helped" and "estimated" as being contraindicative of the things they're describing, and your focus on the word "package" instead of the word "stimulus" seems utterly flummoxed, yet you're suggesting it's I who am parsing words "very selectively". (Which words do you mean?) If the article states the stimulus "helped" the GDP, we represent that. If the article states the Commerce Dept. "estimated" the recession is technically over despite continuing unemployment, we represent that. I really don't see what's so hard to grasp about that.

Surely you don't see anything in my posts that suggest we put Joker's original edits back into the article if there was something lacking (or overstated) in those edits, so you can disabuse yourself of that perspective. What I am doing is taking issue with the difference between what the source material stated and what you put into the article and declared in your explanations of such.

As to "package", you are still not addressing the fact I specifically stated we didn't need to use the word "package" if you think people will think that means a single bill rather than the array of stimulative efforts taken by the administration. I've already indicated that the source mentions cash-for-clunkers among the stimulative efforts that had a real impact on GDP. You are still failing to address the fact that this was a stimulus measure and it did indeed stimulate the economy.

The second sentence of Wiki's own Cash for Clunkers reads, "The program was promoted as providing stimulus to the economy by boosting auto sales, while putting safer, cleaner and more fuel-efficient vehicles on the roadways." That article cites The Economist as writing,

"the boost in demand that the rebates have brought about is exactly the sort of stimulus that is urgently needed to escape what John Maynard Keynes called a “liquidity trap”. According to his theory, consumers may become so worried about the economy that they cling to as much liquid wealth as possible, cutting their spending sharply and thereby triggering precisely the slump they feared. Moreover, as stimulus policies go, cash-for-clunkers looks to be unusually effective."

The New York Times wrote, in "A Modest Proposal: Eco-Friendly Stimulus":

"Economists and members of Congress are now on the prowl for new ways to stimulate spending in our dreary economy. Here’s my humble suggestion: “Cash for Clunkers,” the best stimulus idea you’ve never heard of."

Why, it's as if he's met you. Of course, that was written in July 2008, before Obama was even elected. "Cash for Clunkers: Real stimulus", a report from CNNMoney.com's senior writer is also referenced in our article.

This all without even venturing into the wider world via Google, as one might do. It's not your intent focus on certain of my words that I mind, it's your utter disregard of most of the rest of them that I find unhelpful to an editorial discussion. Abrazame (talk) 10:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Obama Job Approval Down to 49%

"first president born in Hawaii"

Just wondering, do you find it more notable that he is the first President born in Hawaii or the first President born outside of the lower 48? Carowinds (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you asking out of personal curiosity, or to change the article contents? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd oppose saying he was the 1st president outside the lower 48, though it is undoubtedly true, it might be seen as giving credence to birthers.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

We already detail Obama's birthplace in the article. The issue of adding more trivia to the lead comes up frequently, and should be avoided if that is the implied suggestion here. LotLE×talk 19:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Obama admits delay on Guantanamo

Currently in the article: "ordered the closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp "as soon as practicable and no later than" January 2010." Yes, but there is a change, read: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8366376.stm Add: "Barack Obama has for the first time admitted that the US will miss the January 2010 deadline he set for closing the Guantanamo Bay prison." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.0.95.27 (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this is relevant to the Presidency of Barack Obama article, but we really need to get away from dropping every development of his presidency into his BLP. QueenofBattle (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Agreed. What Obama declared in his first days is still relevant to the "First days" section. The slippage of this date will not actually happen until January 22, 2010. By that date, presumably there will be some official news on the trials of the detainees, on the preparations to hold prisoners elsewhere, and on revised plans for the closing of the detention facility. At such time as this is news about something that has actually happened or a formal change of plans and not mere speculation—even correct speculation "admitted to" by the president—it's not relevant to an encyclopedia that is based on the past and not the future. At such time, it will be presented in his biography only as is appropriate to that biography, i.e. this is more about his presidency than him as a person. We might write at such later date as we know how this actually wound up playing out that Obama took delays in stride, or that Obama ultimately overcame Congress' resistance, or that Obama was blocked from keeping this promise as a result of X or Y and the result, as in so then he responded by finding another solution, or so then he responded by forcing their transfer to the U.S. even before a suitable place here was prepared for them, or because of this he resigned the presidency and became a porn star.

