Talk:Public image of Barack Obama/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Conservative support

Why is there a conservative/republican support section? Why isn't there a conservative attack section? Or a liberal support section? Makes no sense to me.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That's academic. Repeatedly removing content from Wikipedia is vandalism. Recommend you self-revert in order to avoid being blocked. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Why are you threatning me? You don't own wikipedia. We need to come up with a compromise.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A good compromise would be to self-revert your vandalism. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You are being very cocky. You can't just threaten me like that. You don't have the authority to block me. I made legit arguments, and you haven't even made an argument.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm simply stating facts. Your continuous removal of fully-referenced and relevant content from the article is an example of both vandalism and edit warring. I cannot block you, but if you persist in this disruptive behavior I can report your actions to someone who can. Support from Republicans and conservatives was a significant fact that contributed to Obama's election victory, and reliable sources documented this in some considerable detail. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There were many reasons why Obama won the election. But again, WHY should conservative support be included, but not liberal support?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Because "liberal" (as you insist on calling it) support is unremarkable. It is expected of a Democratic candidate, and therefore not really notable. Republican/conservative support is unusual, and notable - as evidenced by the huge number of reliable sources reporting about it at the time. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't conservative, or some Republican, support for Obama be considered crucial to Obama winning States such as Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia? I think some of the same references are in the Reagan article concerning Reagan Democrats, who were crucial to Reagan winning in some States/areas he was not supposed to. Why wouldn't this be mentioned here? DD2K (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is not about why Obama won the election. This article is about is image. Having conservative support is not an image, it's simply one reason why he won. Someone's public image is about what people think of Obama (e.i. charisma, criticism, etc.)--Jerzeykydd (talk) 20:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you quit deleting this notable, fully-referenced section out of the article or you will quickly find yourself on the wrong end of the article probation general sanctions. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That is part of his image, and one of the reasons why he won the election. They are interchangeable, and don't have to be separate. Frankly, I can't see how you could read this article, the references cited, and still believe the section you consistently delete(over several editors objections) does not belong here. The conservative support section definitely belongs. I was wondering if there was something I wasn't seeing, because of your insistence on removing the section, so read the whole article, the section, and the references, and I can't understand your objections at all. DD2K (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Vote on deletion of section

I support deletion. This article is not suppose to praise Obama. It suppose to be an objective article that states not why Obama won the election, but how people perceive him before and after the election. Again, this article is not about why Obama won, it's about his image. His public image may lead to conservative support, but not the other way around.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Support' deletion. I move for the deletion of section Conservative Support for Obama. I don't see the relevance of showing conservative support for Obama during the election in his current public image article. That would be like showing a list of democrats who supported Beck on his program back when he was at CNN in his current public reception section. There's just no relevance to it today as conservatives overwhelmingly disagree with Obama's policies, and I feel this section's inclusion misleadingly gives the impression that Obama has current support from conservatives. Ink Falls 22:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's time to get more opinions on this matter.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I support removal as well; 9% is hardly notable considering that McCain won 10% of the Democratic vote. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I, too, support removal. It is irrelevant and biased in my opinion. I notice too much political bias of Wikipedia. -Americus55 (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I Oppose deletion. The prose is relevant to the article and well-sourced. Anyone concerned about actual political partisanship in this content dispute are advised to note the existence of articles such as Democratic and liberal support for John McCain in 2008 and Reagan Democrat. I do not believe that those ought to be deleted, either. —Notyourbroom (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I oppose deletion. It's well referenced and notable. (It's why he won!) It's also true, and a quite small part of this article. It has a Wikilink to Republican and conservative support for Barack Obama in 2008, a much larger article which elaborates on the points made in this article. It's all part of the Obama picture. Cannot see the logic of removing, unless some hard core Republican supporters cannot deal with what happened. And I say this as a non-American who cannot vote in the USA and is not a member of either party. To remove that section is to conceal a significant fact about his election. HiLo48 (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Support: 9% is hardly notable considering that McCain won 10% of the Democratic vote. Obama won because of Independent voters, who are now firmed opposed to his policies. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

How many times are you going to post that? Does the section say "conservative support" or "Republican support"? Because Obama received 20% of the conservative vote and was the first Democrat to win Virginia in 1964. Time to find another reason. DD2K (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

How is "conservative" measured? How much "conservative" support did John Kerry receive? --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It is measured by counting the people who self-identify when they do those things called opinion polls. It's not rocket science, Will. Tarc (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Then it's pointless because most blacks identify as conservative. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Even if that's true(and it's not), are you suggesting that if African-Americans were conservative and voted for Obama, then their votes are worthless? That just doesn't look good, William. DD2K (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Your link is about Asian-Americans. Don't try to make some racial issue by misconstruing what I wrote. Obama won 95% of the black vote compared to 88% for John Kerry. On average, blacks are socially conservative and vote for Democrats, that's the flaw in measuring conservativeness by self-identification. The bottom line is that Kerry won 6% of the Republican vote, Obama won 9%, that is not significant. Considering that there are conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans, self-identification of ideology does not tell you much. It would be significant if he won a large percentage of the opposing party, as Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush did in the 1980s.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrong on all counts. 1- I didn't inject race into the conversation, it was you(it's pointless because most blacks identify as conservative). 2- You obviously didn't read the Gallup poll link(or did and for some reason ignoring the facts), because it definitely polled African-Americans and listed their ideology(as well as Whites, Asians and Hispanics), showing they had the lowest conservative self-identifying factor(29%) of all races except Asians(21%). 3 - Lastly, and once again, we are referring to the conservative support, not Republican(as has been stated numerous times). And that was 20%. DD2K (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I did read it. 29% of blacks self-identify as conservative, something like 63% are moderate. A very large percentage of the 29% voted for Obama. This increases the perceived conservative support. And it's a pointless measure because it doesn't show much. How is only 20% conservative support (with a flawed measure), and 9% Republican support enough to merit an entire article and section claiming that Obama has significant conservative backing? --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Stop altering the closed RFC. If you don't undo your edits, you are going to be reported. You are not supposed to alter archived discussions. Especially a RFC. DD2K (talk) 23:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose deletion. His support was at one time very high, and this is a significant fact. Adamc714 (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This vote is discounted because the "voter" provided no evidence. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It's well referenced and notable. (It's why he won!) I'm not denying the fact that Obama had conservative support. It is significant, and should have a separate article. But it does not belong here. Again, this article is not about why he won, it's about his image, during and after the election. As a result of his image, he may get some conservative support. But that's not apart of his image, it may be a result of it.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to remind William S. Saturn (talk · contribs) that a profession of opinion on Wikipedia is not a vote. Wikipedia is governed through consensus. —Notyourbroom (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Support deletion of section. Obama's support among conservatives has never been significant and there was tremendous distrust among conservatives particularly regarding his social policies. He was however able to win the support of some libertarian minded independents who opposed the war efforts in the middle east. Jerzeykydd makes some good points. Boromir123 (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The crux of your issue, then, lies with your personal opinion not lining up with reliable cited sources. I am sure I do not need to remind you which of those Wikipedia considers to be valid for consideration in content disputes and which is not considered valid. If nothing else, review WP:TRUTH. —Notyourbroom (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• To be perfectly honest, I oppose the existence of any such article entitled 'Public Image of...' as it's all based in opinion and serves no real purpose. Everyone has his or her own opinion, and is entitled to have one, but really, what's the point of writing an encyclopedia article about it? Image and polling numbers are only important for predicting election outcomes. He (President Obama) is in office. His image is irrelevant so far as the constitutionally defined parameters of the office are concerned. If you don't like him, good for you. Elections will be held again in November of 2012. If you do like him, ditto. That's all that matters. My vote: delete the whole article -- and those concerning anyone's 'public image' as well. This is Wikipedia, not People Magazine right? Ryecatcher773 (talk) 07:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The article's importance rating is high, which suggests to me that the consensus on this genre of article is not in alignment with the view you have expressed. Also, please keep in mind that it is a goal of Wikipedia to attempt to provide a worldwide view on a particular subject. To assert that there is no need for articles of this nature because everyone is a priori an American, has a nuanced understanding of perceptions of Barack Obama, and has a concrete opinion of the man and his policies is somewhat myoptic. What of someone in India who wishes to understand more about the controversies surrounding Obama's public image, but who has no first-hand experience in American politics and may consume very little American media? That's the sort of role Wikipedia can fill. —Notyourbroom (talk) 18:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Changing title name

Support changing the name of the section to Conservative support in 2008 as a compromise, and because that's really what the section is about. Ink Falls 19:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I find that idea reasonable. —Notyourbroom (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that either. In fact, that's almost the title of the main article that the section is directed to. DD2K (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed Adamc714 (talk) 05:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with the idea about changing the section header to specify 2008. Seems like a reasonable compromise solution and it would be more concise.--JayJasper (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Continued discussion

The title change didn't solve the problem. The fact is it shouldn't be there because conservative support is an effect of his image, not a cause.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed off topic text

The text below has nothing to do with the public image of Obama; rather is a comment on US society in general and the effects of slavery, so I have removed it. I have moved the references to the external sources section and to the next paragraph of the text where they fit better.

In January 2007, The End of Blackness author Debra Dickerson warned against drawing favorable cultural implications from Obama's political rise: "Lumping us all together," Dickerson wrote in Salon, "erases the significance of slavery and continuing racism while giving the appearance of progress."

