Changes

:Ultimately I may add more suggestions later but this I think is a good start and comprises the bulk of the elaborations about his past I would like to see.  --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] ([[User talk:Jzyehoshua|talk]]) 05:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

:Ultimately I may add more suggestions later but this I think is a good start and comprises the bulk of the elaborations about his past I would like to see.  --[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jzyehoshua Jzyehoshua] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jzyehoshua talk]) 05:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

::In other news, an amputee has recalled that losing his legs "stings a little bit". '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sceptre Sceptre]''' ^{([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]])} 05:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

::In other news, an amputee has recalled that losing his legs "stings a little bit". '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sceptre Sceptre]''' ^{([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]])} 05:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

:::I'll review them seriously when I have a chance.  Whether we agree or not in the end, I appreciate your  taking the invitation to start a new section and propose them straight, one at a time.  I hope we can all keep up a dignified, collegial, supportive spirit discussing them (kicking several editors, and myself, under the table... ahem!).  Thanks! - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikidemon Wikidemon] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikidemon Wikidemon]) 05:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

:::I'll review them seriously when I have a chance.  Whether we agree or not in the end, I appreciate your  taking the invitation to start a new section and propose them straight, one at a time.  I hope we can all keep up a dignified, collegial, supportive spirit discussing them (kicking several editors, and myself, under the table... ahem!).  Thanks! - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikidemon Wikidemon] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikidemon Wikidemon]) 05:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::As for the 16 additional words used in the introduction, I think they are worthwhile for balancing out an introduction section that otherwise fails to mention ANY negative or critical aspect whatsoever.  This is in sharp contrast to other political profiles which carry no such qualms about mentioning a critical fact or mention in the introduction to provide a more accurate and two-sided summary.

:::::As for the 16 additional words used in the introduction, I think they are worthwhile for balancing out an introduction section that otherwise fails to mention ANY negative or critical aspect whatsoever.  This is in sharp contrast to other political profiles which carry no such qualms about mentioning a critical fact or mention in the introduction to provide a more accurate and two-sided summary.

:::::--[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] ([[User talk:Jzyehoshua|talk]]) 06:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::--[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jzyehoshua Jzyehoshua] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jzyehoshua talk]) 06:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

:Yes, Bush's page does discuss issues relating to his declining popularity. However, consider ''when'' Bush was president. His presidency is now over. It is history. We have had more time to consider the finer points of his presidency. However, Obama's winning of the Nobel Prize is in the recent past. We have not had the time to consider the historical implications of the 2009 prize. You cannot judge how historically controversial something actually was this early. <br />

:Yes, Bush's page does discuss issues relating to his declining popularity. However, consider ''when'' Bush was president. His presidency is now over. It is history. We have had more time to consider the finer points of his presidency. However, Obama's winning of the Nobel Prize is in the recent past. We have not had the time to consider the historical implications of the 2009 prize. You cannot judge how historically controversial something actually was this early. <br />

::I very much disagree.  I see no difference.  For one thing, Hurricane Katrina happened pretty recently too and there is criticism of Bush about that on his profile.  If the Iraq War was happening right now, criticism of him about that would be warranted as well.  There were protests about that and it was clearly controversial just as there are clearly controversial issues surrounding Obama right now as well.  Controversy can be assessed at any time.  If numerous news outlets are reporting on it or there are mass protests going on, then it makes sense to mention this in passing.

::I very much disagree.  I see no difference.  For one thing, Hurricane Katrina happened pretty recently too and there is criticism of Bush about that on his profile.  If the Iraq War was happening right now, criticism of him about that would be warranted as well.  There were protests about that and it was clearly controversial just as there are clearly controversial issues surrounding Obama right now as well.  Controversy can be assessed at any time.  If numerous news outlets are reporting on it or there are mass protests going on, then it makes sense to mention this in passing.

::As for examples of the positive details, it is more what it does mention in contrast to what it does not.  It mentions he was president of the Harvard Law Review, but does not mention he published only one article while there.[[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12705.html]]  It mentions he won the Nobel Peace Prize but none of the controversy that surrounded this, and led to criticism of the committee responsible for awarding the prize.  It skims over all his accomplishments while never mentioning anything involving controversy or criticism.  If one did not know better, you would think he had no controversy at all surrounding him who makes no waves and not the polarizing figure his presidency is showing him to be.  It could mention his excessively liberal voting record or the protests against his lack of a birth certificate.  Or that the stimulus and health care bills he made primary talking points are facing skepticism by the American people and delays in Congress, and he has taken criticism from his own party for backing off of his earlier promises on withdrawing troops and continuing the Guantanamo military commissions.  Maybe his record drop off in public support, which set a record low for any president at that point in their presidency[[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/08/obamas-percent-approval-lowest-president-point/]].  Again though, from Wikipeda, you would never even consider it from reading the intro.  As far as the intro makes it look, everything is just peachy.  Palin has faced less controversy and her profile makes it a point to mention ethics complaints.  All I am saying is it is not an accurate portrayal of how he appears to the American people.  Just something to show that controversy would be accurate, but there is nothing. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] ([[User talk:Jzyehoshua|talk]]) 07:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

