Talk:Social media use by Barack Obama/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Twitter activity about Obama other than him and staff running his accunts

Do things like the July 4th, 2011 Obama death hoax and his Jackass statement seem germane to this page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Barack Obama on Twitter/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Titodutta (talk · contribs) 01:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


  • I'll keep on adding points as I'll go.
  • Active participation of nominator and primary contributors of this article will be highly appreciated.
  • Add {{Done}} etc templates below when you have completed a requested task! Similarly you can add {{Not done}} etc! --Tito Dutta ✉ 21:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • If no one joins the discussion, after waiting for few days, I'll try to to finish the review quickly by adding all the points.
  • If you see I (reviewer) is not active in the review discussion, please send me a message in my talk page to ping me!
  • It is requested not to use Strikethrough in this GA review page to show that a task has been completed (optional).

That's all, hope to have a good discussion ahead!

Section 01

Disambiguation links

Fix disambiguation links. I have tagged in the article! --Tito Dutta ✉ 01:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Number of followers!

As of 12 June 2012, Obama's account ranked 6th in terms of followers with 16,505,044 followers the reference you have added actually odes not verify the statement, since it is an older document, I think editor here has written the number from directly Obama's Twitter profile, that's alright, but, ref 2, in that case is not very helpful! --Tito Dutta ✉ 01:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I was suggesting to replace the ref! --Tito Dutta ✉ 23:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I have added some refs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Screenshot of the profile

Well, will it be possible anyhow to add a screenshot of the profile (in infobox) under fair use? --Tito Dutta ✉ 01:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I mean, don't you think it'll be better if we add a screenshot of (part of) Obama's Twitter profile somewhere in the article (infobox?), the way we add Facebook, Gmail, Blogeger screenshot! --Tito Dutta ✉ 01:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Since other Gaga and Bieber's pages didn't do it, I didn't. I could, but is it necessary?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Just created a screenshot.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Looking great now! I feel we don't need the full URL in caption of the screenshot, since it is in URL section which is right after it! And add date "Screenshot of Barack Obama's profile on "date"" because he can change theme etc anytime! --Tito Dutta ✉ 02:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Also show only Twitter profile, not your Windows XP screen! Crop in MS Paint!--Tito Dutta ✉ 02:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I was on my XP machine because it is fullscreen, which shows more tweets at (1600x1200) than my Windows 7 machine which is widescreen (1600x900). I produced an F11 view so that all the excess is hidden and cropped the scrollbar.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Open the image in MS Paint, Photoshop, Krita any photo editor you have, crop only Twitter screen. There are some good extensions in Firefox, Chrome, but, if you are using Internet Explorer, sorry, I don't know about that browser. Let me know if I can help to upload a new version of the image! --Tito Dutta ✉ 23:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I use paint. You mean crop away the background. I think we want to show them what his timeline looks like with the background. Note that there is content in his background including links to other accounts.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
You have done it, I did not notice. It seems you have taken a new screenshot (in image previously "146 days until election", now it is "145 days until election"). Everything is fine here! --Tito Dutta ✉ 23:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC) --Tito Dutta ✉ 23:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Twitter first letter cap or small?

I think there is some confusion. Are you using first letter cap or first letter small in the word "Twitter"?--Tito Dutta ✉ 01:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

It is not directly related to this GA. But still, since there are multiple articles on "Twitter profiles" now on Wikipedia (and hopefully we'll create few/many more too, can you/anyone create a special infobox for this. Currently you are using Infobox website, but that is not the best choice here, for example "Users 16 million" it is confusing, should be "Follower 16 millions". It is better to write "Account created" than "Launched" etc. --Tito Dutta ✉ 01:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Section 02

Citation needed

Please add one or two citation in second part of lead. --Tito Dutta ✉ 01:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Date format

Use either DMY or MDY! --Tito Dutta ✉ 01:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK

Don't link article Obama/Barack Obama in every caption! --Tito Dutta ✉ 02:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought each WP:CAPTION was suppose to describe its subject?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but it is creating a minor overlink problem? Do you think readers will need Barack Obama article link everywhere? it is a short article, readers can easily find the link! --Tito Dutta ✉ 02:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Similar problem with Twitter, Town hall etc! Please note, both Town hall and Town hall meeting are linked to same article! CNBC has been linked twice (though I ignored it). There is a script to find duplicate links (though it was not very helpful here) User:Ucucha/duplinks.js --Tito Dutta ✉ 22:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
WP:CAPTIONs are allowed to have redundant links. They are suppose to stand alone and may repeat links from the article and other CAPTIONs. I have removed redundant links of common terms from CAPTIONs, but not all terms.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay! Town hall meeting page is a stub with no reference and almost nothing to read, has been linked thrice. -Tito Dutta ✉ 23:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
O.K. delinked Town Hall meeting.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Image alt

Add image alt in at least 1-2 images. See WP:ALT for help! --Tito Dutta ✉ 02:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Launched/Account created

1) Launched: March 5, 2007 @ 16:08:25– I have seen the reference but could not understand are they following (any) US time or UTC like Wikipedia? 2) Also is it necessary to add an @ there before time since we are using @ for Twitter "@ mentions"--Tito Dutta ✉ 02:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

  1. Not sure about time zone. Likely, either pacific or Twitter user preference (mine is U.S. central).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  2. removed @.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Section 03

Following

We have number of followers in article, can you add the number of accounts Barack Obamama'a account following? Obama's account is following more than a half million account. --Tito Dutta ✉ 02:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Number of tweets

Can you include number of tweets? As of June 12, 2012 there are 4,255 tweets in his accounts. If we can create an infobox it'll be easier to add these information! --Tito Dutta ✉ 03:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Ref 11

this article has spelled @WhiteHouse, but in Wikipedia article we have spelled @whitehouse. I don't know if Twitter mentions/tags are case sensitive, but, let's follow the reference! What do you think? --Tito Dutta ✉ 03:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Stat (table/section)

Can you add a stat table/(section) in the article, as it has been done here. We can add stat of every 3 months! Will it be possible? --Tito Dutta ✉ 05:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The article badly needs a stat section/table/at least paragraph. Currently there is no way to learn the basic stats other than reading the full article --Tito Dutta ✉ 23:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I have added details regarding numbers to the main body, but I think a table is still WP:OR.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Still not satisfactory. In infobox there is not sufficient information. One needs to read the whole article to learn basic stats. But, generally if someone curious about someone else's Twitter account, (s)he will want too learn basic stats! --Tito Dutta ✉ 00:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
This is not an article about how many followers the president has. It is an article about his broader use of and presence on Twitter. That subject does not give us license to create an OR table. Unless there are WP:RSs that regularly chronicle his totals, we can not create a table.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Tony. Unless it is verified by a reliable source, it doesn't really belong here. Statυs (talk) 04:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, if we can create infobox (section 07 below), that'll be helpful! --Tito Dutta ✉ 04:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
As of May 2012 infobox

As of May 2012– what? Is it footnote of number of followers (there is not any star to indicate)? But, in lead you have written stat of June 12! --Tito Dutta ✉ 05:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