Here is thediff 209.44.123.1 (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleting the lede and misrepresenting poll

While Boromir123 made the changes, Jerzeykydd is once again deleting consensus material and re-adding a poll that is being misrepresented. The lede is supposed to be a short summary of the article, which it is. The poll, Boromir123 inserted incorrect numbers, stating "Polling has shown that only 6% of Israeli citizens approve of Obama's policies" --even though the politico link states that "Just 9% of Israelis, according to the poll, says he's "pro-Israel," to the 48% who said he's pro-Palestinian and 30% who called him neutral" -- saying nothing of "approval" or disapproval. Also, the politico link makes a caveat of "the survey from the conservative JPost interviewed only Israeli Jews; a more positive figure last week from the liberal Haaretz...". So please stop changing the lede and re-inserting the incorrect polling section. DD2K (talk) 00:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Consensus can change. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Where in the article does it specifically say and cite that his savvy, charisma, conservative support, etc. were the main reasons of his election victory. I can argue that he won the election because of the Bush Referendum.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but did you even read the article, or the many other Obama articles, before making these changes or asking that question? You should start here --> Temperament - Political Savvy - Conservative support. DD2K (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

citation request.

Someone removed my citation request in the article header. I placed it there because the header states that "He was the first candidate for US President to have a biracial and international background." This seems incorrect, if you see here any thoughts? I'm disputing the "international background" verbage, not the "Biracial" part, unless you consider Cynthia Mckinney's simultaneous green party candidacy contrary to the first part of the sentence.Efcmagnew (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say the part about being "the first candidate for US President to have a[n]... international background" is incorrect. Especially considering that most of the candidates during the first half a century America existed had international backgrounds. Although I do think, and believe the sources indicate this, Obama is the first candidate who got elected with a Pacific international background. Dave Dial (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

if no one objects, I would like to change it to say "the first US president to have both a biracial and international background" though I'm not sure that's true, either. according to the primary definition of race, a person with eastern and western european heritage could be considered biracial. In any case, referring to him as a "US president" instead of a candidate prevents giving WP:undue to republican and democrat candidates over third parties. Thank you for your input, Efcmagnew (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Is Peggy Noonan a Fox News pundit? please cite that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.30.45 (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The use of OpEd's as sources

The following section was removed for being based off an opinion editorial, the only type of article which covers aspects of people's public image. If you want I can go through the article and point out all the OpEd's(which I'm sure are numerous), but before I go through the trouble, does anybody else think that is a ridiculous reason for removing this and that the real reason behind its removal is pure POV:?
Still others have criticized Obama for not exhibiting enough empathy. Wall Street Journal contributor Peggy Noonan interprets his lack of an emotional response to be indicative of a detachment from the feelings of the American people and predicts his typical "No Drama Obama" approach to the gulf stream oil spill to have the same effects on him as hurricane Katrina had on Bush.

Note: Barack Obama is frequently criticized for his overly cool demeanor and perceived detachment, he was criticized for his late response to the fort hood shooting and for the BP oil spill, so this article is in no way a unique piece, and the lack of inclusion of this viewpoint is clearly POV.

-References- Mid-talk note:Reflist template below in other discussion.--NortyNort (Holla) 14:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Really, nobody cares; adding this shit here is about as ludicrous as a Michael Moore-penned column in the Village Voice being used in a Bush article. If all you wish to do is rattle off a laundry list of partisan criticisms, then head on over to blogspot.com and pour your heart out. It has no encyclopedic value. Tarc (talk) 02:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Michael Moore isn't a well respected journalist like Peggy Noonan and the Village Voice(which I've never heard of) probably isn't a quarter as reliable as the Wall Street Journal. Your shallow attempts to discredit legitimate criticism of Barack Obama by calling it "a laundry list of partisan criticism"(despite the fact that he has been criticized on the left for this too) is completely unnecessary for this article. If you don't have a real argument and only wish to insult those who you disagree with instead of discussing things then I'm reverting your edits. Come back if you have a real issue with this being included. Ink Falls 02:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yawn. Wikipedia:RS#Statements of opinion is thataway. Tarc (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

So what your saying is, if I find a bunch of people who all think that his "No Drama Obama" image is showing a disconnect between him and the American people, then I can write "The president is sometimes viewed as disconnected with the emotions of the American people"? Which would be an accurate assessment of how he is perceived by many. Ink Falls 03:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Given your current track record of source-misusing and penchant for partisan hatchet jobs, probably not. Tarc (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tarc here. The only possible way to frame it would be along the lines of "some political opponents say..." Once you get to that point, it becomes clear that it is not the public image we are talking about, but rather the image as seen by political opponents. For the record, Peggy Noonan's opinion piece was seen as an "outlier" that wasn't really a fair reflection on reality. You'd be hard-pressed to find similar commentary from any neutral sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

What you fail to realize is that many people criticize Obama for his perceived calmness. You want a fair source, I attended a lecture by David Brooks, a big fan of Obama, who outright stated that Obama doesn't connect with the American people emotionally, and I have viewed both Jon Stewart and some other liberal guy criticize Obama for as they put it "The one time you should get angry and upset is this time! With this BP oil spill, but your not!". So in my personal experience Barack Obama is generally perceived to be too calm, and Peggy Noonan didn't just write "I feel this way" but she wrote "The American people are complaining that he's too calm" thus it could easily be worded in his "No drama Obama" image section that he is perceived as being too detached. As for tarq's pathetic attempt to discredit those who disagree with him, that's really sad. Ink Falls 17:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

David Brooks is a conservative pundit, just like Peggy Noonan. Jon Stewart criticizes everybody because he is paid to do so. And Peggy Noonan does not speak for "The American people" - she speaks for herself. The opinions of two conservative pundits and a comedian are not representative of the nation as a whole. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

David Brooks may be a conservative, but he is a huge fan of Barack Obama. See "Usually when I talk to senators, while they may know a policy area better than me, they generally don’t know political philosophy better than me. I got the sense he knew both better than me. [...] I remember distinctly an image of--we were sitting on his couches, and I was looking at his pant leg and his perfectly creased pant, and I’m thinking, a) he’s going to be president and b) he’ll be a very good president.”. The man fawns over Barack Obama calling him an "island" and comments on his godlike serenity drawing from his excellent self confidence which fans adore and enemies fear, and puts him in the category of FDR and Ronald Regan. If he's not a neutral(or even pro-Obama) enough source, then nobody is. Besides you are assuming that the journalist who call him "No Drama Obama" are speakers of the American people more so then these other people, do you have any proof that they are more so speakers for the American people? Ink Falls 18:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is yet another column this time written by a liberal person. "Obama invented himself against all odds and repeated parental abandonment, and he worked hard to regiment his emotions. But now that can come across as imperviousness and inflexibility." "it’s strange that he would not have a more spontaneous emotional response to another horrendous hit for Louisiana, with residents and lawmakers crying on the news and dead pelicans washing up on shore." Here is a source from MSNBC's Morning Joe, they discuss it being a "political nightmare if the president doesn't look engaged" and that he's "coming across as too passive".(and I only got halfway through the video) Ink Falls 19:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If you watch this and still don't think there is a perception of him not showing enough emotion, well, let's just hope nobody actually thinks that after watching it. Ink Falls 19:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed addition to the article: A point of contrast between Obama and his 2008 opponent John McCain was Obama's perceived calm, even temperament, which was praised by former presidential candidate Senator Chris Dodd as well as numerous media sources as "cool" and "unflappable". Speaking in support of Obama in March 2008, retired Air Force Chief of Staff General Tony McPeak referred to him as "no drama Obama" and "no shock Barack". These characterizations were picked up and continued to be used months later by other commentators such as Andrew Sullivan and Arianna Huffington. Still others do not believe Obama is exhibiting enough emotion, particularly in response to the BP oil spill. Ink Falls 20:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Still mealy-mouthed, POV, and not of encyclopedic value. Tarc (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Socialist Public Image

Hi there. I was reading this article and found that it makes no mention of all the people who thinks he is a socialist. Here is a reference to the poll by the Democracy Corps that states that 55% of likely voters think the term socialist applies to Obama.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you got a reliable source for that? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The user provided a reliable source above from Fox Business.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That not a reliable source, it's a misrepresentation of data. I've looked at the poll and the source is manipulating the data. It's absolutely laughable that anyone believes that 55% of Americans view Obama as a 'socialist'. As if he didn't just win a landslide election about a year and a half ago by almost 10%. Dave Dial (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Fox Business is a reliable source. Please explain how the data is being manipulated.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I would rather you find the poll, read the data, and post a link to the portion that claims that 55% of Americans view Obama as a socialist. Dave Dial (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't need to, a reliable source already has.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, that is incorrect. Manipulation of data by Fox is not a reliable source. For this to be added(which you should well know) to a BLP article, you are going to have to do a LOT better than that. Dave Dial (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Your claim has not been proven.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I found the original source here. You should download the PDF if you want the margins to line up and be easier to read. I searched for the term socialist and came to the poll on page 11. Respondents were given a word typically used to describe Obama and then asked whether they think that word applies Very Well, Well, Not Too Well, or Not Well At All. When asked for the word socialist 32% thought the term applies Very Well, and 23% thought it applies well. When asked if the term "too liberal" applies to him, 34% thought it very well describes him and 23% thought it well describes him. When asked if the term "big spender" applies, 43% said it applies very well and 18% said it applies well.

