`  ==Obama's Assassination of a U.S. Citizen== (posts refers to this edit) Okey dokey.  What are the objections of substance?  Thanks    :I don't think it belong sin the lead. There might be room for mentioning something similar somewhere in the body of the article (not sure where, though).    ::Really?  Why not?  It's pretty darned important in terms of World History, arguably far, far, far more important than any ``trade deals`` Obama made which appear higher in the lead.  So:  the question is:  if you're not sure ``where`` it should go, what are you sure about vis a vis Obama, his assassination of an American citizen, and wikipedia's reflection of that fact?  I'll bet you dollars to donuts, Choyool, that historians will remember and write about that assassination much, much, much, much longer and in much, much, much more detail than any trade deals.  In fact, you've convinced me.  In terms of importance, it trumps the trade deals.  Objections?  Thanks    :::See WP:LEAD, e.g. the lead is supposed to be a brief summary of what is said in the body of the article. What historians will write in the future is not for us to determine (WP:CRYSTAL). I am not too heavily involved in writing this article, so I'd delegate that to others to give some pointers as to where exactly it could go or be mentioned (if at all).    :::Settdigger, there's no need to be vitriolic about this.  There's a really important technical reason it can't be in the lead:  Because the lead is supposed to be a summarization of the highlights of the article.  In terms of importance, I don't think it belongs there because in terms of coverage, it doesn't appear to have sufficient weight compared to other parts of his biography.  However, as Seb mentioned above, it probably has a place elsewhere.  You might also consider adding it to Presidency of Barack Obama as this directly relates to his actions as President.  (note: not a bot!)   So, you have strong opinions, but you're not ``heavily involved.`` All right. What is a lead? an introduction. Is a lead always a summary of what appears below? Maybe in high school essays. Not in professional writing. Also, I agree with you wholeheartedly, I am not only not interested in determining what future historians will write, because it's impossible, I have no idea what they will write, nor do you, for sure. But we can make educated guesses, can't we? For a president, the wiki page it's a lot more than a bio page. It's a piece of history. And guess what: we're obviously historians too.  One's man's vitriol is another man's passion.     :If you would like to have a discussion on changing Wikipedia's manual of style, you can do so @ WP:MOS, not here.    * Indeed. Also, a more historical page in which the material would probably fit better is Presidency of Barack Obama. Certainly, the material doesn't belong in the lead here (WP:UNDUE, WP:LEAD) - whether it deserves a mention in the body of the article is something that can be discussed here. Merely re-inserting it will lead to it being reverted (please also see WP:EW). Thanks.     I note that neither page mentions the assassination.  Clearly, the assassination needs to be mentioned in both.  Clearly, despite a curious discussion of ``technical reasons`` and ``what historians might do,`` we do have an obligation to reflect historical fact.  Now:  ``The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects.``     Okay:      This is the paragraph that immediately precedes my proposed edit:   As president, Obama signed economic stimulus legislation in the form of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Ac