The point isn't he said X but X+2 happened, it's the relevance to him as a person. The wheels have been turning all year toward this, it wasn't a forgotten promise. If I tell you I've got reservations to fly in on the red eye and spend the whole day with you, and then a combination of bad weather and problems at the airline cause my flight to be delayed, so I'll be getting in a little later than I expected, it doesn't say anything about me. If, instead of simply making other plans for breakfast and keeping your cell nearby to hear the new ETA, you start thinking less of me and telling everybody I say one thing and do another, that says something about you. Abrazame (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Ditto.  Frank  |  talk  02:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

For me your comments raise many red flags. You write that this is not relevant here, but in this case why you mention the close of Guantanamo in the main article? Or the good news should be included here, the bad news is somewhere else, like in presidency etc. pages whose visitor's frequency is much lower. I think that it is very important, because Guantanamo, like Afghanistan's and Iraq's war is a symbol in Obama's life, especially after receiving the Nobel peace prize —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.0.95.27 (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to think there is no great harm in a clause stating that in November 2009 Obama stated that the deadline would not be met. Whatever the consensus of editors thinks is right is right. No big deal.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

We could save space by cutting out "as soon as practicable". Just excess verbiage now.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

In two successive sentences you miss both the editorial and situational points. To the editorial: threshold for article inclusion isn't "no big deal". Encyclopedias are for big deals, the bigger the deal of the article subject the bigger the deal the threshold for inclusion. To the situational: "as soon as practicable" is now more relevant—not less so—than "one year from now". You do get that, right? One year wasn't practicable, but we're still moving toward the goal and the recent announcement of the trials is the most significant indicator of that? Abrazame (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say that it goes to the person, not just the policy. However, I'm not inclined to argue about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

What "it" do you mean as going to the person? Abrazame (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly nothing that Obama did or didn't do that is delaying the situation. When you look at it, it's understanding considering that there's nowhere to put both the guilty and innocent detainees currently held there. Europe won't take the innocent ones like they said they would, the American people hardly want to try them, let alone put them in their prisons. It's probably relevant to describe this whole situation, in the Presidency article of course. Grsz 02:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we do currently address it at Presidency, though it seems the section was edited to remove some of the content explaining the delay. I've restored the material, which was sourced to the same ref at the end of the paragraph that sources all the other material therein. I've also amended it to note that trials are now scheduled, some in military and others in civilian courts. Sharp trick that, removing the reasons for why something has been delayed and then trying to blame someone else for it. No wonder everyone from anons to admins are confused. Abrazame (talk) 10:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I have replaced the paragraph in the Presidency article about the "reasons" with the following text to aid in resolving this. I tried my best to pare it down to the facts as we know them (via the RS) and keep it on Obama's presidency:

By November 2009, Obama stated that the US will miss the January 2010 deadline he set for closing the Guantanamo Bay prison, and acknowledged that he "knew this was going to be hard" as officials are trying to determine what to do with some 215 detainees still held at the US prison. While Obama did not set a specific new deadline for closing the camp, he said it would probably be later in 2010, citing that the delay was due to politics and lack of congressional cooperation.

