Talk:Barack Obama tan suit controversy

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 April 2020. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force.

Fashion Low‑importance

	Fashion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Barack Obama (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Barack ObamaWikipedia:WikiProject Barack ObamaTemplate:WikiProject Barack ObamaBarack Obama articles

United States: Presidents Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Low-importance).

2010s Low‑importance

	2010s portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

A classic fake controversy

Bottom line: In reality, there simply was no significant backlash to Obama's suit in right-leaning media. Every single story about this issue quotes Rep. Peter King (NY) and TV personality Lou Dobbs. Why? Because those were the only significant people to criticize Obama for it. Outside of those two, no one cared. Articles and Youtube videos about it end up trying to buttress the King and Dobbs quotes with quotes from random Twitter accounts. But that is meaningless: You can find random Twitter accounts to support literally any position. The question is, outside of King and Dobbs, was this opinion in fact widespread among conservative media? No. It is a classic "fake controversy," criticizing conservatives for a "backlash" that never actually happened.

This Wikipedia article is, in fact, a perfect example. There are literally only two quotes in support of the claim. One is the obligatory King quote. The other is from The Hill article, but if you actually go the article ... it's an unsourced claim! Again, there are no actual critical quotes! This Wikipedia article implies additional criticism, but doesn't actually offer up any evidence it exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaska Jack (talk • contribs) 02:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Republicans Pounce!

This article is yet another blatant example of the pervasive bias that makes Wikipedia an absolute joke. Please follow reference #10 for an example of what the author claims is a reliable source (Showbiz CheatSheet): "15 ridiculous moments Fox News attacked Barack Obama". Note that Fox News itself is not included within the 27 references.

"Republicans Pounce" is a well known meme in right-leaning media and this "controversy" might be an example. Of course, until Showbiz CheatSheet decides what is truth and what is important, any speculation on my part or on Fox News would be OR. E.g., quote Rep. Peter King (who might be a living person being slandered):

“For him to walk out — I’m not trying to be trivial here — in a light suit, a light tan suit, saying that first he wants to talk about what most Americans care about, and he said that’s the revision of second quarter numbers on the economy,” King continued, operating at Peak Peter King. “This is a week after Jim Foley was beheaded, and he’s trying to act like, you know, real Americans care about the economy, not about ISIS and not about terrorism. And then he goes on to say that he has no strategy.”

OR would be my saying some media would rather talk about tan suits than ISIS or the economy.

Deepfrieddough (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is a valid point that "Showbiz CheatSheet" isn't a reliable source, so I've removed that citation. Surely there are valid sources out there for Fox's negative coverage of the suit. CAVincent (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kamala Harris tan suit

The context and potential meaning of Kamala Harris wearing a tan suit is certainly being discussed. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/20/style/kamala-harris-dnc-tan-suit.html 68.175.138.150 (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the controversy?

The article only mentions that there was criticism about wearing the tan suit, but it fails to elaborate why it is an issue at all. It there something about tan suits that’s considered unsuitable? 185.104.138.51 (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

is this a fucking shitpost

no seriously what are you on about this isn't and never was a controversy ???? Astralium1 (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are we serious?

Reading this "article" and going through the archived deletion recommendation, I am shocked that this article has so many defenders, defenders which engage in fallacy and falsehood to insist their asserted view that this page is a good and relevant and good faith page, when it clearly is not. Last I checked, "surely there are sources" is never a valid argument for anything at anytime on WP, yet that is among the greatest defenses offered to keep this page alive.

Allow me to summarize the defenses of this pages existence: 1) It passed rough guidelines which themselves bluntly state that they are only assumptions and not always valid, 2) Some journalists wrote sensationalized or satirical pieces about it at the time, which WP itself in our guidelines note that "validity does not equal notability", 3) Every now and again, a small handful of journalists or other parties make vague reference to it, 4) Users feel very sure that it was a big deal because they have a recollection of it being a big deal at the time and are just oh so sure that sources can be found to show just how much of a big deal "the right" or "FOX News" made about it...but no sources are offered to validate these feelings.

Im sorry, but this to me is one of those times where the "consensus" is invalidated for blatantly ignoring WP rules and guidelines, at the very least an WP:ILIKE bias. This "article" existing is a glaring example of WP:UNDUE, and at best should only be a couple of sentences mentioned somewhere within Barack Obama. This was not a real controversy, this was a case of the media exercising the classic media fallacy of "insisting upon itself", "Its a controversy, because we have said it is a controversy, look here as 1 or 2 mildly notable people say they dont like it!" Everyone involved in this pages creation and expansion should be embarrassed, and their unaddressed bias should be noted on any other politically related pages. TheRazgriz (talk) 06:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well that kind of went off the rails with your last sentence, what with the missing apostrophe and the weird threat. CAVincent (talk) 06:35, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However weird you find it to be, I would not find it nearly as weird as classifying that as a "threat".

Though since one of us doesnt like something the other did, that makes it a controversy, according to the low standards set by this "article". All we need is a random hardly known media person to mention it, and we'll get a whole bloated article all about "TheRazgriz weird threat controversy". TheRazgriz (talk) 06:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]