In current infobox there is only one thing that will change every month (number of followers), other infos will not change (so frequently)! --Tito Dutta ✉ 21:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Aren't we hoping that eventually, they will provide us with two more fields for following and tweets? What change are you suggesting. I think we should leave the asof date. It is important for data that changes continually.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I am disappointed to see the responses to your template for creation suggestion. I am not very sure if it is going to be created now. So, how we are going to add number of tweets and following in infobox?
I think we can get them to add parameters to the existing template. Be patient.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I have posted against this suggestion. I don't understand why some people are thinking these articles are crap! --Tito Dutta ✉ 23:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
It'll be helpful if you can add some blank/custom fields in the template. I am not very experienced on using non-preset fields!--Tito Dutta ✉ 04:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't code templates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Can not understand properly! If you can add/have extra parameters added in template (as you said above), I feel it'll be better if we can add some not prefixed parameters (modules, labels), I don't know it properly! --Tito Dutta ✉ 05:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
If you want to retract your statement there we might have a chance, but I think your statement was correct.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Discussed further in section 07 below! --Tito Dutta ✉ 08:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Section 04

Controversies

He has been the subject of various controversies on Twitter. – this has been added in article lead, but, the word "controversy" has been used only twice (including this one). And after reading the article, I can not understand those "various controversies". Why don't you make it more clear or create a sub-section (h3) etc? --Tito Dutta ✉ 21:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Created a subsection.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
In controversy sub section, the first think you have written is 2009 account hijack. It was an accident (but controversy)? --Tito Dutta ✉ 23:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Anything that results in an FTC settlement is a controversy, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
P.S. I have modified the subsection name to be consistent with Gaga and Bieber.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Image position

Can you put the first image of a section at right side and second image at left side? --Tito Dutta ✉ 23:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to alternate sides with the pictures. Also, if you are viewing at high resolution (I use 1600 pixels wide), swapping sides causes a problem in the page layout.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Put first image of the section at right side and next image at left side! Generally we read l–r and t–b! Most probably read somewhere in MOS page, the first image of a section should be at right! --Tito Dutta ✉ 00:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Rearranged images per suggestion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Similar images

All three images are of July 6, 2011. It seems the article is on "Barack Obama on Twitter on July 06, 2011". --Tito Dutta ✉ 23:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Unless there are pictures from May 24, 2012, that is all we have. I will check for May 24, 2012 pictures.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Added May 24 image.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Other twitter issues subsection

You are using Twitter (first letter cap). The section title is inappropriate! Can you try to find a better name? --Tito Dutta ✉ 23:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
What do you think of renaming it? --Tito Dutta ✉ 00:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I am open to suggestions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually there is more stats (Obama's followers, their country, account activity). so, I feel "Other Twitter issues" title is not applicable here! Only "Other issues" (nay, not good suggestion), I'll think on it if you can not find any alternative! --Tito Dutta ✉ 00:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Image

File:Obama responding to tweets.jpg– it is not suitable in "Ranking" section! --Tito Dutta ✉ 03:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I am merely distributing the pictures since we have several to spread around.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
In my suggestion delete that image, or move it to infobox (since in this image face of Obama is clearly visible) and delete the infobox image! What do you think? --Tito Dutta ✉ 04:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I think we should use all the images that we have for now. We can reassess once I try to squeeze a graph in somewhere.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I think we have all the images in place now. The infobox is working. We have the graph (although it might need some minor adjustments). I don't see why any need to be removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Section 05

Graph image

Like Lady Gaga on Twitter article, can you add a graph in the article? --Tito Dutta ✉ 04:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

My source only goes back 6 months. I could augment that with data from the prose. I'll see what I can do.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I have gone through all the sources. Here are the details that I have found in reliable sources: 20091116 2.65, 20100523 4.0, 20110516 7.4, 20110910 10.0, 20120306 12.84. I guess I can make a graph with these datapoints and the current total.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Although I can create a graph using this data, I feel that it may be trouble to maintain and question its propriety.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Graph is created and included. I am not sure it isn't WP:OR.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Can you send me the raw data by email? I'll see, if I can do something! --Tito Dutta ✉ 03:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
It is a few lines above 20091116 is in YYYYMMDD format. Use all those data points and the current numbers. That will give you 6 data points.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't think I'll be able to collect exact data (points) from the chart! --Tito Dutta ✉ 04:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I am talking about my comment above made at 06:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I got your ping. The data is above. I will lay it out cleaner for you

20091116 2.65
20100523 4.0
20110516 7.4
20110910 10.0
20120306 12.84--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
History section renaming

History of an organization or nation etc– I can understand, but "History" of a Twitter profile sounds peculiar! Can you rename it? I have only suggestion at this moment "Timeline ". See if you can think any other alternative. --Tito Dutta ✉ 04:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Timeline is not appropriate here, since the Timeline is a specific form of jargon. How about usage history?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Usage history– not very good– what's about "Profile history" or "Account history"? --Tito Dutta ✉ 05:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
This section does not document the history of the account profile, it documents the history of the account usage by Obama.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Then rename it Account usage history or something similar! --Tito Dutta ✉ 05:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
History/Timeline section rewrite

Launched on March 5, 2007 at 16:08:25 – this should be in History/Timeline (at least I as a reader want to see like this (that History section is starting with "the account was created...."), but it is in "Ranking" currently. --Tito Dutta ✉ 04:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

rearranged.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Copyright status

Copyright and category to be added in this image File:20120524 POTUS Tweeting cropped.jpg --Tito Dutta ✉ 05:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Copyrighted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Add category too! And does the source of image reliable enough to prove Obama is tweeting in that image?-Tito Dutta ✉ 05:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Category added. The source is the White House photographer's twitter feed linked from an article about the event. Yes it is reliable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


Section 06

Caption

Can you rewrite the caption of File:Kanye-West-grabs-the-mic-2009-vma.jpg this image, don't start with "When"! --Tito Dutta ✉ 05:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Ref 24 broken

Ref 24 is broken in the article it needs to be corrected! --Tito Dutta ✉ 05:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed by a bot! --Tito Dutta ✉ 06:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Image position

Change positions of the images, currently it is L-R-L-R. You can change it to R-L-R-L! Currently it is creating indents in the beginning of (first two) sections! --Tito Dutta ✉ 06:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem with changing is that at high resolution, switching sides for all the images will lead to squeezing down at the top. I moved the blackberries in hand image up a bit, which will eliminate one indent for many medium to low res views.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
We'll see it after adding/revising all images! --Tito Dutta ✉ 04:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Fourth

On May 23, 2010 Obama was fourth with about 4 million followers. – Obama was fourth or his account? And fourth in what? Clarification needed! --Tito Dutta ✉ 06:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
@BarackObama

administration and @barackobama is for his election campaign staff.– we are writing @BarackObama. --Tito Dutta ✉ 06:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Which account 01

The account is "run by #Obama2012 campaign staff. Tweets from the President are signed -bo." Although his staff does most of his tweeting, Obama became active on the account in June 2011, tweeting under his own initials. – Two consecutive sentences with "the account" making it difficult to understand which account? @WhiteHouse or @BarackObama? --Tito Dutta ✉ 06:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Which account 02