At the very least, I think we can agree that this belongs in the Presidency article and not here. I'd even go so far as to propose that the current text in this article be removed or pared down quite a bit for the reasons I stated above. QueenofBattle (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Obama has terminated the services of Greg Craig over this, signaling that it has been a significant failure. It is notable enough to include in the biography. I agree with 81's assessment that there is a tendency among certain editors to say "the good news should be included here, the bad news is somewhere else." Throwing out all negative information, no matter how notable, into child articles has been a notorious problem on this page. Remember WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I am suggesting that we throw all the information, positive and negative, about this into the appropriate child article. This is a discussion about something that is happening during his presidency, and driven by decisions he has made as president. It is not the same as biographical information, which gets deposited in the BLPs. QueenofBattle (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Phoenix and Winslow, that is not what has been happening here. What's been happening is that some editors want to include negative material in the the Barack Obama article when it really belongs in the Presidency of Barack Obama article. Then other editors try to add balance to the entries and it becomes part of this article. Almost the whole entry under Barack_Obama#Presidency should be moved to Presidency of Barack Obama, except that it is already there. I don't think you are reading WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV correctly. Or at least not also considering other factors. DD2K (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Guantanamo Bay is Obama's signature issue. He campaigned on it. Within 24 hours of his inauguration he signed an executive order to close it within one year, and he did it with a fluorish and great media fanfare. This is his version of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. Perhaps he should have thought it through more carefully, and considered all of the pitfalls before making that commitment. He may not have already failed, but he knows he's going to fail and he's admitted it. Imagine how notable it would have been if, 10 months after making his proclamation, Lincoln had admitted that he wouldn't be able to free all the slaves! It would have been an enormous personal defeat. So is this.

Obama's involvements with Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, William Ayers, Rod Blagojevich and ACORN have all been carefully reduced to a few words or confined to child articles, even though they have nothing to do with his presidency and (except for Blago) are clearly reflections of Obama as a person, rather than a politician. All are negatives. How do you explain this, if it hasn't been the practice here to throw all negatives into the child articles, and keep only the "good news"? Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree with a lot of what you type. Namely, I think the BLP should include much more robust (or at least more balanced) discussions of Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, William Ayers, Rod Blagojevich and ACORN. But, Guantanamo Bay as Obama's signature issue?! Come on. I can think of several issues he is hyped up about before I think of Gitmo: The economy, change for change's sake, America's standing in the eyes of the world, Muslim/American relations, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, ethics in government, expensive universal healthcare, the BCS, etc., etc. QueenofBattle (talk) 22:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