I then scrolled up and found more questions, just a quick breakdown of the ones where one side scored 50 or above.
Offers a hopeful vision of the future: 50% agree 48% disagree
Strong leader: 52% agree 47% disagree
On Your Side: 47% agree 50% disagree
Has realistic solutions to the country's problems: 42% agree 56% disagree
I'm surprised Wikipedia has almost no polling information on Barack Obama in his Public Image section. I would've expected a chart showing the progression of his approval ratings and other things. Anyway, if you want to look into polling, Nate Silver is the acknowledged best in the field with his website being 538.com. He correctly predicted 49 out of 50 of the Senate victories and is the one who first noticed and reported on the Daily Kos's pollster falsely leaning their polls to the left. Dave, I didn't see how the poll was misrepresented, I think perhaps you were looking at another one. Where was the one you were looking at?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, although why you used a google link instead of the original at this URL is beyond me. As to the other: polls are not encylopedic content, and 99.99% of those quoted in this entire project belong in WikiNews, not here; but you've given us a solid citation to work from, and I thank you. I despair, though, of the educational system in this country, when such nonsense actually is given credence by even 5.5% of the populace. (But of course, the businessmen of the 1930s thought Roosevelt was their enemy instead of the guy who saved their collective hindquarters by defusing any structural reform efforts.) --Orange Mike | Talk 20:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Although I appreciate your thanking me for finding the original source I am concerned about something that you said "polls are not encylopedic content". This just isn't true. In my college level history books we are given polls that were done at the time of various people's approval ratings and we are given scientific polls that were done showing what the people believed at the time. Scientific polling is accepted by the scientific community and are a universally accepted means showing people's perceptions. I think perhaps you are mistaking the polls done by newspapers and blogs with scientific polls done by polling companies(such as Democracy Corps). Could you give me an example of a Wikipedia rule which does not allow for polls?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit: I just viewed the Public image of George W. Bush article for guidance and counted 6 polls given in the lead paragraph along with a graphic of his approval ratings and a poll that reads "In an August 2008 poll of likely voters, 41% responded "yes" to the question "Will History rate George W. Bush as the worst President ever?", 9% were unsure, and 50% said "no"."Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• First. my apologies for confusing the numbers on this poll, and the results(although I still think they are garbled). I was reading the Democracy Corps pages here and here, which are analysis of the same poll, and saw the split groups referred to as 'A' and 'B', which I believed were referred to in the 'Socialist' question. And it seems as I was incorrect. In any case, a poll that shows 50% disapproval, 46% approval but 55% believing Obama is a 'socialist' with only 39% not seems strange. Surly it isn't enough to make any sort of mention in this article.
  As for the Bush article mentioning polls, so do many Obama related articles. One has to realize that Bush was President for 8 years, while Obama has barely cracked the 1.5 year mark. That should be an obvious indicator for what to, and what not to, include right now.
  Dave Dial (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I follow. Are you disputing that a majority of people think the term socialist applies to Obama, or are you disputing the relevance that a majority of people think the term socialist applies to Obama in this article? Also you said "One has to realize that Bush was President for 8 years, while Obama has barely cracked the 1.5 year mark. That should be an obvious indicator for what to, and what not to, include right now.". Could you explain what the length of serving as president indicates what should be included in their article?

Lastly you state that you believe 55% believing to 39% not believing Obama's a socialist is not a large enough number, but you seem okay with a polling only showing a 41% saying yes to and 50% saying no to the question "Will History rate George W. Bush as the worst President ever?" in the George W. Bush article. Clearly the number is more significant in the socialist poll then in George Bush poll. Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason to avoid mention polling data in public image of... sections. It's always interesting to know how many people share a perception as opposed to just "enough people to be notable". As for that threshold, it should probably be either mainstream enough for a non-partisan mainstream news source to comment on it or it should be shared by a portion of the population more than just the fringe. For example, apparently 26% of people apparently believe Obama was raised Muslim. We found that to be notable enough to include, even though it's a mistaken impression. The fact that Salon has commented on it albeit with caveats and explanations suggests that Obama = socialist is a common enough idea, even if the man doesn't actually support a collective ownership of the means of productive, or anything remotely related to it.--Louiedog (talk) 05:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

As a non-American, I find it almost laughable, and certainly a strong commentary on the politically loaded use of language there, that anyone at all could think Obama is a socialist. As for him being seen as liberal, that is seen as a compliment most of the times in many parts of the world. Socialist is what the USSR was. Obama simply isn't. But if some Americans think he is, and a good source says so, then I guess it goes in. HiLo48 (talk) 08:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the salient detail here is that "55% of Americans" haven't got a clue what "socialist" really means. Another sad fact is that Americans think socialism is a 100% bad thing because they've been brought up to think of stuff in terms of black and white. That this poll was even put into play speaks volumes of how dumb Americans can be, quite frankly. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Scjessey, please try to comment about this article and not use it as a forum to attack people, thank you, --Tom (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I really would like to see a quality dictionary attempt to define what is meant by socialist in the American political context. In many cases I suspect it means "I don't like him." HiLo48 (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the main detail is that 55% of people think that way which creates a public image. This discussion has turned into describing that 55% as dumb along with a list of editor's personal opinions. A lot of that number is probably Tea Party and they appear to be educated for the most part. People in history haven't always been the best at judging their leaders before electing them and during their term. We could discuss several examples in the last 100 years here including the last president. We could also discuss what segment of America is currently judging the president wrong too. But that shouldn't effect this poll. Is Obama a socialist? I don't think so. Have European-like socialist policies been popping their head up since 2009? Seems so and it gives reason for the 55%. The poll just shows what a large number of Americans think. An entry would of course have to include commentary on how notable people (both sides) feel about the socialist-Obama idea.--NortyNort | Holla 22:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok so I'm hoping this doesn't turn into a forum. I think if we are to introduce this information a general outline should look like this:

Political image
Political savvy
Elitism
Conservative support in 2008 elections
Socialism
In a poll done by the Democracy Corps of likely voters respondents were asked whether they thought the word "socialist" applies to Obama with 55% believing that it does to 39% believing it does not. It has been pointed out that the numbers may be a few percentages higher in believing Obama is a socialist because likely voters for the November congressional elections consist of more conservatives than usual. While some conservatives believe this poll can be attributed to Glenn Beck, Obama's recess appointment of Dr. Donald Berwick to be director of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, nationalizing entire industries and rewriting long standing property laws, other liberal sources would explain the high number of people who voted yes to being disgruntled about the economy and just wanting to label Barack Obama anything negative.

How's that so far?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Every claim in the paragraph needs to be sourced. Otherwise it is Original Research.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

References should be added to the end of each claim using <ref>Source</ref>. See WP:REF for details.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I would support inclusion after a copy edit.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Are we kidding here? There is no way that this fits the criteria to be included in this article. One poll of a split group of 256 people is not enough to pass the criteria for inclusion. Not even close. There are other problems, but this will do for now. Dave Dial (talk) 01:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, one of the articles about this – I think it was on Salon – indicated a 40% positive response on a similar question in 2008, before the election. In this country, for someone eventually elected President, even that's a pretty high figure. Maybe some mention of the perception should be included; his public image is more than walking on water and receiving the Nobel Prize. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Dave Dial is mistaken. Just as he was above.--William S. Saturn (talk) 02:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This is how the birther article(and the religion article) got created. A poll comes out and shows an outlier of people believe something, and it's turned into a section. Even though intelligent people know it's not true, so then it gets reported on by main stream sources that deride the people who believe these types of things. There is a huge middle ground between 'walking on water' and labeling a living person a socialist. I'm sure I can find polls showing a vast majority of Americans(71%) view Sarah Palin as unqualified to serve as President, and others that view her as uninformed and not intelligent, and yet those are not in her article. As far as I know at least. I don't really edit her article. But, if we are going to make these types of edits in articles, when and where do they stop? Dave Dial (talk) 02:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

According to reliable sources, Obama is viewed as a socialist by a majority of Americans. Whether Americans are wrong or right is not the place of wikipedia to decide. To claim that Americans feel that way because they are not intelligent is not a reason for exclusion.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, please see Public image of Sarah Palin. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, first of all, I doubt very much if that is true. But, it is one poll and that is not enough for inclusion due to undue weight. This is a living persons article and there has to be more than just that for it to be even considered for inclusion. As for the rest of your post, you can bet that questioning whether the people who view Obama is a 'socialist' are informed and/or intelligent would be a part of any entry, if/when there is one. I've already viewed several reliable sources that have addressed that issue. Dave Dial (talk) 03:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Claiming individuals are unintelligent for their political views is not exactly intelligent in itself. Perhaps they are misinformed or may have a differing definition of socialism. Regardless, this poll is notable since it received a fair amount of coverage in reliable sources.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say a couple things are obvious from the polls:

1. A significant portion of the population believes Obama is a "socialist".
2. A significant portion of the population doesn't know what a socialist is.

--Louiedog (talk) 04:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I still have a problem with the meaning of the word. When an "average" American says Obama is socialist, he or she cannot possibly be saying that they think he follows the philosphy of the USSR. Its meaning must differ a lot from what the word means elsewhere in the English speaking world. I'm not American. Wikipedia is global. I would love to know. What does socialist mean in America? It would be nice if America told the world in Wikipedia too. HiLo48 (talk) 05:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Words have the same meaning here that they do anywhere. Socialism is, actually, the collective ownership of the means of production. Private companies cease to exist and the free market is gone. When conservatives call Obama a socialist, they're both hyperbolizing and engaging in a slippery slope. To some conservatives any remotely progressive tax structure is somehow socialism or the first steps towards socialism. This is, of course, silly, because proportionately the rich now pay a lower portion of the overall tax burden than they have paid in ages. Regardless, when Obama says he wants to institute a partially socialized system of healthcare, it becomes outright "socialism" as a fear reaction. And at this point, the term has been used so much along these lines, it's lost a lot of its original meaning to the people who unknowingly are using a hyperbolized term, thinking it to be the correct literal application of it.--Louiedog (talk) 09:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Is the argument that there aren't enough polls? Because I found some more:

In an August US News and World Report poll nearly 90 percent of the respondents said that Obama's policies are socialist. "
"40 percent of Americans think Obama's a socialist" Wikiposter0123 (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No you didn't. The first is an opinion piece, citing and mocking the results of "an August US News and World Report poll" but with no link to it; the second is a USN&SWR opinion piece, also mocking the sort of Republican who thinks Obama may be the Anti-Christ, and in turn containing a link to a Harris Interactive poll. That latter link, unfortunately, is a dead one. So what we need is a link to the actual poll(s) which both opinion pieces are referring to. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been removing Zogby Interactive's polls from Wikipedia and have been finding that a great number of the polls that I find aren't linked to the original polling source but to an article in a newspaper or another news source that is mentioning them. It seems to me to be the standard elsewhere that, for instance, if you wanted to cite a Rasmussen poll you can just cite a Wall Street Journal article that mentions the Rasmussen poll whether or not the article is an opinion piece or not. This makes sense as the Wall Street Journal, the Huffington Post, etc are all respectable sources, and you can rely on them to accurately reflect what the polls say. So I disagree about needing to cite the original source.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit: See here for an example of what I'm referring to. When they write Zogby/WSJ it means they're using a Zogby poll but the source is from the Wall Street Journal. Similarly when they write Mason-dixon/MSNBC they mean they are using a Mason-dixon poll but the source is from MSNBC. Hope that clarifies what I was referring to.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no. Those are polls conducted by the Zogby organization for the WSJ, not merely polls by Zogby reported in the WSJ. (And frankly, based on observations of twenty years and more, I assume anything in the editorial section of the WSJ is likely to be a lie [or merely scurrilous and intellectually dishonest]; and I'm sure that there are conservatives who feel the same way about the Huffington Post.) Orange Mike | Talk 21:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Even if you feel that way, they are respected news organizations and besides why would the Huffington Post lie to make it seem Americans think Obama is a socialist. I don't think any conservatives think HP is going out of their way to frame public perceptions of Obama being a socialist. So I can assume you're a liberal right?

