Meredith collects data to deliver the best content, services, and personalized digital ads.
Byron Allen Crashes Sundance, Sues Obama's FCC
We partner with third party advertisers, who may use tracking technologies to collect information about your activity on sites and applications across devices, both on our sites and across the Internet. To avoid personalized advertising based on your mobile app activity, you can install the DAA's AppChoices app here.
There's no place for transient poll data, specific to Obama's presidency, on a biography describing the man's entire life. First, I have only one wikipedia account. Second, I believe that it's better to update poll data, than to have outdated information in the article. Third, we should develop some universal criteria for the inclusion of approval ratings in the article.
For example, when Bush was President, his approval ratings were constanly updated and nobody objected to it. Sasha best talk , 15 November UTC. What do you mean by "has no bearing"? If approval ratings of one President were constantly updated, the same thing should be done for every other President. Otherwise, it clearly is a double standard, which should be avoided. It would be wrong to modify Wikipedia policies depending on your political position.
Moreover, the statement about "similar trend" is one-sided. It's neccessary to mention other facts from the article as well: that his approval rating is lower than G. Bush had during his first year in office. Once again I insist on mentioning current approval ratings, as they are important indicators of public image. Public image of a politician is always more or less defined by his approval rating. Current approval ratings may not be important when his presidency ends, but until then they are important.
However, I do not insist on deleting the comparison, I only want to combine these 2 approaches, thus making a compromise between them. You and Scjessey disagree and you have a right to do so. But that's not a reason so revert my edits. If I deleted all the information I disagreed with, the article would have to be largely rewritten.
Let the other people have their say too. S Your suspicions are of no interest to me.
It's absurd to think that only one person may disagree with your opinion. To my mind, encyclopedic article about a living person shouldn't compare him or her to another person. How can you speak about Obama's presidency in historical perspective if it's not over yet? In historical perspective, his current approval rating may not be important, but right now it is important. The aim of encyclopedia is to provide facts, not to analyze them.
- Obama's Birth Certificate Proves He's Not From Earth?
- The Girl in the Hallway?
- find the best time to fish mobile bay alabama.
- Obama’s presidential legacy: a weakened Democratic Party and timidity of reform.
- public records chester county real estate.
- death records in mecosta county michigan;
- mobile phone prices list in india!
But all I want is just to add current data alongside the historical comparison Sasha best talk , 15 November UTC. But, wait, George W.
Bush is even more recent, so why not compare them? Reverting my edit is inconsistent. If you use an article as a source, then mention other facts from the article too. The words I added were taken from the article, right before the comparison with Clinton and Reagan.
While September 11 attacks are mentioned, the authors of the article clearly considered this comparison meaningful and possible. If you want to make comparison, let it be broad.
- how to locate your stolen vehicle?
- how to find destination ip.
- Third Obama birth certificate appears in court?
- Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers..
- how to check fuses in a car.
- free death records for indiana!
Selective comparison is only an attempt to make Obama rating look better. Finally, if you think comparison is irrelevant you should leave comparison with G. Bush then. His situation was similar. It'd also be a good idea to mention comparison criteria, like "who also had a reccession in their first term". Bush Jr. Sasha best talk , 16 November UTC.
Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.
I find it interesting to say the least that his opposition to equal civil rights for gay citizens is not mentioned in the slightest. He has proven by his own actions time and time again that his stance is against equal rights. My understanding was that wikipedia is supposed to be a non-biased, factually based reference site. Really now???? I'll make it easy for you. Start with his appeal of the court ruling repealing don't ask don't tell. Go from there.
The First White President
And no, I don't think that's too harsh considering my second point: people need to stop pointing to opinion articles as though they were legit references. They are absolutely NOT. Yet half the articles I see people pointing to on this talk page are opinion articles. Well want to know why no one is putting in your great point? That's probably reason number one. An opinion article is and will never be a legit reference.
It's not even a maybe, just no. I restored the content removed with a misleading edit summary by Sasha best. I checked the sources within the cited content, and found all statements to be properly referenced. Something needs to be done about this disruptive editor. Unfortunately I've failed to find updated information on Obama's foreign perception. I think that nowadays this topic is not interesting to foreign pollsters. Sasha best talk , 19 November UTC. This talk page ranks 16th, with kilobytes. Perhaps this will motivate greater efficiency in the use of kilobytes. What do other editors feel about this addition?
Personally, I don't think it is a notable statement and I'm uncomfortable with seeing YouTube used as a reference. President Obama was injured and received 12 stitches during a basketball game today. Should something about this be added to the article, perhaps in the section which states he plays basketball? I can see pros and cons on adding the information. There is nothing in George W. Bush's page about the incident involving him choking on popcorn, but it could also be argued that GW was not permanently injured, while Obama is likely to have a scar. I have mixed feelings about the notability policy, but I am also a FIRM believer in honoring user consensus, so perhaps we should discuss it.
KEEP-As a frequent Wikipedia user, rather than contributor, I would err on the side of including more information rather than less. I would keep the information regarding the injury. The injury is a minor event. The fair thing to do would be for the original poster to point out an equally minor event. If there is none, this injury doesn't belong. If the injury is more significant than a minor thing here, it should be included. Um, when did this article get selected for a feedback survey? Plus, as a high trafficked article that's both on probation, is it appropriate for a feedback survey.
As in: a feature that can be gamed rather easily by those looking to radically shift the page into an attack page and have a tenancy to create sock puppets to push their POV's. Brothejr talk , 9 December UTC. Just two years into his term and already TV features him! Aruda talk , 9 December UTC. This article is placed on article probation, it says on top.