On January 5, 2009, Obama's campaign account was among several celebrity accounts that was hacked and hijacked. – can you mention in bracket which account – @WhiteHouse or @BarackObama? --Tito Dutta ✉ 06:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


Section 07 Infobox creation

We have been discussing on having a unique infobox since infobox website is pretty useless here. I am starting a draft of infobox below. I have just added basic data in the infobox, we need to change styles/colours etc.There are lots of options to customize this template, Help me to modify this infobox. --Tito Dutta ✉ 07:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

@BarackObama
Black man in blue suit standing at a podium in front of an audience as a white man in a light grey suit looks on.
Barack Obama tweeting in a Twitter Town Hall as Jack Dorsey looks on.
screenshot of a Twitter account
June 13, 2012 screenshot of @BarackObama timeline
Replace the image with File:@BarackObama screenshot.jpg
Account createdMarch 5, 2007 16:08:25[1]
Followers16.5 million
Following677,188
Tweets4,239 tweets
Profile URLwww.twitter.com/BarackObama
As of June 12, 2012

Comments

Part 1

I don't think I would include hacking incidents in the infobox.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, remove it! And add anything else you want! --Tito Dutta ✉ 07:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Should we include most accounts followed?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Your wish! But, I think, this infobox will be better than infobox website. What do you think? --Tito Dutta ✉ 07:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Can you make a template from that? Why don't you just swap that in?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I can not understand this, I did not know about this template, I was searching for an alternative and found it just now! --Tito Dutta ✉ 07:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I will ask at WP:RT if someone can help.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Do we really need another infobox? Since we have found this infobox at last, we can use it directly, what do you think? And note, there is only one fair use rationale in the screenshot file. I thought of replacing the screenshot from this page after completing this part of discussion. Not sure if you can post it in Wikipedia pages! --Tito Dutta ✉ 15:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Part 2
  • It'll be excellent if we can use light blue (or Twitter blue) in header background! what do you think? See if you can do it in template! --Tito Dutta ✉ 07:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I have done it, but not sure about exact Twitter blue, you can change the header colour! --Tito Dutta ✉ 07:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • What's about adding a Twitter bird (small – 20 px or something) somewhere in infobox? What do you think? --Tito Dutta ✉ 15:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I have added footnote bgcolor. You can remove/change it --Tito Dutta ✉ 15:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I really like the idea of creating an infobox specifically for Twitter accounts. I was going to suggest this earlier, but never got the change to do it. It should certainly include the Twitter bird in there somewhere. Statυs (talk) 03:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to this review! For some personal reasons Tony will not be able to participate in this for next 1 day. Hope to see him back in this review soon. Currently, I am not sure where to add this Twitter bird . Feel free to change the code of the infobox draft above --Tito Dutta ✉ 03:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
This will be made into a separate template, right? So it won't just be its own adjusted coding on each page? Statυs (talk) 03:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if a separate template will be created, since the suggestion to create a template has not got good supports! We may need to use this infobox directly in the article copying code from here! The infobox looks good now, but, you have removed the second image! We can add the Twitter bird somewhere else to in infobox, what do you think? --Tito Dutta ✉ 04:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
See the discussion here: Wikipedia:Requested_templates#Twitter_user_infobox and what's about placing the screenshot first and then the Twitter bird (50px) below it? --Tito Dutta ✉ 04:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I have encountered feelings about this articles; but that's irrelevant. As a constant template-creator, I can give you a hand on the template code of you wish. And i think the bird might go at the top of the infobox. —Hahc21 04:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to this review! Readers will be confused what we are trying to do here actually! GA review or template creation or what. (joking :-D) Yes, if we can create a separate infobox template, that's ll be excellent. See Wikipedia:Requested_templates#Twitter_user_infobox. I do not have any opinion on the position of Twitter bird, but, I want an alternative of infobox website for these articles! Can you create an infobox template? --Tito Dutta ✉ 04:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah. I checked Wikipedia:Requested_templates#Twitter_user_infobox and seemed that everyone were picking a fight instead of answering the request. I'll work on a template for Twitter =). —Hahc21 05:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Section 08 Status' code

{{Infobox Twitter account
| Username = Test
| Image = example.jpg
| Image_size = 250px
| Caption = Screenshot of @BarackObama
| Created = Date
| Followers = Number
| Following = Number
| Tweets = Number
| Updated = June 12, 2012
}}

Status has made some changes in codes. The infobox looks much better now! --Tito Dutta ✉ 04:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and created the template here: {{Infobox Twitter account}} Feel free to make any adjustments you find fit. Statυs (talk) 05:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Good job! —Hahc21 05:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! First time doing a template and it went pretty well! I've added it to the article. I think it looks very hot! Statυs (talk) 05:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Infobox templates are very easy to make, since they all rely on the main template, so no parser functions are needed. Anyway, it's very pretty and elegant —Hahc21 05:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey, one more parameter needs to be added– Current status– active/stopped using Twitter etc! --Tito Dutta ✉ 12:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Is that really necessary? If it comes the time that it is needed, then it can be added, but seeing as how all the articles about Twitter accounts are active, I see no need. Statυs (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't know about the above request, but I think it is necessary to have two image-receptive parameters.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
What exactly would be the use of two images? Statυs (talk) 03:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
In this case as above. In some cases, it could be a logo and a screenshot. For example, suppose there was a CNN on Twitter page (which might be logical considering they are 2 of the top 100 in terms of followers and a former worldwide follower leader), the Logo would be one use and the screenshot would be the other. In this case, the original lead image and the screenshot.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you mean. I have no idea what-so-ever how to add a second image field, so feel free to do that one on your own. Statυs (talk) 06:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I will ask for help at the help desk and failing that I will ask the creators of individual templates that accept two image parameters one by one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
All done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Section 09

White House

"Twitter Presents Townhall @ the White House"

Public forums

Obama has at various times held public forums in which he fielded questions posted on Twitter.

  • What is public forums? --Tito Dutta ✉ 06:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
    • That is an introductory sentence to a paragraph that explains the point. I am not sure what the issue is here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Formerly
  • The account formerly held the record for following the most people.
  • It formerly followed the most people of any account on the network and was the third to achieve 10 million followers.
–"formerly"–when? --Tito Dutta ✉ 06:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
That is an introductory and general sentence from the WP:LEAD. It is clarified in the main body.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Relative_time_references MOS suggests to avoid it! --Tito Dutta ✉ 02:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks ("formerly" removed).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
World leaders

@BarackObama was followed by 7.4 million people, including 28 world leaders

Expected to have

Twitter is expected to have a modest but growing role in his political campaign.