::As for examples of the positive details, it is more what it does mention in contrast to what it does not.  It mentions he was president of the Harvard Law Review, but does not mention he published only one article while there.[[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12705.html]]  It mentions he won the Nobel Peace Prize but none of the controversy that surrounded this, and led to criticism of the committee responsible for awarding the prize.  It skims over all his accomplishments while never mentioning anything involving controversy or criticism.  If one did not know better, you would think he had no controversy at all surrounding him who makes no waves and not the polarizing figure his presidency is showing him to be.  It could mention his excessively liberal voting record or the protests against his lack of a birth certificate.  Or that the stimulus and health care bills he made primary talking points are facing skepticism by the American people and delays in Congress, and he has taken criticism from his own party for backing off of his earlier promises on withdrawing troops and continuing the Guantanamo military commissions.  Maybe his record drop off in public support, which set a record low for any president at that point in their presidency[[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/08/obamas-percent-approval-lowest-president-point/]].  Again though, from Wikipeda, you would never even consider it from reading the intro.  As far as the intro makes it look, everything is just peachy.  Palin has faced less controversy and her profile makes it a point to mention ethics complaints.  All I am saying is it is not an accurate portrayal of how he appears to the American people.  Just something to show that controversy would be accurate, but there is nothing. --[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jzyehoshua Jzyehoshua] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jzyehoshua talk]) 07:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

:::Using Hurricane Katrina and George Bush as an comparative example of controversy is not very good. Hurricane Katrina occurred five years ago, and killed a lot of people, and caused millions of dollars worth of damage. Barack Obama winning the Nobel Prize occurred very recently, and certainly hasn't killed anyone. How can you compare them?

:::Using Hurricane Katrina and George Bush as an comparative example of controversy is not very good. Hurricane Katrina occurred five years ago, and killed a lot of people, and caused millions of dollars worth of damage. Barack Obama winning the Nobel Prize occurred very recently, and certainly hasn't killed anyone. How can you compare them?

:::* ''Not "accurate portrayal of how he appears to the American people"'' - Wikipedia is worldwide, and suggesting that we all put articles from the American perspective can be quite offensive.

:::* ''Not "accurate portrayal of how he appears to the American people"'' - Wikipedia is worldwide, and suggesting that we all put articles from the American perspective can be quite offensive.

:::Controversy is not easy to measure, and certainly cannot be assessed "at any time". The reason is that people will generally think and talk about the latest and greatest ones. Therefore, it is difficult - and not a good idea to attempt - to measure the effect of a particular controversy on history just months after it has happened. Just having multiple reputable news outlets reporting on it is nowhere near enough - they release news every day, covering new and old controversies. Just having protests is not enough either - there are protests all the time. One must wait for the weight of history to truly judge whether a controversy really had historical effect. There are controversies every day, but only a few survive in memories and become truly important. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WHSL WHSL] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WHSL WHSL]) 13:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

:::Controversy is not easy to measure, and certainly cannot be assessed "at any time". The reason is that people will generally think and talk about the latest and greatest ones. Therefore, it is difficult - and not a good idea to attempt - to measure the effect of a particular controversy on history just months after it has happened. Just having multiple reputable news outlets reporting on it is nowhere near enough - they release news every day, covering new and old controversies. Just having protests is not enough either - there are protests all the time. One must wait for the weight of history to truly judge whether a controversy really had historical effect. There are controversies every day, but only a few survive in memories and become truly important. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WHSL WHSL] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WHSL WHSL]) 13:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

::::Hmmm...  as a side note, would you then say you have no problem at all with my other additions, since all of them have proved controversial over the years concerning Obama and are by no means recent?  Furthermore, shouldn't Wikipedia report recent events as well as old ones?  If there is a recent scandal, I have seen numerous Wikipedia articles mention this, or other controversies relating to a person or business.  It would make no sense to do otherwise.  Also, is there any Wikipedia policy stating that controversial events must pass a certain time limit before they can be addressed in an article? --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] ([[User talk:Jzyehoshua|talk]]) 16:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

::::Hmmm...  as a side note, would you then say you have no problem at all with my other additions, since all of them have proved controversial over the years concerning Obama and are by no means recent?  Furthermore, shouldn't Wikipedia report recent events as well as old ones?  If there is a recent scandal, I have seen numerous Wikipedia articles mention this, or other controversies relating to a person or business.  It would make no sense to do otherwise.  Also, is there any Wikipedia policy stating that controversial events must pass a certain time limit before they can be addressed in an article? --[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jzyehoshua Jzyehoshua] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jzyehoshua talk]) 16:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

=== Second: Notable Controversies, 48 Sources ===

=== Second: Notable Controversies, 48 Sources ===