On Day One of his presidency, why do you suppose he selected this particular issue to act on, over all the others? It was his signature issue during the campaign. At least, that's my impression. On Day One, he did not declare war on the recession, he did not declare that we would be out of Iraq in 16 months (as promised), he did not introduce a health care reform bill ... all of those issues had to wait. First things first. Actions speak louder than words. He chose to act on Gitmo (or at least declare that he would act) because that was his signature issue. If it was a minor issue, he wouldn't have fired Craig over it. Craig used to be a Clintonite: very, very loyal to the Clintons. Craig stabbed them in the back and went over to Obama's camp. This is how he's being treated, now that he's burned his bridges with the Clintons. It's very noteworthy. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you are claiming that closing Gitmo is President Obama's "signature issue", comparing it with the Emancipation Proclamation(showing further that you are misinformed about that issue as well as Lincoln's "promise's), while also wanting more discussion about Wright, Rezko, Ayers and ACORN, shows that your goals seem to be very much in line with trying to POV push. DD2K (talk) 00:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't you think that's a rather dismissive way of putting it? Also, you are addressing P&W and it was QofB who made the Wright/Rezko/etc comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, first of all, that's incorrect. QoB responded to P&W's suggestions of adding more about those figures with a response that maybe they should be more robust or balanced. QoB did not make some pretty off base claims(Obama, Gitmo, Lincoln, Emanc.Proc.) and then suggest adding more about controversial figures from the 2008 primary/election. My own feelings on those figures are that most were used as a sort of 'guilt by association' smear campaign(most of which President Obama's main opponent refused to take part in, and WP:BLP shows we should be careful about using those type of associations. While I don't mean to be totally dismissive of other editors contributions, it's hard to WP:AGF here. DD2K (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) We have to alter the Guantanamo information. Currently, the First Days section says that he announced that the prison would be closed by a certain date. If no further mention is made, the reader will be given the mistaken impression that the intended January closing date will be met (and eventually, that it was met). We could remove the reference from Final Days, but as was pointed out above, it's in there now to indicate what matters he had chosen to give priority during his start. We need a sentence in the Foreign Policy or Iraq War sections along the lines of, "During a tour of Asia in November 2009, Obama announced that he would be unable to meet the January 2010 deadline for the closing of the Guantanamo Bay prison, which he had set on the first day of his presidency. The President cited technical, political and legal obstacles as the reason for the delay, and predicted that the final closure would come later in 2010." Okay, two sentences. It may seem like undue weight to some, but the President himself treated it as important, so we should, too. (Looking at the sentences, I recommend placing them at the end of the current Foreign policy section. CouldOughta (talk) 04:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What about a footnote? I should add that I'm entirely an outside voice here, I came in when there was a call for neutral admins to monitor the article. Still, I see POV on both sides. It is POV to say ACORN/Adkins/whatever and it is POV to say yes, he said it then but we aren't actually at Jan 22 yet and it's Congress's fault. Suggest a compromise be found.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is we have two sides: one side that sees political implications (per their own personal ideologies) that may have a huge impact on Obama and his future presidential re-elections (I.E. "look he can't keep his promises!") and the flip side who see the broader picture. This is the same argument that has arisen with the poll numbers, ACORN, etc. A foot note would be best, but I always advocate for a historic look and not rush to anything. Heck, if we wait instead of rushing to judgment, we may see this blow up in Obama's face and become the reason for his loosing the elections, this may work out with little fan fair and everything turned out all right, or it may be the leading cause to his re-election. Either way we don't know and cannot know per WP:CRYSTAL. So instead of jumping around saying "Look look he won't be able to keep his promise" we should instead wait until the event has come and gone, then report on it. By then we will have lots more information and also have much more of a view of how much of an impact it had on Obama. Brothejr (talk) 11:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, one side has personal ideologies, the other sees a broader picture, and presumably lacks personal ideologies? How idealistic. No, it is not quite the same as ACORN. ACORN, the argument was for inclusion of information that was not already there in the article. Here, it is for updating something already there. If Obama's Gitmo pledge is not important enough to be updated, I respectfully suggest we strike it from the article. Incidentally, I'm not going to go and find the diff that the Gitmo closure was added to the article, but it was in January, a quick search shows that. Historic view? We also have the Health Care bill passing one House of Congress in the article, the equivalent of one hand clapping. Historic view? I await with bated breath your deleting, to start with, the health care passage "until the event has come and gone, then report on it. By then we will have lots more information and also have much more of a view of how much of an impact it had on Obama." Be bold.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(Ignoring sarcastic remarks) The Gitmo pledge in the article is fine, but as of right now he has not failed to keep that pledge. He only said he might not be able to keep the pledge. However, after the date has come and gone and the pledge was broken, then yes include it, not before per WP:CRYSTAL. I'm not sure how the health care debate has any impact or was brought up here in this section on Gitmo? However, using historic view would mean waiting until there is a bill passed or if it is defeated. Then we would report that it passed or defeated and report the impact it had on Obama's presidency. This is the same issue as ACORN in that it is mainly a political issue and the politics of the day. It has to do with "We must get as much dirt on him and tie as many scandals or supposed scandals around his neck" attitude. If you remove the heated politics of the day, then the issue carries less weight and does not merit inclusion in this article. It's all about politics of the day (I.E. ideologies) and if you remove them then the issue looses weight. Brothejr (talk) 12:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