The reference you have added there they have not used the word. Add 2012 campaign as it was mentioned in the reference, and try to avoid the word "expected" unless you can clearly say–who expects so? Obama? His administration? Any news channel? --Tito Dutta ✉ 02:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Good work! --Tito Dutta ✉ 05:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Section 10

Robo guess

The hacker robo-guessed the password of a Twitter administrator's account gaining access to other accounts

  • What is robo-guessing? See if we have any article on information on this in Wikipedia, link it! --Tito Dutta ✉ 06:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Chart

Decrease image size (350px >>250px) align right! --Tito Dutta ✉ 02:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I set it to go to default.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I moved this back to the left in anticipation of 2nd infobox image being restored.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Making it difficult to read! --Tito Dutta ✉ 05:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Now that the infobox is fixed, it should be obvious that the graph can not go on the right.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Account hijack

You can find some information here–

  1. Man hacked into Obama Twitter site
  2. HACKERS BREAK INTO OBAMA'S TWITTER ACCOUNT --Tito Dutta ✉ 03:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
What do those sources have that the refs in the article do not.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I am not so keen on those sources because they are not very prominent periodicals from the American perspective.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Tweeting questions

Is this image File:Twitter Town Hall audience.jpg really important? If not remove this image! All I can understand in this image–some people have cell phones in hand! --Tito Dutta ✉ 04:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Have you ever seen a Presidential press conference where all the questions were asked via BlackBerry. Hell yes, it is important for this article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Does it mean, a reader needs to see a Presidential press conference first before reading the article? :) --Tito Dutta ✉ 05:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
This is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Internet culture article. That picture is extremely important in terms of that perspective. In terms of politics, the picture might be unimportant, but this article is a statement on the degree to which the internet has become mainstream. That picture demonstrates that technology has now advanced to the point of Presidential press conferences being held by BlackBerry.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
You can add this page http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/07/07/president-obama-twitter-town-hall-economy-jobs-deficit-and-space-exploration as a reference in caption! --Tito Dutta ✉ 05:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
That page is already referenced in the picture credits page (click on the image).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Succeeded by & Preceded by
It is not clear, how these "succeed" "preceded" information are found out! Was that account created right after Obama's account? --Tito Dutta ✉ 05:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Succession boxes are a common form of presenting encyclopedic content regarding titleholders on WP. They even have their own WikiProject. What is your point? Are you saying you are not familiar with succession boxes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Currently one is redlink, another is "information unknown", is not very helpful? -Tito Dutta ✉ 04:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    • WP is always a work in progress. I try not to change how I approach each individual fact with this in mind, in general. With a BLP, there are always concerns about how omissions may impact the person and in this case change the course of history. However, at most, I think we could delink the redlinks (if necessary). I think the succession boxes should stay. If Obama's army gets involved in the editing of the article, there is a good chance the information may be found.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Final assessment

This is a very well written article on a difficult subject. The editor(s) have done an excellent job. I'll take some more time before doing the final assessment (will not be more than 24–48 hours) --Tito Dutta ✉ 03:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The current version is a good article, good work! –Tito Dutta ✉ 07:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

"official Twitter account for United States President Barack Obama and is used for his election efforts"

Forgive me if this has already been discussed here or elsewhere, but this account is his campaign account, not an account used by him in his role as President. This phrasing makes it (falsely) sound as though Obama were appropriating a government resource for campaign purposes. I don't want to just change it willy nilly, but I think better phrasing might be something like "United States President Barack Obama has two Twitter accounts - one used by his reelection campaign (@BarackObama) and one used in his capacity as President (@WhiteHouse)." --B (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

That would be an incorrect and misleading change. He has one account and the US government has another one that he uses. In either 7 months or 4 years and 7 months, he will relinquish the govt's account.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Kanye West photo

The Kanya West/Taylor Swift non-free photo does not seem to fit very well into this article. The non-free rational provided on the file File:Kanye-West-grabs-the-mic-2009-vma.jpg does not help as it is basically a copy paste of the other rationals. Not sure how it meets WP:NFC#8. AIRcorn (talk) 06:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I am about to go to sleep. I will work on the FUR in the morning.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Needs an opinion

Seriously, I don't see any general opinions and analyses about use of Twitter by Obama as a whole. --George Ho (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Broadening scope of this article

I don't know why this article must collect excessive information about use of Twitter by Obama. Why not inserting any other media by Obama, like Youtube and Facebook? Therefore, this article could be renamed into Barack Obama on social media. --George Ho (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not the proper point for the tag that was added. That tag would be relevant for an article that does not cover its topic broadly. An article is not suppose to include information on topics that it is not about.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it is possible to change the article's scope and then rename it. Look at Glen and Les Charles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); separately, they were Glen Charles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Les Charles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but I renamed "Glen Charles" into "Glen and Les Charles". --George Ho (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I am not saying that it is not possible to broaden the scope of this article. I am just saying that the tag that you used is not appropriate for that end.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I just added "too few opinions" because, if you want this article to be solely about Obama-Twitter, this topic lacks one right now. Why inappropiate? Look, we can discuss that in another section about needing opinions about Obama's use of Twitter in general. --George Ho (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Are you trying to say that the topic of Obama on Twitter is not covered or that the topic should be expanded.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
If you want to support this stand-alone article, before expanding, there must be irrelevant information to remove from this article. Also, some relevant information must be copied and pasted into other related articles. Unfortunately, the whole article contains many irrelevant information, such as some Fox News controversy and Twitter responses from other candidates of 2012. --George Ho (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

In the previous comment, I assumed you are talking only about Twitter article. Anyway, unfortunately, renaming this article would be done after adding YouTube, Facebook, and other social media in this article. I would say, as I said, trim down irrelevant stuff and then add in other things that Obama uses, like Blackberry. --George Ho (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Irrespective of YouTube, Facebook, and other social media, you have made no points that this article is missing content regarding Twitter activity.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, where are opinions about Obama-Twitter use in general? --George Ho (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
This is not a movie with reviews. This article is a summary of facts and events. Have you ever seen a WP article that did not have critical commentary?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Biographies? Even small biographies, for example? How is this article a biography if this article mainly discusses Obama's Twitter use? --George Ho (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"Too few opinions" does not imply expansion; well, it means a need of a significant analysis. As for the articles without critical commentary, mushroom and cat explain human interaction without commentary... I think. Also, fruit comes in mind with human interaction. The Twitter account by a specific human has human interaction but is nothing compared to Twitter itself. Mushroom, cat, and fruit explain such diversity and impact. Twitter explains generally growth and impact, as well. The Twitter account, however, is nothing compared to apple and orange and should not be based on inhereted notability of one person, unless one specific account made general impact, like horse ebooks. This Obama-Twitter article... has no hint of general impact (and even specific, as well). --George Ho (talk) 01:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You have yet to demonstrate why it is mandatory for this article to have critical commentary--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Obama's account is a work, and there is work involved. Regardless of deactivating a Twitter account, a Twitter account may still be a work. Twitter communication is still a work, which collects self-publications from everyone, including replies. If an account is not a work, how do you call it? --George Ho (talk) 02:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
The actual page is about as much a work as compiled press clippings are a work. However, the article is about controversies surrounding the "work", history of the "work", etc. I am not really sure critical reviews are really necessary. There are general social media power rankings and things that rate or rank the effectiveness of his use of social media, but I don't think there is anything twitter-specific.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
The whole article, including controversy, excessively discusses a production of work, Twitter replies towards a work (following and posting replies, for example), and violating owner's property. While some information has value, the whole article cannot discuss merely a work and production of a work. Per WP:IINFO, non-fictional work, like Twitter account, must have critical commentary, like fiction. --George Ho (talk) 05:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand WTF you are talking about.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll rephrase: this article talks about only writing of a work, including history and replies to Obama's account on Twitter. How does controversy suffice coverage and balance? --George Ho (talk) 06:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Great: an attempt to summarize this article into main Obama article has failed. From Wikidemon: "Appears to be a trivialism vis-a-vis the life and times of the President, not terribly relevant or significant to the subject of this article, whatever the status of that particular article." Into where else is this article suitable? --George Ho (talk) 07:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Aha, Tony's not the first person to be confused by George here, I think. As to this question, there really isn't room in the main article; I recommend 'Campaign, 2008', 'Public Image' (maybe 'Presidency') and possibly 'Campaign 2012', if anything fits there. Darryl from Mars (talk) 04:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Which subarticles? --George Ho (talk) 05:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Hmm... Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign,_2012, Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign,_2008. Public_image_of_Barack_Obama? Mind you, don't just go dropping paragraphs in, probably something can be drafted on the talk pages if any of those articles seem appropriate...Darryl from Mars (talk) 05:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Stroke out what confuses people here. Well, I don't know what this article mainly discusses. It discusses what Obama did by using Twitter, but... if Twitter is not a "work", what do you call it? --George Ho (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I support broadening this article into a truly encyclopedic article about Obama's usage of social media and his communication strategy in general.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Needs a GA reassessment