Actually, no; I'm a Christian of the sort that in politically sophisticated countries would be called a social democrat. Sadly, Americans have been lied to for so many decades that many of them can't tell the distinction between a moderate conservative like Herb Kohl and a Fidel Castro. (Just as some Americans can't tell the difference between a Jim Wallis and an Ian Paisley, just because both are labelled "Christian".) --Orange Mike | Talk 21:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, the opinions of the WSJ and HP should be treated equally on Wikipedia, not doing so wouldn't be neutral.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

1. I was very clear to distinguish between the editorial section of the WSJ and the news portion; please do the many fine reporters who work there the courtesy to do the same.

2. We are under no obligation to treat "the opinions of" anybody as if they were the same as actual reported facts; and I definitely include the WSJ and HP alike in that. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"Actually, no; I'm a Christian of the sort that in politically sophisticated countries would be called a social democrat."

In case you're unaware the reporters for the WSJ are generally considered the most liberal in the business, so your admission that they do a fine job doesn't make you seem any less left leaning.
Why are you saying to me "We are under no obligation to treat "the opinions of" anybody as if they were the same as actual reported facts" which a totally irresponsible representation of what I said which was "Also, the opinions of the WSJ and HP should be treated equally on Wikipedia, not doing so wouldn't be neutral."
Just to clear something up for you the reported facts in editorials are treated as facts not as opinions. A fact in an editorial says "55% of people voted this way" an opinion is saying something like "55% of people voted this way because it was raining". Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL. The Wall Street Journal is about as liberal as Pat Buchanan. It's another Murdoch organ. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If you've ever seen a report of the most biased news reporters the Wall Street Journal normally ranks as the most liberal. It's new reporters are the polar opposite of it's editors who are incredibly conservative. Anyone who has read the Wall Street Journal can see that.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

From their Wikipedia article: "One surprise is the Wall Street Journal, which we find as the most liberal of all 20 news outlets [studied]. We should first remind readers that this estimate (as well as all other newspaper estimates) refers only to the news of the Wall Street Journal; we omitted all data that came from its editorial page. If we included data from the editorial page, surely it would appear more conservative. Second, some anecdotal evidence agrees with our result. For instance, Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid (2001) note that "The Journal has had a long-standing separation between its conservative editorial pages and its liberal news pages." Paul Sperry, in an article titled the "Myth of the Conservative Wall Street Journal", notes that the news division of the Journal sometimes calls the editorial division "Nazis." "Fact is", Sperry writes, "the Journal's news and editorial departments are as politically polarized." If you're going to accuse people of bias at least know which bias they have.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

For the third time: I specifically and in italics referred to the editorial portion of the WSJ and to nobody else there. Don't accuse me of something I didn't say or think. There are a lot of good, intelligent reporters on the news side of that paper and Barron's! --Orange Mike | Talk 23:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No one's even accusing you of anything. It was Scjessey who said the WSJ isn't liberal and it's to him I was speaking. This conversation is turning into some internet forum political discussion and we need to get back on topic.

Okay. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Barack Obama, lot's of people view him as a socialist, so why isn't it in this article?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Okay: as to that, what we have are polls that spoonfeed people various terms and ask, "Yes or No". Are there polls which say that this is a term people actually think of themselves, or just one they hear slung around and (since they have no clear idea what it means) say, "Yeah, I guess so"? --Orange Mike | Talk 23:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have a problem with polls in general, but that's not a reason for exclusion. The argument seems to be that the American people cannot make a judgement on whether their president is socialist because they are uninformed. But that doesn't dispute that the poll took place and was covered in reliable sources.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Orangemike's is a wise comment. I often struggle with the language differences between English speakers in different parts of the world. What I asked for above is an explanation of what ordinary Americans mean by socialist. It's obviously different from what I think it means. I can accept that differences exist, but this is a global encyclopaedia. (I know that last spelling, which is correct to me, will look wrong to Americans, but that is precisely my point.) The article needs to define what socialist means in common American English for it to make sense outside that country. [PS: I'm having similar trouble with liberal. I didn't realise it was meant to be an insult.] HiLo48 (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Any answer to this question would be OR since we can't ask each respondent. According to the poll's results, the policies of Barack Obama are equated with socialism, and that's the only conclusion that can be drawn in regards to a definition.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"According to the poll's results, the policies of Barack Obama are equated with socialism". No; actually, all we know from the poll is that if a pollster explicitly feeds the person polled the word "socialist" and asks whether it applies to Obama, a majority say "yes". That's not the same thing; see leading question. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

But most of us here realise that Obama isn't socialist. So the poll result says far more about the linguistic knowledge of Americans than it does about what they really think of Obama. HiLo48 (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I "realize" Barack Obama isn't a socialist just as I wouldn't say I "realize" he isn't gay. Definitely none of the reforms he has suggested or passed are socialistic, but also I don't think Americans think they're either, they think Obama's trying to move us into that direction though. In my opinion Obama's not a socialist or even a progressive for that matter, but he is really liberal and the man just does not know when to quit spending(I mean even various European leaders[France and Germany] criticized Obama for his spending at the G10 conferences). Let's kept in mind he did attend a Black theology church which teachers a weird mix of Marxism and Nietzsche-like ideas of oppressor-oppressed paradigms and I think on that basis most Americans who don't trust him think he is secretly a socialist. Keep in mind Americans often refer to Europe as being socialistic.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 04:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Which brings me back to an earlier question. This is a global encyclopaedia. Exactly what do these Americans mean by socialist or socialistic? And by the way, please don't correct my spelling, as you did with realise. That is the correct spelling where I come from. You have simply reinforced my point that the English language varies around the globe. [Note my spelling of encyclopaedia.] HiLo48 (talk) 05:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Lol sorry I didn't think anybody would notice. Anyways by "socialist" Americans mean slow economic growth, redistribution of wealth, large government programs and entitlements, a welfare or "nanny" state, more government regulation, less individual freedom, higher taxes, more government oversight, more government bureaucracies and agencies. Basically think big government, high taxes, and redistribution of wealth that is what Americans mean by socialist.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 05:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. So, the rapid economic growth of China must indicate that it's not socialist. ;-) Sorry. Only joking. That's the trouble with simple labels, I guess. I still tend to agree with earlier posters that leading questions such as "Do you think Obama is a socialist?" are not very helpful. HiLo48 (talk) 05:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not actually a leading question. A leading question tries to get a certain answer such as how the question "You do believe Obama is a socialist, right?" would be trying to get people to say yes. What they told the people were these words were commonly used to describe the president and to respond if they believed if the fit him or not. It's actually not leading at all.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 05:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it absolutely is a leading question. A fairer question would be a multiple choice question that gave a wide variety of philosophies and a "don't know" option. Most Americans inaccurately equate socialism with communism (although some equally inaccurately equate socialism with fascism). Obama is pretty much a social democrat, although he leans toward Third Way-style centrism. These socio-political and economic concepts are not well understood by the average American responding to a poll, of course, so it would be impossible to get results that were a fair reflection of what people really thought. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect you don't really understand what a leading question is. As I've said before Americans think of socialism as big government, redistribution of wealth, and high taxes, and they think Obama embodies these concepts. To say this poll does not accurately represent what Americans believe is clearly indicative of a disconnect with the American people. Just type in "Obama socialist" in Youtube or Google and see the results you get and you will see that quite a few people believe he is a socialist. Honestly I can't believe I am having to explain to people that some people believe Obama's a socialist as the idea is pretty much ubiquitous over here in America(and I live in California).
Excerpts taken from Urban Dictionary.com:
Socialist:
A person who believes in an equal and communally beneficial system of government. Someone who supports such ideas as:

• Public Health-care
  
• Regulated economic market (no monopolies- therefore more selection for the public)
  
• A smaller rich/poor divide.
  
• a generally higher tax rate in exchange for high quality public services and transport etc.
  

on the politcal compass- they can be found in the bottom left quadrant.

Capitalist= Right Wing
Socialist= Left Wing

-Often used pertaining to the person and/or policies of President Barack Obama.