You said, "He only said he might not be able to keep the pledge." Wrong. He said he WILL not be able to keep the pledge. A significant difference. It may reasonably be argued, that since nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize closed about a week after he was inaugurated, it was this pledge that won him the Nobel Peace Prize. Regarding any WP:NOTNEWS complaints, the facts of Obama's election and inauguration were reported here instantly. Commentary about other editors' motives might as well be directed at your own. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not sarcasm. As for WP:CRYSTAL, I'd respectfully suggest it doesn't apply. If a spaceship is sent to Neptune and it doesn't make it past Mars and is drifting out there, must we wait until nonarrival at Neptune to report it? Obama has stated that the camp will not be closed in that time frame. Stretching back into the law school days, I remember a concept, I think called anticipatory repudiation which says that if one party says a contract will not be completed, the other side can sue based on that and does not have to wait until the technical noncompletion. I'm not comparing what Obama said with a contract, I'm simply saying that announcing it will not be fulfilled relieves us of any need to wait until Jan 22 As for the health care thing I am suggesting that by the same logic applied by you, that no "progress report" such as passage by the House should be in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Wehwalt, although I do see the point being made about mentioning the fact that President Obama will not meet the self-imposed deadline of January 22nd, 2010, your analogy is a poor one. The 'spaceship' is not 'drifting out there' it's still on it's way to Neptune and almost every aspect of the flight plan is still in place. Although it's delayed. While mentioning that the date will probably be delayed, it's absolutely absurd and shows an obvious WP:POV comparing the delay to Lincoln not freeing the slaves and claiming it's a 'failure'. If one has even the slightest inclination of how Washington D.C. works, arguing about how many detainees go to Illinois or about how many go to Michigan, is not a 'failure', but part of the process. So if Gitmo is closed on February 12th, or March 13, instead of January 22nd, the deadline wasn't met but the promise was fulfilled. Anything else is just WP:POV. DD2K (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sending a spaceship to Neptune generally involves bouncing it off the gravity wells of several planets, so if it isn't making it past Mars, it isn't in position of the next richochet shot. By your logic, Neville Chamberlain was quite correct with "peace for our time" (my current project, btw), our time is not yet come. But it may come someday ...--Wehwalt (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Collecting some arguments from one side:

• "Maybe this is relevant to the Presidency of Barack Obama..." User:QueenofBattle
• "it's not relevant to an encyclopedia that is based on the past and not the future..." User:Abrazame
• "I'd even go so far as to propose that the current text in this article be removed..." User:QueenofBattle
• "What about a footnote?" User:Wehwalt
• "Heck, if we wait instead of rushing to judgment..." User:Brothejr

So hide this new information or even delete the whole sentence about Guantanamo from the main article to avoid the inclusion of the bad news. Or make an unvisible footnote by one point of lettersize. Or wait.

And what happened? Nothing. There is no change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.246.182 (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've made suggestions, but even though I'm an admin, I'm just another editor when it comes to consensus and there is not consensus for what I've proposed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There seems no reason to wait until the deadline expires, since Obama has said clearly that the deadline will not be met. Eventually the deadline will pass and we'll probably update the text, as appropriate, to say that the date passed as predicted. A footnote next to the appropriate sentence in the First Days would work in most contexts but not here; most readers would assume it's a source reference rather than an explanation. The language I proposed above is clear, nonjudgmental (for example, says "announced" rather than "admitted"), and leaves in place the First Days' mention of Obama's original deadline, which is there now because it was the consensus that it merited inclusion in this article. CouldOughta (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Economic growth and stimulus

Vis-a-vis this edit I do not wish to edit war, but it takes things in the wrong direction to remove a reliably sourced (and rather obvious) statement that a consensus among economists believe that the federal stimulus contributed to the short-term economic growth numbers, in favor of a statement cited directly to the opinion piece in question that a certain "award-winning" (an unencyclopedic descriptor) economist believes it did. Why should we care what one particular economist thinks instead of any other? The point is that the stimulus, a program backed by Obama, contributed to economic growth. This is an article about the president and to a lesser extent his policies, not about what individual economists have to say. We could simply say that the stimulus stimulated growth, something obvious that many reliable sources simply say directly. The stronger claim that the stimulus caused the end of the recession is widely believed, but less widely so, and therefore it's better to go with the more modest claim that a consensus of economists (per the UPI source) believe the stimulus had an effect. We can probably find other reliable sources that cite polls of different groups of economists as well, if additional sourcing is necessary. It's pretty important to say that the stimulus created short-term growth, because without that the comments about the "double-dip" concerns over deficit spending don't have any context. The issue here is balancing the short-term stimulus of increased deficit spending versus medium and longer-term economic results, first of ending the stimulus program and later of the accumulated debt and its effect on credit markets. Anyway, we need some way to characterize the effects of the stimulus if we're going to say anything. Quoting one economist doesn't show much; quoting multiple economists is overkill and still doesn't prove anything. Words like "some", or "many" are weasel-words. So we need some way to characterize the prevailing / majority opinion. "Most" may overstate things, or maybe not. "Consensus" is sourced, and about as good as it gets. I note also that User:ThinkEnemies is correct to use the revised 2.8% figure instead of the initial 3.5% figure for 3Q economic growth. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I shouldn't have given so much weight to Paul Krugman's opinion. My intention was just to correct the third quarter growth, I saw the consensus claim and attempted to fix what was seemingly an absurd statement. Economists cannot find consensus on what bought us out of the Great Depression, let alone the effects of Obama's stimulus, or Bush's TARP. This is where the consensus claim originated: New Consensus Sees Stimulus Package as Worthy Step. I'm sure we can use this article, the trick is to do it, NPOV. ThinkEnemies (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Is your objection specifically to the word "consensus"? I think you're right that the news articles (though reliable sources as such) are using the word to announce something that doesn't happen, economists agreeing on things. Maybe they're struggling with the same thing we are here. It's obvious that most economists in one way or another credit the additional spending stimulus package with being a net upward influence on the short-term economics numbers. Whether that gives the package "credit" for ending the recession may be a different story. We could say something like "various economists" (?) have opined that the stimulus package resulted in short-term improvement in the economic growth numbers, and then cite Krugman and a few others. Then go on to say (as we do now) that Obama (and others?) have voiced concerns that too much stimulus can have negative effects such as causing a slide back into recession or long-term drag on growth. Is there a good way to say this? - Wikidemon (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if feel that "consensus" would be an inaccurate description. I agree with your proposals, I'm not sure we should into get detail in this BLP. Maybe the Presidency of Barack Obama article would be a better location. For now, I'll get rid of Krugman and change to the NYT reference, replace "helping the economy emerge from a recession" with your edit "helped create economic growth," and go from there. ThinkEnemies (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