This article is a Good Article, but, due to AFD chaos, I'm afraid reassessment is needed, even though there was no consensus to delete and no consensus to keep. I wonder what is wrong with this article as GA. --George Ho (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Was it decided in the consensus to move the page to "Communications of Barack Obama"? Article is on Obama's Twitter use, that title was better! --Tito Dutta ✉ 20:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
It was but it doesn't need to be so narrow and it can be improved through expanding it to cover twitter and another medium like facebook or youtube. I feel this x on twitter largely survived since there was some merit to a scholarly argument regarding the historic usage of twitter by obama, and that usage includes other media, therefore expanding it to include such media should be a priority.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I like this title more; maybe we can get rid of excessive stuff on Twitter and insert YouTube and Facebook uses by Obama. --George Ho (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes let's shave off the bs, especially the statistics section and add in facebook and youtube at the very least, but let's not get crazy and add in every social network in the world he has, just the ones that have been associated with some significant campaigning and noteworhtyness, we should set the bar high.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
You are trying to avert consensus George. There has been no consensus to change the focus of the article. The consensus has been to retain the current article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Which consensus? There was only an AfD for merge/keep/delete, rename was never considered. Furthermore the discussion closed "without consensus" so avoiding "no consensus" is actually impossible.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The page move is a thinly veiled attempt to pick a fight after the AFD failed. The immediacy of the action without any attempt to gain consensus for such a drastic change to the article is not proper procedure. You are attempting to totally change the topic of a stable article. The page should remain at Barack Obama on Twitter until there is consensus to move the page elsewhere.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no consensus to keep this article as is, either, even with expansions that you are trying to do. We want it broadened, but you keep interfering just because you want your work praised. --George Ho (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Did he remove the new intro I added in? If so let's discuss this, establish a consensus on how to proceed and let's work together to overhaul this article into a more suitable form that might actually make it to GA or FALuciferWildCat (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I have now removed the content. Please propose at WP:RM.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
If the title changes, then it'll be difficult to save GA tag, the article is on Twitter usage, not Obama's all communication! --Tito Dutta ✉ 20:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The GA tag was probably lost with the AfD, sorry about that, but in any case this is wikipedia and their is never any prejudice against reapplying for that status or better yet, rewriting it even better and getting FA status in the end.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
That would be none of my concern. The Twitter account doesn't deserve to be GA, anyway, no matter how well-written and well-cited it is. --George Ho (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
It would never have been featured because it was not something most people would say "they can be proud of".LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Given the controversial nature of the topic of this page, you should create your version of a proposed article in your own user space. This article should be returned to Barack Obama on Twitter in the meantime.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
There is no controversial anything here. There is a version of this article and I have renamed and incorporated it. There is actually emerging consensus for thisLuciferWildCat (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I got news for you: I'm not that interested on politics right now. Let's have Lucifer and you take care of this. However, I would be glad to discuss this topic. I'm sorry, but I'm going to request a move rather than make a technical RM. --George Ho (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Communications of Barack Obama is a horrible title and way too broad. At the very least, Barack Obama on social media was a better choice. However, I do not agree with the idea of a GA reassessment. The article was reviewed as it is now and it passed. Therefor, it is still GA status because it is still the exact same. The AfD doesn't infringe on that at all, plenty of articles GA or FA have been taken to AfD. The result (other than Delete or Merge) doesn't affect their status. SilverserenC 20:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Okay, besides good writing and reference, what other criteria are passed? --George Ho (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Not too broad at all, broad is good, avoids splintering of every social media and every white house correspondent. It would fill our needs well and also be an unambiguously notable topic.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Protection

I've reverted the article to the version as of the close of the AfD and protected it for 3 days to allow heads to cool. In the mean time, I suggest people discuss whether to broaden or to move the article. I note that the AfD closed with no consensus. This is an opportunity to reach one.

Once the page protection has expired, please do not return to bold moves or restructurings of the article. --RA (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested Edit

{{Request edit}} Please can an administrator remove the following from the Infobox;
| image = [[File:@BarackObama screenshot.jpg|250px]] | caption = Screenshot of @BarackObama timeline
Thanks! ⇒TAP 16:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done --RA (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Make this article broader?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

{{rfc|media|sci|pol|soc|bio|rfcid=E526B73}} The prior version was an attempt to broaden the scope of this article. This current version is too narrow and about Twitter use by Obama. Communications of Barack Obama seems like a good choice, but people want Barack Obama on social media. However, this article can't stay forever as an article about one thing. This article needs broader scope, like use of Blackberry, YouTube, Facebook, etc. --George Ho (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

This is again attempt to avert process. The prior version was a post-AFD attempt to overhaul an article out of frustration that it survived an AFD. The current article is the stable version. The prior version was a rushed WP:LEAD augmentation without any change to the prose in the body.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
That is bullshit, overhauling an article is to improve it. The Village Pump has established consensus to broaden to cover communications/social media not just twitter, as has this page. I did edit the prose and body and was working on it, saying I didn't when you were the [---] erasing every letter I typed is highly disingenuous.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I have declined the RFC tag because this is becoming a matter of content dispute. If this goes any further, I'm taking this to WP:dispute resolution noticeboard. However, there you must be calm! --George Ho (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Never mind; the noticeboard is for simple disputes. This is too complex. --George Ho (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

OMG this seems to be entering OWN issues, any edit I am making here is being immediately deleted or reverted and that goes against the predominant opinion here and at the Village Pump which is to broaden the scope of this twitter article.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I've added User:Luciferwildcat/sandbox/Communications of Barack Obama, just in case. I've blurted out the non-free images and categories without removing them. --George Ho (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
For the record, there's no way you could have determined the 'prevailing opinion' for everything that happened here in less than the time it takes someone to have a good night's sleep. The Sandbox will be a much better way to propose 'overhauls', and you have a good bit of time to gather sources and integrate them into what you want the article to look like now it's protected, eh LWC? Darryl from Mars (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I call bullshit. The sandbox is for new articles not for editing. This is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Regardless, we need a litterbox for your language.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment You both need to more relexed about this issue, it not just the words used but also the tone of writing when commenting to each other. As to the article it seems to have penlty of content and refs for this to just be a twitter article. I think the sandbox is a great idea, it may end up that it is better to have two articles, as long as it's not just duplicating content from the first. SD (talk contribs) 00:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Rather than making personal attacks, both of you two must try to sort out your differences and figure out what can be done in the best interests of this article. 117.194.96.56 (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Barack Obama on social media Since that's what all the sources are focusing on, how he uses social media. Communication of Barack Obama can be a parent article, as it would encompass more than just social media, far more for the President, but the social media area should still have it's own article. SilverserenC 21:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - It actually makes no sense keeping an article like this on Wikipedia, since it is too specific and narrow. A lot like Barack Obama on social media or Public Relations of Barack Obama would make a lot more sense for it. 117.194.96.56 (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - The subject of the article is too narrow right now. I think an article is needed to cover the President's P.R. in general. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 12:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Any PERSON '''on''' PLATFORM is going to be a non-encyclopedic focus/indiscriminate list. PERSON '''use of''' PLATFORM will allow the encyclopedic analysis of how the platform has been used/abused/misused/impact on and by the real world, as discussed by analyists in third party sources, so I support a broadening in that sense to something like Obama's use of social media. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Here are a few good sources that I have found and attempted to incorporate into the article. What Businesses Can Learn from Barack Obama's Social Media Strategy, [1], [Barack Obama, Mitt Romney Facebook Fans More Interested In Personal Stories Than Politics, Study Finds], [2], How Barack Obama Is Using Web 2.0 to Run for President, Barack Obama and the Facebook ElectionLuciferWildCat (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge to Barack Obama

Not merged, as this page was renamed into "Barack Obama on social media". To re-propose merger, this article must be completely rewritten and reconstructed first. --George Ho (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Twitter account is giving undue weight for a whole article and as this Twitter business is not even mentioned at all in the Barack Obama article it should be summarized and merged.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Opposed in the strongest possible terms. Barack Obama is a summary style article that relies heavily on many, many daughter articles and sub articles. Some of these articles are linked in the body of the text, while others only in template-based links (like this one). Either this article passes WP:GNG (which I believe it does) and this article is kept, or it fails and this article is deleted or merged with Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 (since it seems to be mostly campaign-related tweets). It cannot be merged with the main BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment A few sentences can be merged into it in summary style.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is not one sentence from this article that belongs in that article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose (Actually, frankly, Snowppose if that means anything here, the propose anything and everything pattern is getting more than tiresome and less and less effective), for reasons I've had to mention in other proposals, which are essentially what Scjessey said here. This just doesn't go all the way to the biographical article, the content isn't primarily biographical to begin with. Darryl from Mars (talk) 00:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose There no way to properly summarize it, yet still represent it to the appropriate extent that it deserves from the several books written entirely on the subject. A summary section then linking to the main article here is fine however. Should be done anyways. SilverserenC 04:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment which "books" have been written entirely on @BarackObama?LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Please drop the stick and move on. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The AFD had a majority of people say keep, not merge. It has proven itself notable. When someone who wanted it deleted, now tries to eliminate the article by "merging" it, I find it hard to assume good faith. Seems like gaming the system to me. Dream Focus 21:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
    • The trivia could be eliminated and the content improved via summarizing the little encyclopedic content.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Can I close this? At #Make this article broader?, there is consensus to wait until DRV is done, so broadening the article will be made. --George Ho (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Barack Obama on Twitter/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

The consensus agrees to broaden the scope of this article into Barack Obama's social media use rather than to let it be still about his Twitter use. Therefore, I'm afraid that it may no longer meet GA criteria. Although DRV discussion is still ongoing, there are many people endorsing administrator's decision to keep this article. I hope this reassessment request is not affected. --George Ho (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hold on, how does one necessitate the other? A desire to change the article doesn't mean the article isn't or wasn't good, and even then, why would we do the reassessment before a major change instead of after? Darryl from Mars (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
What about stable criteria? --George Ho (talk) 00:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
'Unstable' usually implies an edit war or dispute, not merely the normal process of editing. Moreover, we haven't even gone about deciding how the 'broadening' will happen, much less made major changes to the article. Again, how can we reassess it before we've done anything? Darryl from Mars (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
It was nominated twice for AFD. One was no consensus; other was keep due to forum shopping. DRV is up. There are discussions about merging into Barack Obama without success. Tony and Lucifer made edit wars recently. How is this article still stable? --George Ho (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Talkpage discussions and the like don't qualify as instability, those are things we're supposed to do. Similarly, bold change followed by revert is the normal process. Stable does not mean 'finished' or 'set in stone'. And for a third time, what's the rush? In the long run, don't we want to (re)assess the 'social media' article, if that's the one we want to have? Darryl from Mars (talk) 00:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes because the consensus said so, but we are advised to wait until the DRV is over. --George Ho (talk) 00:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Right, so, the DRV ends, then we make changes, then we may reassess because the article has changed significantly from the article that was initially listed as a GA. Make sense? Darryl from Mars (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Let's wait on another editor here then. Meanwhile, I have other interests to do rather than spend time how recent this article is. --George Ho (talk) 04:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought reassessing means delisting, right? If not, then what about User:Luciferwildcat/sandbox/Communications of Barack Obama? --George Ho (talk) 00:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Urf. I do think the method of drafting the new article in a sandbox is good, but, that as it stands at the moment is not exactly a good replacement now it has been deleted by user request, apparently. Rather, we want to add information of the same quality as what we have (well-written, referenced, etc.) concerning other outlets and methods employed. Actually, an alternative is making something like 'Barack Obama on social Media' as a separate article in mainspace, then we'd have somewhere to legitimately merge to, once we'd written up other sections. Darryl from Mars (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
uh...reassessing just means reassessing? the article is reviewed again. Darryl from Mars (talk) 01:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, "stable" criterion passed. What about "broad" criterion? --George Ho (talk) 01:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I guess we're doing the review ourselves. Yes, we want to make the article broader, however the article as it stands still passes the criteria as defined with
"(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail"
You can disagree about necessary detail, of course, but don't let the fact that a broader option exists make you think this article doesn't pass the broad criteria, cf. Copper -> Metal. Darryl from Mars (talk) 01:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Still, prior AFD resulted as no consensus due to the nature of this subtopic. Even recent AFD shouldn't have been made, which resulted keep, which resulted DRV. Even prior AFD has better closing rationale than recent. I'm reading the article, and I don't see how broad it is... or excessive it is. Nevertheless, it discusses increase and decrease of followers based on events. "Controversy" section is all right, but why Kanye West thing? Don't know about "Obama as Twitter subject", but... What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 03:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Followers are to some degree a measure of the impact or reach possible with Twitter...I happen to feel the controversies and mishaps are amusing/interesting but unhelpful to the article as a whole; especially with all the arguing to keep I seem to be doing for the sake of getting TonytheTiger more stickers. As a subject in the political arena seems fair to me, certainly more so than making articles for all the people that said something about him on twitter. But you know, now we're reaching exactly the sort of discussion a talk-page is for. Not everything needs to involve policies and proposals and rfc-afd-drv-3rr-tla's and finding admins that will do what you want. These are things that we can just discuss. Darryl from Mars (talk) 04:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I hope these sources are not making a POV, even if it looked to be written as neutral. For instance, one may say that one event caused people to stop following his Tweets. --George Ho (talk) 05:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Hm, depends. Obviously, if we feel the source is trying to spin the situation a certain way, we could question its reliability, but there isn't an NPOV problem in having it it the article if that's the way the source reports it, unless we purposefully exclude other reliable sources that disagree. Darryl from Mars (talk) 05:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Am I correct in inferring that the proponents of expanding the article understand that it is currently a WP:GA, but intend to expand it in a shoddy way so that it is no longer a GA?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I honestly don't think anything as complex as that is happening. George has his particulars, and LWC has a...well, an issue of some sort with the very concept of the article, and the two happen to run into each other occasionally, but I don't think anyone has conspired to purposefully make the article bad. LWC wouldn't be that delicate in the first place. Darryl from Mars (talk) 05:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I think the particulars is that they intend to take a lot of actions to the article without any regard for maintaining its GA status--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Really all you need to do is change the lede to make it broadened for all social media, make the rest of the current article a Twitter subsection, and then add in info for other social media that Obama has used. SilverserenC 07:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

No deadline?

  • Update - DRV is closed as endorsed. --George Ho (talk) 05:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Nevertheless, a favor to broaden this article by consensus still stands per Beeblerox. But there is no deadline, so maybe we can broaden/restructure the article now or later. --George Ho (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
      • If this moves whole to Barak Obama on social media, then it moves from something that qualified as a "good article" on what the community determined was a "bad" topic, to an article that cannot currently be considered a "good article" but reflecting a topic the community has determined is a good topic. The benefits of maintaining a "good article" rating at the wrong place minimal to non-existant. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Regardless, rather than have the issue of an article that's not what it says it is; unless someone plans to do all the writing and moving in one go, why not just write Barack Obama on social media, then make this article, in part or whole, the twitter section of that article when it's needed? Darryl from Mars (talk) 22:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Aftermath of renaming

Update: It is now Barack Obama on social media. --George Ho (talk) 04:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no understanding why you would make this change when you don't want to expand the article. All you seem to want to do is delete relevant content. Why not spend some time adding the content that is in keeping with the name change you support.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Any particular reason why this was nominated for a reassessment when said consensus to broaden the scope of the article hasn't even taken part (yet)? GAR is to basically re-review an article, to see if it actually goes comply with the GA criteria. Without any changes to the article, what's the point? I could understand it just saying something like "the article isn't stable, so therefore it does not pass the GA criteria", but the first post just mentions how the article is to be expanded (which has Tony, or any other editor even decided to do?). As for the rename, I've reverted it. I'm quite surprised to see that someone was foolish enough to move it. Especially not even changing the lead, as it still appears to say: "Barack Obama's Twitter account (@BarackObama) is the official Twitter account for United States President Barack Obama and is used for his election efforts." I suggest people stop trying to just delete an article and actually help out to work on it, yeah? Statυs (talk) 06:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The focus has changed; official website is added as a prose. --George Ho (talk) 07:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Speedy delist as a GA. With the change in scope, the article is clearly not GA calibre - not even close - especially with the incredibly poor lead section as it stands now. The newly-reformatted article should go through a new GA nomination when its proponents feel it is ready. Resolute 17:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
    • After all the commotion about changing the name (likely for the purpose of getting the article delisted), there seems to be almost no interest in actually creating the article for the ne name.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Nominator appears to have abandonned the reassessment so I will close it. The general consensus here is that since the scope has been broadened it now no longer meets the criteria. So I will delist the current version. AIRcorn (talk) 11:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Controversies and mishaps

I'll put this over here for the time being, if anyone wants to discuss putting it back in in some revised fasshion. Sorry if I made a mess of it. Darryl from Mars (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Controversies and mishaps [[:File:Kanye-West-grabs-the-mic-2009-vma.jpg|thumb|Kanye West stole the microphone from Taylor Swift during the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards, causing a controversy that led to President Obama calling West a "Jackass" off the record.|alt=Kanye West on stage with Taylor Swift and some onlookers]] On January 5, 2009, Obama's campaign account @BarackObama was among several celebrity accounts that were hacked and domain hijacked.[2][3] The hacker phished the password of a Twitter administrator's account, gaining access to other accounts to which he then changed the passwords, and subsequently offered access to accounts upon request at Digital Gangster. The case eventually led to a non-financial settlement with the Federal Trade Commission by Twitter.[4]

In June 2011, Time ranked ABC News' tweet of an off the record comment by Obama during a September 2009 CNBC interview regarding Kanye West's interruption of Taylor Swift during the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards that month as one of the top ten Twitter controversies of the company's first five years. Obama described West as a "Jackass" while receiving makeup prior to the official interview. Since ABC and CNBC share a fiber optic line as a cost-saving measure, ABC had access to the feed.[5] Although the September 2009 comments were made off the record, Obama affirmed them in April 2012, saying that he is a "Jackass", but a very talented one.[6]

On July 4, 2011, Obama was the subject of a death hoax on Twitter when FOX News's Politics Twitter account (@foxnewspolitics) was hacked. However, the hackers were unfamiliar with Twitter and started their hoax messages with @BarackObama, thus only making the message appear in the Twitter timelines of those who follow both Fox News and the Presidential account. Eventually the hackers switched to hashtag references, increasing the visibility of their activities.[7] FOX News acknowledged the breach and apologized.[8]

Was there any consensus to remove all of this content. Where was this discussed. I am reverting this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
It came up during the AfD, and I have to agree in this case, as these are, at the moment, only things which happen to involve both Obama and Twitter, and don't really have any connection to the rest of the article. For example, Obama didn't even call Kanye a jackass on Twitter, ABC overheard him saying it and then tweeted it. The twitter aspect of the situation is completely superfluous, especially as far as Obama is concerned. Maybe for ABC on Twitter, if that was actually how the story broke, and not just one of many way they disseminated the information. Darryl from Mars (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Right, well, you're basically the only other person to discuss this with, and you're busy templating things. I'll give this another go with a less drastic cut. Darryl from Mars (talk) 14:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

This section needs to be deleted, it is ridiculous and NOT and also completely unrelated to Obama. It's about Taylor Swift and MTV.LuciferWildCat (talk) 07:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

per all the above, these have ZERO to do with the subject of the article. The non-relevant content removed and the section renamed to reflect the remaining content. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

And it is back. My appetite for conflict is sated to the point I don't feel like reverting, but it really does only drag the article down. If Tony is so incapable of 'making any sense' of the closes on other articles, he'd do well to listen here. Darryl from Mars (talk) 02:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the trimming of this information. AIRcorn (talk) 06:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Bold move

I've boldly moved the article to the new title per consensus. After reading the discussion directly above, it appeared to be a question of the chicken or the egg. Is the article renamed first to expand the topic and then written, or is the topic written first under an article title that doesn't cover it? I hope this is helpful to get things rolling toward expanding this.--v/r - TP 20:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, on the issue of the above GA discussion: I believe this disqualifies the article under Criteria #3 of GA because the article no long is broad in it's topic. I think the article is going to have to lose it's GA status at some point to accommodate the change in topic and that it is inevitable. I think it can easily be brought to GA again though. I don't consider myself involved (or involved before this move anyway) in any of these discussions.--v/r - TP 20:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I was this article's good article reviewer. But, that was "Barack Obama on Twitter", if it is going to be named "Barack Obama on social media", the article does not pass criteria 3a main aspects. The article may be rewritten (as has been mentioned already), but, in that case another review will be needed. Also I do not support that consensus! Regards! --Tito Dutta ✉ 01:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I fail to see why people want to change the name of the article without adding sufficient substance to the article to do so. If the article is broadly covering Obama on social media, then content should be added. It seems that people want to fight to change the name but not the content, which is pretty superficial. Why would you fight to change the name of the article (and maybe its lead) and not care about the substance of the article?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I second Tony. Until sufficient and relevant content is added, the current article title is misleading since the whole article covers only "Barack Obama on Twitter" whatever the article title is. --Tito Dutta ✉ 05:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I third Tony. The article talks exclusively about Twitter, so the new title is not accurate. Statυs (talk) 05:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how it is done there is always going to be a period where the title does not match the content. It would be even more inaccurate if it was broadened under it's old name so moving it first seems like a reasonable option. It would be good if the proponents of the move worked to add in the new information soon though. As for GA status I would give it time to allow Tony or anyone else interested to get it up to standard under the new heading before delisting it due to broadness issues. AIRcorn (talk) 06:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Uh, that's actually a false dichotomy, We could easily have two separate and accurate articles for a period of time, then combine them. But at this point I'm ambivalent. Darryl from Mars (talk) 06:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
It would involve either a history merge or some other attribution statement, but I suppose that could work. I moved this back again and started the expansion before reading your response. I am relatively ambivalent about this myself and if that is the least drama filled way then go for it. AIRcorn (talk) 07:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
History merges are not recommended for two articles who have parallel editing. Renaming the article is most appropriate and the opponents, especially Status who moved the article back, are ignoring the close of the above move discussion. Either take it up with the closing administrator or acknowledge the consensus.--v/r - TP 11:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Status, please move the GA1 page too! --Tito Dutta ✉ 06:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC) NA --Tito Dutta ✉ 14:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Facebook use

I'm using Google Books to search for his Facebook use. What can I say about it? I mean, what must first I insert? --George Ho (talk) 07:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

As I stated in the AfD and DRV, the following sources would be a good place to start:
Communicator-In-Chief: How Barack Obama Used New Media Technology to Win the White House
Yes We Did: An Inside Look at How Social Media Built the Obama Brand
Barack Obama, the New Face of American Politics
That should be enough to make general overviews, at least. SilverserenC 08:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Must I create the section myself? I found this: one million follower mark on Obama's Facebook account. Also, he spent $643,000 out of $16 million budget of internet use for advertising on Facebook. The rest of the budget may have been for social media use (probably, since I cannot summarize what the book said). --George Ho (talk) 09:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Here are another and 62,000 members. --George Ho (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

re-tooling for new title

nice job so far on the re-tooling to reflect the new broader scope of the article! -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Any other uses?

I don't know, but how can I add general overview about his Youtube use, podcast use, Blackberry use, and any other social media use? --George Ho (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Condensing info about Twitter use?

Statistics? At least there are some good information. However, I cannot tell which is necessary or not. But is the comparison of the Stephen Fry account relevant, necessary, or something? At least there are "Hacking" and "Significance" sections. Thank god the atrocious trivial Kanye West thing was removed. --George Ho (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

That was all me, honestly it is just such a painfully boring read it takes me a while but it works out since even removing one superfluous tweet from the article has elicited warring before I think a slow editorial pace would most benefit the article. I believe there are simply too many statistics here, it's one thing if they are cited as attributing to his success or the passage of a law etc but if it's just a data mine we need to condense to truly noteworthy stats and I feel what looks like two whole medium sized multi paragraph sections need to be condensed into just one half the size or less.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Somehow I'm less than confident in allowing for editorial discretion 'trimming' something you probably still wish was deleted. T'would be less strife if you stuck to adding and improving other sections of the article, and leave the twitter things, which were there when the article passed the GAC, for the talk page to work out. Darryl from Mars (talk) 05:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Darryl, what is so special about removed content? How is Kanye West situation worthy of inclusion, as well as history of statistics? --George Ho (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Look, for example, how when I first made that removal, concerning Kanye, I brought it to the talk page in case others wanted to comment. TOny disagreed and put it back. Others commented, we tried different things; we never had to worry about edit warring. That's the model I want to encourage you, and particularly LWC, to use when removing content from the Twitter section. It makes it easier to have the discussion if someone disagrees with an edit. You certainly wouldn't suggest no one ever disagrees with with LWC, would you? Darryl from Mars (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Get off your soapbox. This section is about condensing twitter use. Do you have an opinion in favor or against or in neutrality to this?LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Your cuts are facially appropriate, but go too far, leaving ambiguous statements behind, you also seem to have left 'citation needed' tags in places where there was a citation that you removed. Darryl from Mars (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
The link in my recent edit comment is malformed; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama_on_social_media&diff=505820009&oldid=505819710 is the diff you want. Darryl from Mars (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Everyone in #Controversies and mishaps favors trimming/removing the Kanye content down. --George Ho (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Tony is Tony, okay? Look, merits of arguments are all that matters, and Tony's comments doesn't hold much as water as Lucifer's. --George Ho (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it was my idea, remember? The point is that the opportunity to make comments was given. Do you understand what I'm asking of you? Darryl from Mars (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Reddit

Here is a new one for ya'all: http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/29/politics/obama-on-reddit/index.html?hpt=hp_t3 --v/r - TP 15:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Obama's use of Reddit is a logical expansion of this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Stats & Rankings for Barack Obama". Twitaholic.com. Retrieved 2012-06-01.
  2. ^ Zetter, Kim (2009-01-06). "Weak Password Brings 'Happiness' to Twitter Hacker". Wired. Retrieved 2012-06-08.
  3. ^ Geere, Duncan (2009-01-06). "Britney, Obama and Fox News' Twitter accounts get hacked". Tech Digest. Retrieved 2012-06-08.
  4. ^ Zetter, Kim (2010-06-24). "Twitter Settles with FTC Over 'Happiness' Breach". Wired. Retrieved 2012-06-08.
  5. ^ Romero, Frances (2011-06-11). "10. ABC News Tweets Obama's 'Jackass' Comment". Time. Retrieved 2012-06-08.
  6. ^ D'Zurilla, Christie (2012-04-12). "President Obama still thinks Kanye West is a jackass". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2012-06-08.
  7. ^ Turnbull, Giles (2011-07-04). "'Obama Dead' Hoax Sweeps Twitter After Fox News Feed Hack". Time. Retrieved 2012-06-08.
  8. ^ "Foxnewspolitics Twitter Feed Hacked". FOX News. 2011-07-04. Retrieved 2012-06-08.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Social_media_use_by_Barack_Obama/Archive_1&oldid=1178207552"