Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Q1: Why isn't Barack Obama's Muslim heritage included in this article?

A1: To the extent that his absent father was a lapsed Muslim, it is mentioned. As a child he was taken to the mosque by his stepfather, a practicing Muslim, but he has denied ever praying in a mosque and the consensus so far is that the subject is not significant enough to mention here. See, however, the article: Early life and career of Barack Obama

Q2: This article is over 100kb long, WP:SIZE says that it should be broken up into sub-articles. Why hasn't this happened?

A2: The article size restrictions mentioned in WP:SIZE is for readable prose and, as of March 26, 2007, this article had 37kb of readable prose, well within the 50kb readable prose guideline at WP:SIZE.[1] Please consider adding Dr pda's prosesize tool to your monobook.js so you can see the size of the readable prose on an article.

Q3: Why isn't there a criticisms/controversies section?

A3: Because a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praises and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article.

Q4: Why isn't a certain controversy/criticism/praise included in this article?

A4: Wikipedia's Biography of living persons policy says that "views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics [or] give a disproportionate amount of space to critics". Also, including everything about Obama in a single article would exceed Wikipedia's article size restrictions and a number of sub-articles have been created and some controversies/criticisms/praises have been summarized here or been left out of this article altogether, but are covered in some detail in the sub-articles.

Q5: But this controversy/criticism/praise is all over the news right now! It should be covered in detail in the main article, not buried in a sub-article!

A5: Wikipedia articles should avoid giving undue weight to something just because it is in the news right now. If you feel that the criticism/controversy/praise is not being given enough weight in this article, you can try to start a discussion on the talk page about giving it more. See WP:BRD.

Q6: This article doesn't have any criticisms/controversies at all!

OR

Q6: This article includes too much criticism/controversy!

A6: Please try to assume good faith. Like all articles on Wikipedia, this article is a work in progress so it is possible for biases to exist at any point in time. If you see a bias that you wish to address, you are more than welcome to start a new discussion, or join in an existing discussion, but please be ready to provide sources to support your viewpoint and try to keep your comments civil. Starting off your discussion by accusing the editors of this article of having a bias is the quickest way to get your comment ignored.

Q7: I notice this FAQ mentions starting discussions or joining in on existing discussions a lot, if Wikipedia is supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, shouldn't I just be bold and fix any biases that I see in the article?

A7: It is true that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and no one needs the permission of other editors of this article to make changes to it. But Wikipedia policy is that, "While the consensus process does not require posting to the discussion page, it can be useful and is encouraged." This article attracts editors that have very strong opinions about Obama (either positive or negative) and these editors have different opinions about what should and should not be in the article, including differences as to appropriate level of detail. As a result of this it may be helpful, as a way to avoid content disputes, to seek consensus before adding contentious material to or removing it from the article.