These edits look good. Thanks for discussing. I think this little section ended up stronger than either of our initial efforts! - Wikidemon (talk) 03:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Obama's first state dinner's crashed

10,000 additional troops to Afghanistan

Featured Article?

Obama has been President of the United States for 10 months only. For those of you who don't know, that's less than one year. As to why this is a featured article, while President George Bush's isn't, I have no clue. He hasn't done enough noteworthy things in his life to make this one of "Misplaced Pages's best articles". The man isn't even a year into his presidency yet! His life before his presidency is uneventful. In addition to all of that, much of this page demonstrates Misplaced Pages's major flaw of bias opinions in articles. Within the "Economic Management" section, it says "Various economists have credited the stimulus package with helping to create economic growth", and while it mentions the opinions of possibly only a few individuals, it mentions nothing about any opposing arguments made from any credible sources. This article is about a less-than-noteworthy individual to be a featured article and also fails to completely Misplaced Pages standards. i do not feel it should be a featured article and think that the star in the upper right hand corner should be removed. --Stevedietrich (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This has been a featured article since well before he ran for president. "Featured Article" status is not a way of conferring an honor upon the subject of an article. Rather, it is a way of recognizing articles that are well-written and meet certain criteria for quality on Misplaced Pages. I'm really not sure I would call the President of the United States "less than noteworthy" but it doesn't really matter. Far less well-known subjects also have featured articles written about them. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Featured Articles are those that have appeared on the front page of Misplaced Pages, and have if necessary survived a review process to ensure that they are still of sufficient quality. The assessment is based on the quality of the article and, sometimes, interest to a general audience. They are not rewards to the article subject nor are they based in the case of people on their amount of experience or whether they deserve it. We can't go back in time to change history - the article was on the front page so it is a featured article. Why would you think that having Obama as a featured article would mean we should have Bush as opposed to, say, the Prime Minister of England or premier of some other country? They definitely are not tit-for-tat matters where featuring a thing of one persuasion necessitates featuring another for balance - although I'll note that on election day 2008 Obama's and John McCain's articles were both featured, a huge effort in terms of editing time and as far as I know a first for Misplaced Pages. If you want to know the process by which this became a featured article - twice - you can follow the links relating to the featured article nominations and reviews. If you have a specific suggestion for the economics section feel free to propose it but, again, "balance" is not really a goal here. It is to present the prevailing viewpoints and any significant minorities. Most, perhaps nearly all, economists would say that an economic stimulus of federal deficit spending does exactly that - it creates a short term stimulus to the economy. One of the cites I believe describes a "consensus" among economists, although if you read the sections immediately above this one there was a reasonable objection to using the word "consensus" even though the source said so. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article is on Henry Wells (general). I'm not sure whom we need to feature as the tit-for-tat pair to Wells :-) (it indeed looks like a nice article, FWIW, of someone I had not myself heard of before today). LotLE×talk 22:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you for explaining this to me. However I think in response to the economy, that opposing views should be expressed right next to the supporting views, because balance I believe IS ESSENTIAL to a good, and certainly a featured Misplaced Pages page, or else the article becomes biased. If it only shows one side of the argument, then readers new to the subject may not even know objection exists, technically speaking. It is our jobs as contributors to Misplaced Pages to present facts and to give a reader understanding of a topic. I understand now why the article is Featured.--Stevedietrich (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Balance does not mean that "the good" must be equally weighted by "the bad". Please familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV. Tarc (talk) 13:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"The man isn't even a year into his presidency yet!" - This statement indicates that only through a significant time period, in office, he can truly succeed. The truth is, this man has already won the nobel peace prize for his incredible efforts, both nationally and internationally. He has also, might i add, lived a very full and debated life before coming to his current position. If you think that people are only noteworthy when they have spent a reasonable time in office, then think again. This man has already a lot more to say for both his life, and presidency, than George bush. The fact is, this brilliant wikipedia article reflects his life fully. Stakingsin (talk) 13:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent Afghanistan speech