"A human being who believes that the most harmonious state of affairs would be for all to get a fair shot at financial sucess." Lol funniest definition of socialism ever.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Urbandictionary consists of anonymous, user-submitted content, i.e. of no importance or relevance to any discussion here. Tarc (talk) 02:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice sidestep. Just for future knowledge the definitions on Urban Dictionary are voted up with the most popular being at the top i.e. the top definitions of socialism are what the common man in America believes socialism to be and with that being the discussion going on here it is definitely relevant to the discussion. No one has come outright to state that an insignificant amount of people view him as a socialist, so adding this perception is definitely relevant to the article. If you disagree then please please explain your reasons for why this doesn't warrant inclusion into the article. If no one does then we should go ahead and work on how we're going to phrase it.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 04:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this CNN article is a good source that can help analyze the polling date in the proposed entry, along with here. Both have high-ranking American socialists saying he isn't one. Then to represent the poll, we have this Investor's Business Daily special report which outlines the backbone of why people think Obama is a socialist. So, you have a strong poll that describes a prominent image of Obama and both sides of the argument for analysis. I think these reports and any other reliable relevant media second-source analysis anyone has will make a good, notable encyclopedic entry.--NortyNort (Holla) 08:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I think we can make a fair addition with these resources as well.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no sidestep, we don't use Urban Dictionary as a source here. Period. That should be obvious to any editor. Dave Dial (talk) 00:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Your absolutely right this is not a side step it's now turned into a strawman. I didn't suggest using "Urban Dictionary as a source here. Period. That should be obvious to any editor." To get us back on topic: everyone seems to agree that a significant amount of Americans think socialist applies to Obama, so the next step is to discuss how to enter this information into the article.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 04:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, a sub-section can be created here instead of a possible edit war on the article. Given the discussion and the sources, it shouldn't be hard to put something together structure with the poll results, possible reasoning for view, and notable reliable comments by A (left) & B (right). I'd do it now but I'm about to crash. --NortyNort (Holla) 13:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I took Wikiposter's original entry and made a few edits w/references, have a look below. I wouldn't be one of the 55% but it is hard to dispute that this is not a significant public image nor not notable enough to be in this article.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Socialist

In a Jun 2010 poll by the Democracy Corps of likely voters, 55% responded that the word "socialist" applies to Obama while 39% believe it does not.1 Fueling this perception includes Obama’s past relationships, his appointment of Donald Berwick, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, bailout of GM, the recession and right-wing media.[http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=78330 2], 3, 45, However, top socialists in the U.S. such as the National Director of Democratic Socialists of America, Frank Llewellyn, and Socialist Party USA co-chair, Billy Wharton, argue against the perception and don’t identify Obama as a socialist.6, 7 Salon.com also reported that the likely voters polled by the Democracy Corps included more Republicans as the out party during a midterm election is always more motivated but that the broad pool still indicated a high number with a socialist perception of Obama.8

Your entry seems reasonable and I would support its inclusion.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 04:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Support. Just as Gerald Ford, who wasn't remotely clumsy gained reputation as a klutz, so has Obama's name been strongly associated with the word "socialist". The guy is so far from an actual socialist, it's laughable, but it's what people believe, even if they don't realize the definition of socialist they're using is complete hyperbole.--Louiedog (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I can pin it down here,,, Exactly what IS the definition of socialist they're using? Is it simply "I don't like Obama". Does it really have no meaning? Is socialist in this context just a non-thinker's, meaningless political slur? HiLo48 (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it's nonsense. Wikipedia has considerable content on socialism and what a socialist is. Obama simply isn't a socialist. As said earlier, this poll tells us that these voters do not know what a socialist is. THAT should be the emphasis of any write-up of this poll. Unless we can get some definition of what those people really think a socialist is, it's a pointless thing to add to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 04:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, no, the emphasis should be on how they view Obama(it's his Public image article not an article on socialism) not whether or not the view is correct. As for what they mean by socialist it seems pretty clear that we should just believe that it is what the average person believes a socialist is. Let's not start "interpreting" without any evidence what people "really" mean to support our own point of views.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 05:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Wikiposter but added "argue against the perception" in regards to the two top socialists. That gives context to the perception and provides enough explanation from reliable sources without us doing our own original research.--NortyNort (Holla) 05:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No Wikiposter, it's not "what the average person believes a socialist is". It's what the average anti-Obama American believes a socialist is, whatever that is. And I'm still mystified as to what that is. I don't like mystifying information being in an encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 08:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You have a problem with the definition of socialism in a reliable source, there's nothing we can do about that. Unless I am mistaken, you do not dispute that the reliable source suggests that a majority of Americans believe Obama is a socialist. What "socialist" means is irrelevant to this discussion.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It means, rather exactly, "Poo poo head". PhGustaf (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

William S. Saturn - I have no problem at all with the definition of socialism. That one just there, used in WIkipedia, is excellent. It's these Americans who think Obama is a socialist who have trouble with the definition. They clearly don't agree with the one in Wikipedia. That makes this all very silly. Someone MUST attempt to explain what this new definition of socialist is. Wikipedia would gain by having it added. HiLo48 (talk) 06:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Question to HiLo: what is it about Obama that makes think he's not a socialist?(I'm about to make a point here so humor me)Wikiposter0123 (talk) 06:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I mentioned above, Wikipedia (and I) already have a fine definition of socialism - "Socialism is an economic and political theory based on public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources." Obama clearly does not have that goal. And I truly doubt that 55% of Americans believe he has that goal. HiLo48 (talk) 06:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you think unless you are a reliable source.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite right. I was simply politely responding to Wikiposter's request for my own thoughts, but the well established Wikipedia definition, which I referenced specifically to alleviate concerns such as yours, is relevant. HiLo48 (talk) 07:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"Socialism is an economic and political theory based on public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources." Obama clearly does not have that goal
And you're basing this off of?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 07:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Common sense, undistorted by irrational paranoia. HiLo48 (talk) 07:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

If socialist were replaced with "pink rhino" with the same polls, reliable sources, etc, it wouldn't matter. This is a notable image of Obama and I the paragraph can do no more than report the sources. Honestly, I think the opinions of the two top socialists does a good job of putting it into context. I wikilink'd the word "socialist" to "socialism" in the paragraph as well. A reader can easily find out what socialism is from there. --NortyNort (Holla) 07:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It would make a huge difference if socialist were replaced with "pink rhino". Wikipedia does not have an excellent, well referenced article on pink rhinos, with a totally different definition from that held by 55% of Americans.HiLo48 (talk)

It is still a significant public image whether or not it is deserving or by definition. To filter it out of this article would not be encyclopedic. --NortyNort (Holla) 10:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, I agree that it's significant that 55% "believe" that he is socialist. The problem for WIkipedia is that it has an excellent article defining and describing socialism, and what those 55% believe is socialist must be something else. It's not enough to simply have "professionals" saying they disagree. We can't just say what it isn't. What is needed is that other definition. Anyone game to try? HiLo48 (talk) 11:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph lists reasons for the perception including the right-wing media which takes all the previous reasons and exacerbates them. It is almost as if socialist is being "redefined" in America. I know this was discussed above but I obviously don't think people understand socialism and the poll didn't ask them to define it. They see a growing government with growing intervention and it couples well with the right-wing media. I still don't think an actually definition is necessary. Maybe there is a way to reword it for more of a negation. --NortyNort (Holla) 11:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I was hoping you would say because he has not been proposing socialist policies(which would be the rational response), but it seems your reasoning for not believing he's a socialist is based off of some sort of rebellion against a perceived right wing conspiracy. Before I continue I must state the inherent difficulty of arguing against conspiracy theorists and hope you are receptive to the difficulty posed by someone such as yourself. With that being said 45% of Americans think he's not a socialist because he has not advocated socialist policies(perfectly reasonable), while the other 55% think that he is a closet socialist because of his connections, upbringing, and Marxist religion and that he is just making things as socialistic as possible given the fact that open socialism would be outright rejected. It's really that simple.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 08:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not American. Just a very interested foreigner and someone who wants to see Wikipedia being as good as it can be. I see no conspiracy. I do see ignorance. I delight in being difficult if it makes other editors think about what we must do here. I have no idea what a Marxist religion could possibly be. HiLo48 (talk) 11:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an American either, and from where I'm sitting it seems to me that this socialist meme is a transient thing cooked-up by Glenn Beck and his Tea Party crowd. Each time someone accuses Obama of being a socialist, the rest of the world laughs. I'm just as clueless about this so-called "Marxist religion" cobblers. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Uh, he went to a Black Liberation Theology church for 20 years and has quoted its doctrine multiple times in speeches.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That's just right-wing propaganda left over from the election. The United Church of Christ is mostly patronized by white people, for goodness sake. We haven't seen garbage like this since WB74 and his socks. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Please note that Black Liberation Theology is not a church denomination so all Black Liberation Theologists choose to be part of a denomination which doesn't necessarily reflect those views. Wright has said that a basis for Trinity's philosophies is the work of James Cone, the founder of Black Liberation Theology. Their mission statement is based off of systematized Black Liberation Theology. They obviously preach Black Liberation Theology and to argue otherwise is totally ridiculous.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, as a non-American I'm sorry to say that this mention of Black Liberation Theology looks and smells like racial and religious bigotry. I looked at the article. It doesn't mention socialism. It seems to mention a number of fine ideals that quite appeal to me. (And I'm not black either!) I don't like seeing writing like "he went to a Black Liberation Theology church for 20 years" with the obvious intention that simply such a mention should condemn a person for all time. Not an objective (nor a Christian) approach at all. HiLo48 (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

Looks and smells like ignorance to me. Perhaps you did not look hard enough:
Key concepts
Subsidiarity · Christian anarchism
Marxism · Liberation theology
Praxis School · Precarity
Human dignity · Social market economy
Communitarianism · Distributism
Catholic social teaching
Neo-Calvinism · Neo-Thomism
Also read the entire criticism of that article and you'll see many references to Marxism. The founder of BLT has stated that you need the teachings of Marx to understand economically what the Bible was talking about, and arguing there is no connection at all between BLT and Marxism just shows your ignorance in the matter.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 01:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I think this discussion has dragged on long enough. We have a notable input with reliable sources here that provides context from all sides. Are there any suggestions/inputs for the sub-section? --NortyNort (Holla) 10:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

What we have is an opinion poll that no one but agenda-driving pot-stirrers care about. 55% probably believed Bush was a fascist, but that wouldn't be a notable or important criticism either. Time to move on to editing issues of actual substance, IMO. Tarc (talk) 12:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the article should be retitled European adulation of Barack Obama, since the viewpoints of Americans about their President are considered irrelevant colonial ignorance when they contrast with that of the obviously superior European judgment. Fat&Happy (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia. We define and explain things. The problem as I see it right now is that no-one, especially a lot of Americans, can explain exactly what is meant when they call Obama a socialist. They certainly don't mean what Wikipedia defines socialist to be. If the people using the word can't tell us what it means, it shouldn't be used here. HiLo48 (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The above comment is completely OR. Wikipedia should not disregard facts because some person who cannot abide by WP:Forum believes (without evidence) that respondents to a poll are ignorant.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"If the people using the word can't tell us what it means, it shouldn't be used here."
I loled when I saw this in your edit summary. "If the people using it can't tell us what it means" how do you know that? Did you ask the people using it what they thought it means? Why are you acting like the people are here on Wikipedia failing to answer your questions when they clearly aren't here. :PWikiposter0123 (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been underway for almost three weeks. I haven't seen a practical definition yet of what socialist means in that poll result. I am simply wanting to have Wikipedia make sense. The meaning is NOT what Wikipedia says elsewhere. So what is it? HiLo48 (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know Hilo, why don't you ask them? :P

Anyway I provided plenty of possible definitions up above, why don't you tell me which of those you think is most likely?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

To be totally frank, I think that to many it means "I don't like Obama, and I'm going to use a word that sounds really insulting, even I'm not sure what it means." Would others be happy with that definition? HiLo48 (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and William S. Saturn, please do your dirty work in public. Stop throwing impersonal, threatening templates at my User Talk page, where no-one else sees your insulting behaviour. Seeking sensible meanings for words is VERY encyclopaedic behaviour. Please try to make this a better article, in the public eye, rather than attempting to silence others. I will leave this page alone for a while, and watch to see if some maturity emerges in the discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

HiKo48, please stop attempting to camouflage POV pushing and insults as encyclopedic behavior attempting to better Wikipedia. You say you are concerned with facts.

• Fact: Socialist has a definition.
• Fact: A significant number of Americans have indicated in more than one poll that they believe the term Socialist aptly describes Obama.
• Opinion: These Americans don't know the definition of Socialism.
• Opinion: These Americans are ignorant.
• Opinion: The "rest of the world" [>6 billion people] laughs at Americans who hold these views.
• Opinion: Obama is obviously not a Socialist.

So yes, let's all work together to improve Wikipedia by reporting the verified facts. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem with your theory is that the percent of people who disapprove of his performance has never reached 50% which means that even people who like Obama are saying the word socialist applies to him.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Fat&Happy laid it out well above. Aside from not having a definition of socialism in the paragraph, does any one else have any improvements/suggestions? --NortyNort (Holla) 22:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe we have consensus for inclusion. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure if you asked people if they thought the specifics of socialism applied to Obama without calling it "socialism" ("Do you think Obama intends for public ownership of the means of production?") they would say "no". Therefore I would support inclusion of a very ginger wording along the lines of "x% of Americans believe the term 'socialist' accurate describes Obama" and then have some refutation by actual socialists that decry that Obama is as capitalist as Bush ever was.--Louiedog (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite possibly true. Poll results are often affected by the phrasing of the question. For example, in your alternative above, I think there would be a higher percentage of positives if the words "would like" or "would prefer" were substituted for the verb "intends". Fat&Happy (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

NortyNort, I hope you don't mind but I took the liberty of making a few tweaks to your proposed phrasing (lost someplace above... :). Mostlt what I would call minor phrasing changes. I don't consider this perfect either (e.g., I'm not sure about "leading" as a description for the two U.S. socialists; I just like it better than "top".) Feel free to view this as a work in progress and make edits you consider helpful, rather than having a series of rewrites.

In a June 2010 poll of likely voters by Democracy Corps, when asked if "a socialist" describes Obama, 55% responded that it did well and 39% believed it did not.1 Commentators and analysts say this perception is influenced by several factors, including Obama’s past relationships, his appointment of Donald Berwick, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the bailout of General Motors, the recession, and the influence of right-wing media.[http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=78330 2], 3, 45 Leading socialists in the U.S., such as Frank Llewellyn, the National Director of Democratic Socialists of America, and Billy Wharton, co-chairperson of Socialist Party USA, argue the perception is inaccurate and do not consider Obama to be a socialist.6 7 The Socialist Party USA's 2008 candidate for U.S. President, Brian Moore, also dismisses the claim that Obama is a socialist but rather "He's tinkering with capitalism. He's a mild reformer. He wants to reform the system instead of radically changing it."8 Salon.com also stated that the likely voters polled by Democracy Corps included a disproportionate number of Republicans, as the party out of power at the time of a midterm election is more motivated to vote, but that the broad pool still indicated a high number with a perception of Obama as a socialist.9

Fat&Happy (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Support with the inclusion of something along the lines of what's mentioned here: Brian Moore says Obama's a capitalist, not a socialist, "He's tinkering with capitalism. He's a mild reformer. He wants to reform the system instead of radically changing it."--Louiedog (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Fat & Happy, I'm glad you did it. I add the input from Louiedog above. The source is pre-election but I looked at some recent stuff and Moore hasn't changed his mind. --NortyNort (Holla) 08:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) This discussion has gotten rather muddy. To make it clear for those just jumping in, what is the actual text that is being proposed to be inserted into the article. And what are the references that would support this text? We should deal with specifics only. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the current working version of the proposed insertion, including short-form references, is the blockquoted text in my post a couple of paragraphs above this. It represents input from Wikiposter0123, NortyNort and myself (and possibly others I may have overlooked... sorry). Fat&Happy (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

We have had a lot of people in and out of the discussion providing insight, etc and I think we have reached consensus on the above entry. --NortyNort (Holla) 00:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

No, there's absolutely no consensus for including the above paragraph. It's just a coatrack of similar editorial opinions from the right of the spectrum and a few responses from the left. None of that is relevant to this article. Also, none of it is sourced to anything other than opinion. We don't use opinion pieces as references. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

So we're supposed to have an article about someone's "public image" that doesn't reference opinion polls or published opinions? Sounds like some major trimming may be in order. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Fat&Happy. That is a contradiction; public image is based of one's opinion, reported in primary and secondary sources. The opinions of people/sources in the paragraph are relevant to the poll and the issue as well. I still argue we have consensus. --NortyNort (Holla) 00:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

"It's just a coatrack of similar editorial opinions from the right of the spectrum"
Note: there is only one sentence from the right explaining why the think the perception exists, and not confirming it.
"and a few responses from the left."
Double note: over half the paragraph is people arguing he's not a socialist. You have the poll, a single sentence explaining the poll, then you have multiple opinions from people on the left denouncing the poll.
Hardly a coatrack of right wing opinion.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this discussion is getting somewhere. I just want to try to make something clear about what I've been saying here. In pointing out that those who think Obama is a socialist are wrong, part of my point is that to place a strong emphasis on the perception that Obama is a socialist is actually making Obama's opponents look uneducated. I doubt if the wiser folk among his opponents really want that perception to be promoted. HiLo48 (talk) 01:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

And people whose primary interest is in maintaining a factual, NPOV article wouldn't care very much about that. Of course, some people probably have a problem imagining such a goal, just as they may not be able to envision one radical politician disparaging another out of self-interest, or people basing their responses on perceived beliefs, not just specific statutes proposed or enacted. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Propaganda and politics and life. Maybe down the road when the dust settles and secondary sources reliably analyze the matter we could include it in here. For now, we have a notable entry with good sourcing. --NortyNort (Holla) 09:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I believed we've reached consensus and I plan on including this soon w/ citations unless someone does it first. --NortyNort (Holla) 21:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Please add it. There is a strong consensus for inclusion.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Please don't. There's nothing close to consensus. PhGustaf (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments are not valid.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

^^Agreed.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 23:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

While I applaud many of the editors here at trying to build a consensus entry, I do not see a consensus for inclusion. If you go back to the beginning of this issue, there is a bare majority(5-4) for any inclusion at all, and at least some of the editors for inclusion have stated the current attempt is not acceptable. I will hold back, and might even change my mind, on whether to include or not. But I definitely do not see consensus for inclusion right now. My problem with this entry is stated above. It's one poll(stating 55% where the firm says they will continue asking the question) and think we should wait for more data and more reliable sourced analysis. I think the next poll should be out within a week or two. Dave Dial (talk) 01:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

1. I think we've got a consensus here for a carefully worded inclusion. 2. consensus is not a simple vote.--Louiedog (talk) 02:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I linked to the wrong article above, but your right, consensus is not always a simple vote. But sometimes it comes down to that. In no way is there consensus right now. At least that's my take on it, at this time. Dave Dial (talk) 03:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus isn't votes and this has not come down to votes. There is no need to rehash this entire discussion but the main points I heard against inclusion was 1) There needs to be a socialist definition in the paragraph, 2) It is an opinion poll and 3) I think the 55% are wrong. All three of those points were argued against by consensus and deemed invalid, POV or unnecessary. The entry above exhibits WP:RS, WP:REL, WP:GNG (or WP:SIGCOV) and WP:DUE (in regards to both sides of thought). At this point, I see no reason why the above paragraph should be delayed anymore and not included into this article. There has been a thorough discussion over the specific improvement provided, that better covers Obama's image. It can also be expanded with more analysis in the future and updated with new polls. I don't agree with the image along with most of the editors here but nonetheless, we need to disregard our bias and improve this encyclopedia.--NortyNort (Holla) 07:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but while I do think you are close to consensus, you or any other editor here do not get to deem other editors objections as "invalid". I do believe it's undue weight at this time, but am not going to edit war over this issue. Also, I do not think there is any reliable source that describe Obama as a Socialist, nor does he fit into any definition of a Socialist(1,2,3). So I believe we can make a statement of fact that Obama is not a socialist. In any case, there you go. Dave Dial (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Dave hits the nail on the head. There is simply no evidence that a preponderance of reliable sources describe, by proxy or otherwise, Obama as a Socialist. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Public image of X $\neq$ true things about X. Case in point: Gerald Ford wasn't in any way clumsy, and in fact was an athlete in college. Still, one little stumble in 1975 followed by Chevy Chase's repetitive parody and everyone thinks he was a klutz. Public image is what a significant portion of the population believes about a public figure, not necessarily what is true about him.--Louiedog (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not "what a significant portion of the population believes about" Obama, but whether they agreed with a particular word about him when presented with it in a poll. That they did agree with it gives those American voters a public image of being political illiterates elsewhere in the world. It says a lot more about their (lack of) knowledge of language than it does about what they really think of Obama. I still don't know what they actually think of Obama. HiLo48 (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict]Well, for one thing, there is no "Public Image" article for Gerald Ford, but there is a section on it in his article, and there are two sentences about the tripping incident and Chase's portrayal of Ford as clumsy. Another thing, a comedic portrayal of something is just humor and it mentions the fact it's not true. The socialist tag that the right-wing echo chamber continuously pumps out is a political attack that I believe every reasonable person can see is definitely not true. In fact, every reliable source I've seen on the subject mentions that it's not a correct descriptor. Not that the mainstream press has spent much time on the subject. In part, because it is an attack line and not true. It's undue weight to add this to an article, at this time, while the living person is still in office. It gives a descriptor that everyone knows is not true. For any addition to be included, it should make that very clear. Dave Dial (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No, there's not article, but there is a section that was added with no controversy.

It was a comic portrayal primarily that lead to this image, but a comic portrayal itself is not intrinsically a notable part of a public image. His clumsiness was widely believed, even among people who weren't familiar with what had started the perception. The perception is what fundamentally warrants inclusion. That his clumsiness was debunked in wikipedia wasn't necessary for article inclusion, but was there simply because it was notable, interesting, and we had reliable sources for it.

Besides, if I apply your argument of "Well, the fact that it's being debunked was the only reason it was permitted to be included" here, then we do include the Obama is socialist fact here as well, with a debunking explanation, as I have advocated all along.

As I've said before, two things are obvious from the polls:

1. A significant portion of the population believes Obama is a "socialist".

2. A significant portion of the population doesn't know what a socialist is.

It's as much a statement about the American public as it is about Obama, but it's nonetheless a notable and well-sourced one.

Polls and reliable news agencies have reported that a majority of Americans see Obama as a socialist. It is irrelevant whether the majority of Americans are wrong, ignorant, racist or whatever adjective you want to use.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No, you're interpreting the poll results, which is WP:OR. As I said two posts ago, all the poll tells us is that 55% agreed with a particular word about him when presented with it in a poll. That word clearly meant something different to those people at that moment than its normal dictionary definition. There is no evidence that they see him matching the normal dictionary definition of the word. That would make them look stupid. I don't think they are. I think they are being manipulated by part of the media and by pollsters. This article must avoid being similarly manipulated. HiLo48 (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not OR to present the results of a poll. However, it is OR to invalidate poll results based on personal beliefs that a word is not being defined correctly.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I said "you're interpreting the poll results". In response, you said "It is not OR to present the results of a poll." Sorry. that's not a logical nor helpful response. And, that the word is not being defined correctly by those saying that Obama is a socialist, is NOT a personal belief. It's an extremely well sourced fact! Do try to maintain logic here. HiLo48 (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Your use of the term "interpret" was not appropriate. Let's discuss the material rather than judge responses.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This is why I propose wording like, "x% of Americans believes the term 'socialism' applied to Obama. Actual socialists like Brian Moore (politician) think this is a silly application of the label.--Louiedog (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I like presenting poll results as accurately as possible, with no interpretation. This would mean wording like "In response to the question Do you think Obama is a socialist? x% chose Yes." I'm assuming we do know the exact question asked. If we don't, the poll results should not be used at all. HiLo48 (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

From the Democracy Corp link above "Now, I am going to read you a list of words and phrases which people use to describe political figures. For each word or phrase, please tell me whether it describes Barack Obama very well, well, not too well, or not well at all." "A socialist".--Louiedog (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks lots for that. Now, is there any problem with putting those actual words in the article, to show exactly what people were responding to? HiLo48 (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

"...55% responded that the word "socialist" describes Obama well...". Looks good? Per the above comments, Obama is a Democrat, not a socialist so it can't be factual, obviously. This is an article on public images and not all public images are factual, but they are still notable and relevant. I'm not proposing we change the political party on his main article but represent the image in this article. No matter how outrageous we think it is. --NortyNort (Holla) 22:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's OK to put in the article, so long as we also include what that was in response to. HiLo48 (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I slightly reworded the first sentence in the most recent paragraph above to demonstrate that respondents were given the term "a socialist" when asked. --NortyNort (Holla) 06:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not include the whole scenario and question they were presented with? HiLo48 (talk) 06:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? It is clear right now; the whole question and scenario is not only unnecessary but already provided with brevity in a simple but understandable context. The respondents weren't tricked into answering the way they did.--NortyNort (Holla) 07:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Then why was the original question so long? HiLo48 (talk) 07:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is what was said/asked: "Now, I am going to read you a list of words and phrases which people use to describe political figures. For each word or phrase, please tell me whether it describes Barack Obama very well, well, not too well, or not well at all." Most of that isn't a question, it is basic admin, preparing the respondent for the short list of terms. How would putting that entire explanation in the paragraph better serve the poll? The proposed paragraph above states they were asked and provided the term "a socialist". It is as simple as that. Once again, I see we are getting back to the definition argument which keeps hitting a POV roadblock. We are presenting the poll and analysis whether they are right or wrong not making our own OR.--NortyNort (Holla) 08:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The way to present the poll results with the least possible chance of misinterpretation is to include in the article everything that those polled were told and asked. Choosing to include anything less, where the result is so controversial, will inevitably be someone else's interpretation of the results. I like the safe path, especially when it appears that a lot of respondents have shown a fair degree of ignorance of the meaning of the word in question. HiLo48 (talk) 08:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Not needed. They were asked if Obama is a socialist which we have that in the paragraph. I think we are smart and have not misinterpreted the polling. I haven't seen polls on Wikipedia which outline the entire scenario. For example, in Bush's public image article, a significant amount (41%) of people answered yes as history would rate him as the worst president ever. It doesn't state whether or not the respondents in that poll have studied all past U.S. Presidents or not before answering the question. Do my feelings about that 41% matter? No. It is a public image of Bush with reliable sources. --NortyNort (Holla) 09:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The Bush question was totally subjective. It was a triviality. Detail wasn't important. But detail is the whole point of this discussion. This one is about a word that the respondents don't seem to know the meaning of. Publishing this result is as much about the respondents and the poll as it is about Obama. HiLo48 (talk) 10:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

But this article is about public images, not political positions. POV can't be incorporated and we already have enough analysis from actual top socialists to balance the view. Wikipedia isn't calling him a socialist, just including a significant public image. --NortyNort (Holla) 11:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

But this isn't a view that needs to be balanced. It's a view that's nonsense. It's like including the views of flat earthers in an article on the earth's structure. And that's true no matter how many of them there are. I say again, what is significant about this poll is how wrong those people are. HiLo48 (talk) 12:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but until we get a reliable source on that, it is POV.However, I just found this article. It is CSM from 2008 but seems to speak to what you are saying along with other editors. I think it presents a good perspective that can be further included in the paragraph. See updated paragraphs below--NortyNort (Holla) 12:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3

In a June 2010 poll of likely voters by Democracy Corps, when asked if "a socialist" describes Obama, 55% responded that it did well and 39% believed it did not.1 Commentators and analysts say this perception is influenced by several factors, including Obama’s past relationships, his appointment of Donald Berwick, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the bailout of General Motors, the recession, and the influence of right-wing media.[http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=78330 2], 3, 45 The term, according to a Christian Science Monitor article, gained popularity when on campaign in 2008, Obama told Joe the Plumber: "I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody." The article though argues that he is not a socialist in the classic sense of the term such as "ownership of the major means of production and finance" but that his comment supports "social-lite" policies.6, 7

Leading socialists in the U.S., such as Frank Llewellyn, the National Director of Democratic Socialists of America, and Billy Wharton, co-chairperson of Socialist Party USA, both stated the perception is inaccurate and do not consider Obama to be a socialist.8 9 The Socialist Party USA's 2008 candidate for U.S. President, Brian Moore, also dismisses the claim that Obama is a socialist but rather "He's tinkering with capitalism. He's a mild reformer. He wants to reform the system instead of radically changing it."10 Salon.com also stated that the likely voters polled by Democracy Corps included a disproportionate number of Republicans, as the party out of power at the time of a midterm election is more motivated to vote, but that the broad pool still indicated a high number with a perception of Obama as a socialist.11

This may need some re-org work but now we have a comparison to the definition from a reliable secondary source. There you go, he is not a socialist by definition.--NortyNort (Holla) 14:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Far better than the earlier attempts to add the poll. It stays accurate to what the poll says and gets into the discussion about that label being applied to Obama. Ravensfire (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I honestly think it is a notable/fair addition to the article despite how absurd it seems to some.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Definitely a better proposal than any of the earlier ones, and I could cope if it ended up as the final version. My remaining concern is that, while WIkipedia has an article about socialism, and this proposal makes it clear that the affirmative voters in the poll were obviously not using the definition we have in Wikipedia, it still doesn't give a simple definition of what those folks actually think socialist means. HiLo48 (talk) 11:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it can't. I'd bet that if everyone was asked that question, there would be hundreds of distinct definitions. In addition, the readers of this article will also have their own interpretation of what socialist means. Ultimately, it should come down to if the poll itself created significant response to be considered notable. If it did, we come up with an NPOV way to include it. If it's just one person commenting on the results, it's probably not notable. Of course, given the usual right-wing attack blogs, it's unlikely to not have enough notability. Ravensfire (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point. The poll has been covered by more than one outlet without right-wing blogs, etc. I just saw this today which analyzes the issue in a similar sense as the CSM article.--NortyNort (Holla) 22:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There's still a ton of problems with including this. First, there is a real problem with using a single poll to demonstrate any kind of "public image." It is too open to interpretation, too dependent on a single set of questions and far too likely to be an outlier. This is particularly true when the poll does not come from a mainstream or well known polling firm. Second, using the actual polling data (rather than a reliable third-party source) to draw conclusions veers into WP:OR. And third, there are still several non-WP:RS refs being included in the above paragraph. WND is never used as a reliable source and opinion pieces can only be used to demonstrate the opinions of their authors (not objective facts such as the public's perception). Some of these problems could be corrected, but the fact remains that one poll isn't notable enough for inclusion. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The Elitism section currently does not have a poll. It just cites specific cases of Obama's 'elitism' being displayed or noticed by notable people. So, that gained entry because it became a notable image with issues attached to it. This is a very similar scenario but with a poll. Instead of a comment about people clinging to guns and religion, we have one about spreading the wealth around. We can pack a ton of references, instances of politicians calling him or his policies socialist, etc into those paragraphs. If it wasn't significant there wouldn't be so many outlets (left, center, right) reporting on it. This poll merely supports and confirms the image. Polls aren't regularly ran with questions like this and this one strongly indicates this perception. Democracy Corps ran by James Carville also doesn't exactly have a right-leaning reputation which makes it more extraordinary. The significant image is undeniable not only from the poll but in the media. There is no OR in the paragraphs but a poll and references either directly responding to the poll or the image in general. I agree with you that some references need to be changed and statements of opinion in RSs better cited within the paragraph. I will make some changes here soon, including the addition of a April NYT/CBS poll that supports the perception as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 14:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, it's just a single poll (and not a highly credible one at that). It doesn't matter that James Carville may be considered center-left, that he has a specific ax to grind with the Obama administration is well known (lowering its objective credibility even further). We use polling data on things like approval ratings because it is spread across several respected polling firm with different questions and a span of time, but this is just not enough to go on. And finally, the link you provided is from CNS, another website that is never used as a reliable source as it is just as likely as not that they simply made this information up. --Loonymonkey (talk) 14:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is CNS but it is citing the numbers from a NYT/CBS polls. I can easily find another secondary source that talks about that poll, the primary source. How is this not enough? Those paragraphs up above support 'socialist' just as well, maybe better than the elitism paragraph supports elitism.--NortyNort (Holla) 22:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. So we have all these people think Obama is a socialist, when he's not, and there's now a poll telling us that 20% think he's a Muslim, when he's not. I think we need another article about why so many voters are so ill-informed. To me, as a total outsider, this isn't so much about Obama's public image, as the public image of the voters of America. It's very hard to write anything sensible about the image of Obama when all it's really highlighting is how silly some people are. HiLo48 (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Chill down your anti-American commentary, mate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

They seem confused or misinformed by either side possibly. Maybe we should have an article "Misconceptions of Barack Obama" but that would definitely dive into POV.--NortyNort (Holla) 22:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

OK BB, It may have sounded anti-American. I apologise for that. I'll admit that we have plenty of ill-informed voters here in Australia too. That's on my mind because we actually have a federal election tomorrow - our equivalent to the US Presidential election. I have been struggling to get my thoughts out in simple, non-offensive words, but I think I was getting closer when I wrote of it being difficult to write about a poor public image of a politician when, as soon as one writes down what the negative image is, it says something even more negative about the people who have that image of him. Please read the emphasis in that sentence as being on how hard it is to write about this stuff and make it seem objective to all readers. HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

These comments are unnecessary. Please discuss proposed material or material already in the article. Statements of your own personal opinions on the subject are irrelevant.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

While on campaign in October 2008, Obama told Joe the Plumber during an exchange about his tax raising and lowering policy, "When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." John McCain described his approach on taxes as "a lot like socialism" and criticized him on that point during the campaign. In the same month, Ohio Senator George Voinovich called Obama a socialist at a speaking engagement. In July 2009, Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele called Obama's health care plan "socialism". Newt Gingrich has described Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid as a "secular-socialist machine." Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner described Obama's policies as "one big down payment on a new American socialist experiment" and Republican Senator Jim DeMint stated Obama is "the world's best salesman of socialism."

In an April 2010 New York Times/CBS poll, 52% of respondents answered that Obama's policies "are moving the country more toward socialism" while 38% answered they are not. In a June 2010 poll of likely voters by Democracy Corps, when asked if "a socialist" describes Obama, 55% responded that it did well and 39% believed it did not. Former professor of economics at George Mason University, Donald J. Boudreaux wrote that he is not a socialist in the classic sense of the term such as "ownership of the major means of production and finance" but "his 'socialist-lite' policies should still be cause for concern." Leading socialists in the U.S., such as Frank Llewellyn, the National Director of Democratic Socialists of America, and Billy Wharton, co-chairperson of Socialist Party USA, both stated the perception is inaccurate and do not consider Obama to be a socialist. The Socialist Party USA's 2008 candidate for U.S. President, Brian Moore, also dismisses the claim that Obama is a socialist but rather "He's tinkering with capitalism. He's a mild reformer. He wants to reform the system instead of radically changing it." In April 2010, Republican Senator Ron Paul stated on his blog "When he is a called a socialist, the President and his defenders can easily deflect that charge by pointing out that the historical meaning of socialism is government ownership of industry; under the President’s policies, industry remains in nominally private hands."

References

Ok, above is the revised proposal. I added more info on notable people - notable whether we like them or not - adding to or commenting on the perception. I also structured it like similar sections already in the article. Yes, there is a lot in there, but I added a lot in part to show that this has become a significant public image that has gotten a lot of attention.--NortyNort (Holla) 14:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC) Note:I removed the reflist template above, so disregard #1&#2.--NortyNort (Holla) 14:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned that you have used synthesis to construct something that supports a narrative. You've pulled in references from various sources to "tell a story" about the alleged "socialism". The mainstream media has not given this topic much coverage, so this lengthy text proposal poses some weight concerns too. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It isn't intended to prove he is a socialist, just to present a significant public image. The text supports or refutes the perception and the cumulative statements just add to the image. I'm not inventing this perception. Yes, I recognize the weight (note my comment above) and understand some should get cut out, but put a lot of the statements in there just to demonstrate how significant and undeniable the image is. --NortyNort (Holla) 15:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, you have not demonstrated that this transient issue is worthy of inclusion. Public perception that Obama is a socialist is a relatively new thing that is very specific to US citizens of a right-wing persuasion who clearly lack the education to understand the meaning of the term, but certainly not a universally-accepted phenomenon. In fact, by accumulating statements in the way you have you are contributing to the lopsidedness - similar to the media hysteria that... er... inflated the "Balloon Boy" story. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

He is the U.S. President, not the UK PM. If it were international, it would be in its designated section, "Around the world". The section obviously doesn't try to indicate an international opinion of this sort. This perception is not like the "Balloon Boy" fiasco. It has different roots and has received much different notable attention (people, books, etc.) over a much longer period of time.--NortyNort (Holla) 15:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, throwing in a lot more text and scouring google for any reference to "Obama socialism" just makes it worse. As SCjessey said above, now you're getting into WP:SYNTH issues, that is collecting these examples individually to draw a conclusion. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• This is getting disturbingly out of hand. I should not need to list the extraordinary sourcing it takes to make extraordinary claims on an article of a living person. The above more than crosses the line. Dave Dial (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we're seeing a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT going on hear. Have we proven that there is a significant public perception that Obama is a socialist? Yes. Further arguments designed to keep this obvious fact out of the article by distracting the discussion away from the obvious need to stop being made and we need to focus on furthering this discussion without the ridiculous claims being made against inclusion that just waste time an try to wear opponents down.

"Public perception that Obama is a socialist is a relatively new thing that is very specific to US citizens of a right-wing persuasion who clearly lack the education to understand the meaning of the term, but certainly not a universally-accepted phenomenon."

First off, been around since 2008, not a relatively new thing. Secondly, if that is how you feel then why is his Muslim perception added when an even smaller, less educated group is behind that?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It has not been around since 2008 except in right-wing blogs and other nutjob circles. The MSM has only been giving this matter limited coverage very recently, and only because Dick Armey's gullible horde have been making a lot of noise about it. And I don't like the Muslim crap either. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Disturbingly out of hand? This is a long discussion about a specific improvement to the article and every time it is improved, a new, often baseless, call for refusal comes out. And as Wikiposter put it, it is looking like WP:TE. Before there was no definition, we have one now, then references weren't good and there wasn't enough, and now I was "scouring Google". It wasn't hard to find reliable references that weren't blogs and there is a lot more, which is part of the reason as to why this is notable. There are two paragraphs above that are not "extraordinary claims" and represent a significant public image. It is obviously a significant image not a fact about his political position. The proposal comes from from reliable sources on events all related to the coverage of the image in a similar prose as other sections w/o polls, so they must be SYNTH too. And the opinions of BOTH sides are represented. If I could "synthesize" the fact that it wasn't significant, I wouldn't bother with this. As I stated twice, I intentionally made both of the paragraphs long to prove a point that this is not run-of-the-mill craziness amongst a minority, so that is not a negative point to get stuck on here, it can be reduced/compressed. I understand that it is sensitive as BLP but it just quotes what he said and provides analysis/commentary from notable people. I don't think it has gotten out of hand but it has become absurd that editors want to continually shoot this down when it meets or exceeds the standards of inclusion already in the article. I didn't come into this discussion with a chip on my shoulder or to edit war on the article, and have accepted and addressed complaints with civility. Constructive criticism does help.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Science: People think Obama's a socialist when they consider his race

An interesting read. The fact of Obama being a different race makes it easier for people to believe he's a socialist.--Louiedog (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)