Are people planning on creating a subarticle on this? If so where is the article being worked on? Remember (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I would think it would belong in the article on the Presidency of Barack Obama. This is a biographical article, and more time will need to pass before we know the biographical legacy on Barack Obama's life. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

We should at least briefly mention it in the "War in Afghanistan" section of this article. Nothing wordy, just that on December 1, 2009, he announced that he would send 30,000 more troops over to Afghanistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.160.56.132 (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with OuroborosCobra, Presidency of Barack Obama is where it should be mentioned. 24.12.93.206 (talk) 23:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, we really need to resist dumping everything that happens while the man is president into his BLP. QueenofBattle (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

To keep our 1:5 ratio of substantive, straightforward responses at this page, I'd note that User:Remember was not suggesting it be added to this article, and tell him that it's my guess from these responses (and no others) that no editor active at this page is working on one. You would be welcome to try your hand at creating one yourself if you'd like. It may prove useful in determining what, if anything, to distill about the speech and/or reaction to it to the Presidency or Public image articles. Good luck. Abrazame (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Protection

img not showing up?

Is it just me or is the image under the "Presidency" section not showing up? (File:US_President_Barack_Obama_taking_his_Oath_of_Office_-_2009Jan20.jpg) Despite the code appearing correct the thumbnail image is not being generated. ] of the president of the United States.]]

I already refreshed the page but no image...It only seems to show up when I specify the image size right after the file name.

-- GateKeeper @ 08:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I see that image in the Presidency section fine, at the appropriate size. Can anybody explain why this user is having this trouble? Abrazame (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Is the right chart filled out currectly?

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class biography articles
• FA-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Top-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Low-importance
• Unassessed United States presidential elections articles
• Unknown-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• FA-Class U.S. Congress articles
• High-importance U.S. Congress articles
• WikiProject U.S. Congress persons
• FA-Class WikiProject Illinois articles
• High-importance WikiProject Illinois articles
• FA-Class Hawaii articles
• Mid-importance Hawaii articles
• WikiProject Hawaii articles
• FA-Class Kansas articles
• Mid-importance Kansas articles
• WikiProject Kansas articles
• FA-Class Chicago articles
• Top-importance Chicago articles
• WikiProject Chicago articles
• FA-Class Indonesia articles
• Mid-importance Indonesia articles
• WikiProject Indonesia articles
• FA-Class Africa articles
• Low-importance Africa articles
• FA-Class Kenya articles
• Low-importance Kenya articles
• WikiProject Kenya articles
• WikiProject Africa articles
• FA-Class African diaspora articles
• Mid-importance African diaspora articles
• WikiProject African diaspora articles
• FA-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles