Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

initial comments

Why is the Obama Cabinet- template only half-filled? It includes only some of the secretary nominees Obama has made. ABC101090 (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

What were the three documents he signed right after he sat down, after the inauguration ceremony? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.202.89.108 (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe atleast one was his nominations. Grsz¹¹ 19:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Current event template

Is this really a current event? Presumably he will be president for the next 4 years, with new developments practically every day. How long do we plan to have that template up there? --causa sui ^talk 00:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

He was just inaugurated today, so...Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It would make sense on that account to have a current event template on an article about his inauguration, but not about his Presidency, which is and will be ongoing for years. --causa sui ^talk 21:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Expectations for first 100 days

I have merged information from the discontinued "Barack Obama's first 100 days"-page, per the AfD discussion. I have also made a thorough rewrite, so as to avoid crystal balling, and simply report on the centrality of the term and public expectations of the period. Lampman (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

pay freeze

I added information regarding the pay freeze and stricter lobbying rules he's announced on his first day, but I'm not happy with the way I've worded it. So if anyone can make it sound a bit better, please do. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I changed the language a bit; I think it's good now. --Bleemsz (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, thats definitly better. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Actions and Accomplishments

Morning- I'm wondering if it would be prudent, considering the President's proclivity for instituting frequent, substantive, effectual Executive Orders, to make a sub-heading or list of the Order's with a brief summary for each.

Hello- I changed "Legislative Action" to "Actions and Accomplishments". The term "Legislative Action" does not really apply here, and a more broad range of the president's actions can be described here. I hope people will continue to update this section as the president continues to make history. InterwebUsr (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

hello- President Obama repealed executive order 13233 of Nov 2001, which preserved executive privilege beyond 12 years, and authorized review of former president Bush's presidential records which he had claimed executive privilege. this means that if President Obama decided Bush's privileged records are not a matter of national security, he may disclose such information notwithstanding the former presidents claim of privilege. the order is available here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ExecutiveOrderPresidentialRecords/ I do not know how to edit wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.6.131 (talk) 07:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks! I'd just added it in. rootology (C)(T) 17:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of "fixBunching"

It's true that right-margin items being stacked through the use of "fixBunching" must be of approximately the same width in order not to cause excess blank space. This is because the fix puts all these stacked items together into a unified column. To rectify this problem, I've now moved the right-margin Obama cabinet table down the page. Please note that until "fixBunching," my friend's browser on his Apple would show no edit buttons for each section; instead all of the article's section buttons were bunched together toward the bottom of the page. "FixBunching" provides the standard fix for this problem. For more info, see Template:fixBunching. ↜Just me, here, now … 03:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of word "torture" POV

In this article, this sentence struck out to me as a POV misstep:

"but the Bush Administration still supported the torture of prisoners of war and other federal detainees, as former Vice-President Dick Cheney admitted in a December 2008 interview"

In order to keep it npov, I would suggest changing it to harsh tactics. Thoughts? Rapmanej (talk) 08:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

What is harsh tactics? Beside, Obama referred to this as "the US will not torture". Waterboarding, for example, wasn't considered as torture by the Bush's admninistration, but is, by Obama's. Kromsson (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Multiple treaties and conventions to which the United States is party, such as the United Nations Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions, define waterboarding as torture. The Bush administration does not consider it torture, but it is torture. --Josh Atkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 18:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Barack Obama

Based on a suggestion on Talk:Barack Obama, a new baby Wikiproject has been formed:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Barack Obama

Please check it out, watchlist it, join and sign up. Let's get some GAs and FAs going out of this! :) rootology (C)(T) 20:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Added a section on the Presidency

It seems to me that it makes the most sense to have a broad section on his Presidency and subsections dealing with foreign policy and domestic policy to allow for easy research. Researchers shouldn't have to read through the entire article to determine actions by the administration that deal with a specific issue. I would like to see a more detailed review of these issues but I don't have a lot of time to do so. I hope others will add to the foreign policy section, create a domestic policy section. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 22:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Administration and Cabinet

I think this section should be expanded; as of now it just says that he hasn't nominated any Supreme Court justices, so the cabinet template extends farther down into the next sections than it should. In my opinion, there should be information about his claims to "the most transparent administration in history," his ethics reforms, etc.. There also needs to be something about the confirmations of all his appointees.. Then when he does nominate justices, we can make a subheading like all the other Presidency articles do. After expanding it more, I think a br clear:all should be added so the template does not stretch into the next section.. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I changed the table to a double-columned format (also deleting this same table, functioning as a navigation template, from the bottom of the page). ↜Just me, here, now … 22:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, somebody has changed this one for the Template:Obama cabinet, which is fine. (However note that I've restored from this contributor's edit the nav template previously at the bottom of the page-- namely a version of Template:Obama Administration personnel that's lacking its cabinet-level officers section -- in order to avoid redundancy and also to provide links to personnel not a part of the Administration's cabinet.) ↜Just me, here, now … 22:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The current template in this section is a navbox that should be at the bottom of the page, not in the article text. The only template I've seen (there are several that need to be merged - one for the article text and one for the bottom of the page) that looks remotely suited to go into this location is {{Obama cabinet infobox}}. It is only one column, though, and because of the lack of content in this section, that template extends too far into the subsequent sections. I think the best way to go about this would be to greatly expand this section (best option) or to modify the obama cabinet infobox template to have two columns instead of one. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Bah i should make sure i press save before closing the tab.Anyways.I don't see how his lack of Supreme Court nominations adds anything to the article, i mean its not like he cant actually name anyone right now.I was also gonna comment on the table, and ask if was suppose to look like it did, but i see it has been changed, it's better like that imo.Now that i looked at it again, shouldn't there be some kind of mention next to Robert Gates stating that he is staying from the previous cabinet? Durga Dido (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I just added a new table (though not in template form because I didn't want to add to the 9034037408 templates already out there) to this section. It has a 2-column format and isn't a navbox, so it looks like it belongs there more. I think the old navboxes that were at the bottom of the page can be restored now, but I don't remember the templates; can someone do this? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I've temporarily transcluded your wikitable's coding to the Template:Obama cabinet infobox (that is, until such time as its former Navbox format is usable in an article). ↜Just me, here, now … 21:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

←Oppose I do not feel it is necessary or appropriate to remove cabinet nomination information from First 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency. I don't even think that article is suppose to have that level of detail. The change was enacted two hours after a merge tag was added. That is not procedurally correct.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Presidency began at noon

Constitutionally speaking, Obama's presidency began automatically at noon, january 20, rather than at the moment he was inaugurated. While the inauguration is a constitutional requirement to exercize his powers, it is not a requirement to hold the office. The expiration of one term and the beginning of a new is automatic and defined in the Constitution as taking place at exactly noon of jan 20.Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right,but why have you stated this?I looked at the page and didn't see any mistakes,did you see one or are saying just so future editors will know that? Durga Dido (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Actions and Accomplisments

I noticed that the Actions and accomplishments section is already quite detailed for a man who's only been president for under a week. Would it be useful to create something like Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama to fit all this in, so that this page's section can eventually just focus on the most important stuff? Joshdboz (talk) 07:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well the closing of Guantanamo is pretty important, because it shows where he wants to go ,The "gag rule" part is pretty important, but seeing as this rule just keeps getting put on and off depending on the president it might not be so important.Not sure if him retaking the oath should even be in this section of the article,The pay freeze,the proclamation and the desire to review last minute regulations don't seem so important in the greater scope of the article.I would say yes a new page would be a good idea.Durga Dido (talk) 07:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at the page another time and saw that at the bottom after administration and cabinet table,it talks about his presidency 2009-present, here it talks about what he has done,foreign policy stance,wanting to close Gitmo, Showing what he wants to do concerning the middle east,abortion funding.It also divides each part into their own section,which is much better then what is in the actions and accomplishment part, it also is much better for future additions and make it easier to follow,Later on when Obama does more on abortion stuff for example we can just change the title to "abortion" and then add whatever it is that needs to be added to that section instead of making a new one for it.Seeing that I think for now we should keep this info here, in this format, I also think we should remove the actions and accomplishments, because whatever we add there would likely also be added to his presidency 2009-present, and if it is not added it is more then likely that it should be added.Then in the future we might have the need for a new page for this info,but i think we should try in this way first. Durga Dido (talk) 09:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The timeline is great, but since it's named Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama, it should go under the Presidency section. The First 100 days section on this page will go into more detail at this point than the Presidency section will because the Presidency section will cover 4 full years whereas the First 100 days will only cover 100 days. Actions and Accomplishments is a subheading of the first 100 days, so it will go into much detail.. maybe even so much as to necessitate Timeline of the First 100 Days of the Presidency of Barack Obama. I don't think we need to shrink the section just yet, but I wanted to make the distinction between the First 100 days section and the Presidency section clear. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah i see it now, i didn't notice that it was part of his "first 100 days" in that case i think that the section is correctly there.I change my position and also think we shouldn't trim it down for the time being.To Joshdboz i think for the time being we should just hold with the idea of a new page, lets continue on this page and see what happens, in time it will be clear when a new page for your idea. is neededDurga Dido (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Tomorrow will end his first week in office, so I think we should shorten the section after tomorrow to be something like "In his first week, Obama...." instead of talking about each day. We won't need 100 paragraphs in this section (for each of the first 100 days).. the day by day thing can go on Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Issues on the page

Sorry if i may seem over zealous with these pages, but i would still like to help make the article better.I have seen some things on the article that I think could use some change or should be addressed.I have put them together but have bolded the important parts to make it easier to see what the point addresses:

1. Transition Period states that Timothy Geithner was chosen amidst a financial crisis,I don't think it actually adds anything to the article at this location.
2. Inauguration talks about a "House Wing" in the capitol where the President's Room is, is that the name of the wing or is this an error?
3. Inauguration talks about Obama using the Lincoln's bible to commemorate Lincoln but, the reference does not actually say that.
4. No offense to the guy, but why does the opinion of one person Clive Stafford Smith matter that much to be used as a reference to one of the expectations of the president,I don't want to say we should simply remove it, because that is something a lot of people want to see happen ( the closing of Gitmo, not specifically in 100 days) but i think we should use something diff that talks about more people.
5. Actions and accomplishments section should be removed and info that is there should be moved and added the Presidency 2009-present section, trimmed where needed and dumped/moved where needed.

Durga Dido (talk) 09:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Should there be coverage of Obama's "West Wing"?

Or Executive Office of the President. Eg see "West Wing on steroids in Obama W.H.", January 25, by Jonathan Martin. (And if so, what should its "header" be?) ↜Just me, here, now … 16:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• There should be a brief section dealing with this since numerous books will be written on Obama's philosophy of governance. There are already numerous books dealing with past Presidents, the power of the Chief of Staff and members of the West Wing compared to other Presidents. As we can see the issue of how he governs will become a major issue and scholars will write books about it for the next 30 years ranging from discussions of the role of his Chief of Staff, the role of the Cabinet and sub-cabinet as compared to his White House staff. I'm already sure that Obama has read several books on how different President's governed before being sworn in. Should he set up Committees, task forces, use special envoys or give his Cabinet officers more or less power in selecting their assistants. Here are some more articles dealing with this: Transition Holds Clues to How Obama Will Govern and Obama Signals Shift in Governing Philosophy Edward Lalone | (Talk) 22:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Foreign Policy

Is it really necessary to have the long quote of his inauguration speech in this article? Should it not be summarized into a few sentences? I also don't think there should be so many subheadings under the section. As the "Policies" section grows, there will be an increasing number of subheadings, so I think all the sub-subheadings (Guantanamo, Abortion, etc) should be removed, and just leave the "Foreign Policy" section. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• I will leave it to your discretion but as someone who does a lot of research your way of doing thing is bothersome. I don't have time to read through an entire section which will get longer over time or will not be comprehensive to deal with the administrations foreign policy. Also, it seems that entire sections that will have increased importance over time have been removed. The Middle East being one of them. The Middle East peace process is already significant and has consumed large amounts of news coverage. Just today, the President and Secretary of State met with Special Envoy George Mitchell who will be leaving for a Middle East tour including a meeting with President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 21:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• It is a typical practice to address issues in separate sections including one for domestic policy, foreign policy and to have any subsections necessary to address broad issues within those categories until the section gets large enough to warrant an article of its own. There will likely be a Foreign Policy of the Obama administration article which addresses each of these issues. That article is likely to be broken down into sections dealing with regions, countries and specific conflicts or foreign policy issues of his administration. So at minimum I think we need to restore the Middle East subsection since we will likely add a section for Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Middle East peace process. The Guantanamo section should also be included but the abortion section should never have been put into a separate section because it is not broad enough and will not result in significant news coverage like the Middle East and closing of Guantanamo will. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 21:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• The entire quote from the inaugural address should remain until the sections dealing with each point can be created and parts of the quote can be inserted into those sections. Summarizing someone else words into a few sentences is original research and I think we should avoid that. His words can be interpreted in different ways by different people so let's not get into a discussion of which summary is correct. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 21:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said there except for the part about including the address text. I don't see any original research in the current summary; in fact, most of it is directly quoted from the speech. Yes, I agree we need to wait for more information (he hasn't even been in office a week yet), and when substantial information is made available for a new section or summary style article, we will make one. For the time being, there isn't really enough information to warrant breaking it up (even though we will need to later). --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I added one more sentence dealing with his call to those who cling to power through corruption and silencing dissent. Please feel free to edit this sentence. I still think that the summary is fairly biased including the sentence I added but we can work that out later. I think there may be enough coverage to include a Middle East subsection. Already there are several issues which aren't addressed in the article including an upcoming trip by Special Envoy George Mitchell and the missile attack on Pakistan but I will let someone else draft those issues for inclusion. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 22:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I've activated the Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration article (which was previously a redirect to here), as an article of that form exists for GWB, Clinton, and Reagan, and because there's already need for it to contain material being put into various other articles where the level of detail is unwieldy or inappropriate. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Great start on the article. I hope to help out as things unroll. Joshdboz (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"Legislation passed"?

It seems to me that none of the items in the "Legislation passed" section are legislation: they are all policy decisions. I think the term "legislation" means bills passed by Congress (the "legislature " which deliberates about the decision) and then signed by the executive to become a law. I think that we should separate out Obama's policy decision from the list of bills he signs. If wwe are going to have a simple chronological list, then we should consider factoring it out to its own article since it is likely to get lengthy.--Spellage (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to clean up the Legislation passed section as Spellage kindly said, what Obama has done up till now would not be considered a legislation, even though they the force and effect of law.The Go ahead on the missile strikes should definitely not be there because, he doesn't have to sign a law for the strikes to take place, he just orders it.The memorandums are even more out there because while they are legally the same as EO's there is still a difference, hence the different naming.I think in order to keep the first 100 days we need to see what should make it on the list and what should not make it on the list.And we should be sure to name/list them correctly. Durga Dido (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think "Legislation passed" is a good title for this section. I like "Actions and accomplishments" more. Can anyone tell me what was POV about that? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Administration and Cabinet

Very important presidential assigned positions in the admisistration should be included. I started to put in Fed Chair, Sepcial Envoy to the Middle East, Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistanetc. (Since someone started to undue these changes I stopped.) These assignments are just as important as "official cabinet" and ARE part of the administration as the title of this section states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.131.140.124 (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

By all means, add them into the text, but the title of the table to which you tried to add them is "Obama Cabinet." Only cabinet-level members should be added here. I'm all for adding other members of the administration... just in the text not the table. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that other positions of note should be identified. The Fed at this time is one, and so is George Mitchell. These can be added separate, and I think I'll try now. Grsz¹¹ 22:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Other notable positions

Who decides what is a "notable position"

Envoy to mideast? Fed? CIA? National Intelligence? Surgeon General? Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration?

Without defined criteria, any person that Obama appoints could be on this list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.39.103.200 (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Repetitive sentence strucure

On Jan 21, Obama....

On Jan 22, Obama....

On Jan 23, Obama....

I know this is the natural tendency, but it's terrible writing and awful to read. Can we figure a way to make this into more integrated prose?--Loodog (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I had actually written "the very next day" for one of those, but someone said that violated NPOV, and changed it to the exact date. Here is the edit in question. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Then just write the "The next day". There's no need for the "very". :) Sijo Ripa (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Lobbying reform and tax payment concerns

It seems to me that much of the information in this section (particularly about cabinet members' tax concerns) should be moved, perhaps to another article or to a new section on this page. This is a subsection of policies, and whether or not a nominee paid his/her taxes has nothing to do with policy. Perhaps this should be moved to a subsection of Administration and Cabinet - something like a section named "Tax concerns" maybe? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is already in a section called ethics, where else would you propose it should go? Newguy34 (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that talking about the effect of the controversies in the artcile is unnecessary, but I have added a bit more balance, which will hopefully address your concerns. Newguy34 (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I just told you where I proposed it should go. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, but the application of the policy that the president laid out is relevant. While it's current placement is perhaps not perfect, it flows rather well. Cutting it to another section would affect the readability, it seems to me. Thoughts from others? Newguy34 (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I was bold and edited the page. I tried to keep the flow of the original section as much as possible, and I believe the information's new location is more suited. This diff shows the edit. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Newguy34 (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review - First 100 days

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 4 for a DRV on a First 100 days article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The redirect has been overturned. If anyone thinks this article has too much detail in sections, you can move it over there for events that occur in the next 77 days.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Robert Gates

Gates or any other person, who moves seemlessly from one cabinet to another, shouldn't have the tenure from the other cabinet shown. Gates should be shown in this article, as Secy of Defense, 2009-present & thus Secy of Defense 2006-09 in the Bush cabinet. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

For example: it would look odd to have all of John Adams' original cabinet, as being shown serving since 1789. Or Andrew Johnson's Secy of State as serving from 1861. This covers the George H. W. Bush article, too. Dick Thornburgh shouldn't bee shown as 1988-93. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If i understand what you are saying is, that we should only put starting dates as late as when Obama his administration started, I agree with you, If we however keep it as is, I think we should keep something noting him staying from the previous administration as is shown by the **, if the 2006 date goes then i think the notation should too. Durga Dido (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The asterisks is OK. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

How does one 'edit' the Cabinet section? GoodDay (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link: Template:Obama cabinet infobox. ↜Just me, here, now … 08:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I've fixed up Gates' tenure in the Obama cabinet. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

It's cool trivia to mention that Obama became Prez at 12:00 EST. But is it necessary to mention this occured before he took his oath of office? I'm guessing that all US Presidents, did not take their oaths of office at the exact momment of terms beginning . GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

Wikipedia NPOV policy states, "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors."

Some of you keep erasing this paragrpah form the Lobbying Reform section:

U.S. Congresswoman Hilda Solis (D-California), Obama's nominee for Secretary of Labor, was a board member of an organization called American Rights at Work, which lobbied Congress on two bills that Solis was a co-sponsor of - the Employee Free Choice Act, and the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act. Furthermore, Solis did not reveal her board membership to other House members on her financial disclosure forms. [79]

You claimed that it was "irrelevant" and that it contained "weasel words." But when I asked you explain why it was "irrelevant" and what "weasel words" it had, you never answered.

Erasing relevant, well sourced info violates wikipedia NPOV policy. Please stop doing this. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The Solis edit, I just undid[1]. At the basic level, it's far too much info here on Solis; that level can go in her article. This article will encompass all of Obama's first four years, and possibly eight. A paragraph on the career and alleged lack of disclosures by one person that's now just nominee is way too much for a summary article like this. Hilda Solis is where it could go, not here. She's at the moment a historical footnote out of the next four years. rootology (C)(T) 14:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Grsz¹¹ 14:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Then why does this article even have a section called "Lobbying reform"? And why does the section mention William J. Lynn III, William Corr, and Mark Patterson? Did you erase the entry on Solis because she's a woman, and you think that women aren't supposed to be held to the same standards as men? Grundle2600 (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Look dude, it's assholes like you that make the world a sucky place to live in. You muckrake and bring up crap to intentionally try to make people look bad. No one said anything about keeping her out because she was a woman; I thought we were mature enough not even to think about that. It's people like you that keep sexism, racism, and pretty much any kind of stereotypical hatred going. Get off your soap box and think positively. No one lives to attack you; frankly, we don't give a damn about you or even care if you're here or not. We all want to get along and can do so if we just stop pulling out the race, gender, orientation, etc. cards.. hell, just burn the cards up - why do we need cards?

You talk about NPOV, but from your contributions to this and other articles, it's obvious that you try to insert your opinion into every single article to which you contribute. Wikipedia is NOT an opinion article; go to CNN (or in your case Fox News) for that. This site states facts in an OBJECTIVE way. Yes, you add facts, but you put a subtle spin on them that implies ideas not actually present in the sources you cite. I'm fine with allowing the information about Solis to remain in the article; in fact, I just copy edited it to remain in there. This kind of stuff has been happening many times over the past few weeks, and frankly, I'm tired of it. Either learn to write objectively, or stay off of this site. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The edit above violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL and Dudemanfellabra has been warned. Everyone in this conversation: Please keep the discussion on an adult and cooperative level, without personal insults or attacks. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Folks, let's just try to comment on the articles, not on other editors? There is plenty of POV from both sides wrapped ever so subtlely in NPOV, spin, quoting Wiki policies, etc. Newguy34 (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Fox News? Ha ha. I don't watch Fox News. I voted for Ron Paul, not John McCain. I read Reason magazine. Anyway, all the things that I added are facts. If you want to reword them to make it better, please do so. Thanks. Also, I never, ever erase anything that's relevant and sourced, because I want all points of view to be allowed. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked over the rest of Grundle's edits (as those seem to be the ones that are getting reverted), but this edit seems to violate a number of Wikipedia's policies. The first is WP:NOR as it is synthesizing information from unrelated sources to drive a point (Obama promised to "end the practice of writing legislation behind closed doors," but a Senator said they wouldn't be able to see the final bill before voting, therefore Obama is breaking his promise). The second issue is that the final sentence seems to rely upon a source that does not meet Wikipedia's reliable source guideline, so there's a failure of verifiability. That isn't to say the content in that section is inappropriate if acceptable sourcing can be found, you just can't combine multiple unrelated sources to make a point and all sources must be reliable ones. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Grundle, this edit still seems to be a synthesis. You've removed the source that doesn't meet WP:RS, so thanks for that, but the NY Times article makes no reference to Obama promising to end behind closed doors writing of legislation. It does include that the House Democrats had promised 48 hours to review the legislation, but no mention of Obama's promise that I can see. I'm also not seeing where it says that some legislators are voting on the bill without having read it. If I've missed where it says these things, please point them out to me. Thanks! --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Bobblehead, thanks for explaining that. I don't think I can souce it properly now for the context of this particular article. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Give it some time. I'm sure the WSJ will put something out in the next few days.;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the need for this section/subsection to mention any of the hired lobbyists. The section is entitled "Policies." Lobbyists are people, not policies; a laundry list of their names does nothing to expand the reader's knowledge of the policy at hand. The sentence about the USA Today review can be left intact; it points to the fact that lobbyists have indeed been hired, but more importantly, it summarizes for the reader what the policy might mean in practice. And without some huge fallout over the hiring of lobbyists, the mention of their names and details in an article with such a broad scope would seem to be WP:UNDUE and not to be in WP:Summary style. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I support leaving them in there. Yes, this section is entitled Policies, but lobbying reform is one of those policies. Naming them shows the reader that he actually did appoint lobbyists in fields they had lobbied (i.e. Corr for HHS.. he had lobbied for anti-tobacco.. which is a health matter.) The fact that he appointed lobbyists doesn't really contradict his executive order. The fact that he appointed lobbyists into fields in which they previously lobbied does. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Will this be a notable fact throughout four years of his presidency, compared to any/all other policies through that time? rootology (C)(T) 22:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact is notable now, which is sufficient for its inclusion now. Wiki doesn't predict the future. Newguy34 (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the fact seems notable to the sum and substance of Obama's handling of his policy to the extent it stands three weeks in. As time goes by and the universe of Obama's policy expands, other issues will rise to the fore and become both more relevant in the near term and noteworthy to history—unless one of these people notably breaks the spirit or letter of the order (Geithner's aide notwithstanding; it seems to me he's made himself too easy a target on too closely examined a topic). Abrazame (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

What is notable now is as notable as a car crash and might be gone by tomorrow or in little time. WP is not news so we have to "stick with facts that stick" to "stick" being at least somehow encyclopedic.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's Obama who decided to make lobbyists in government an issue after his election (as distinguished from all those who say things during a campaign and then fail to implement policies when in office) with the policy he declared. By your reasoning, we might refrain from mentioning any policy, quote or act because only time will show whether people remember or perceive this issue as important relative to all else that will come, like people have forgotten, say, Reagan's many tax hikes and only remember that first tax cut. I'm more interested in striking a balance at least as good as that found in the source cited, which ends with a mitigating factor. People re-adding things here often seem to want to state the issue twice and end on a negative note. For example, the point of Tom Vilsack in the source article—and the reason I added his name here, for balance to the list of alleged potential conflicts of interest and to explain the "21" number—is that he is not just another one of these other names, rather, he is someone who lobbied for a teachers union yet he is now the Secretary of Agriculture, a position that doesn't remotely involve teachers unions. The source article makes this distinction. Yet either by deceitful design or by editorial ignorance, now his name is listed among the potential conflicts of interest. Merely addressing this issue in this article is making the negative point; now we need to present the relevant mitigating factors, including this section from the executive order:

"Sec. 3. Waiver.

(a) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget, or his or her designee, in consultation with the Counsel to the President or his or her designee, may grant to any current or former appointee a written waiver of any restrictions contained in the pledge signed by such appointee if, and to the extent that, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, or his or her designee, certifies in writing (i) that the literal application of the restriction is inconsistent with the purposes of the restriction, or (ii) that it is in the public interest to grant the waiver. A waiver shall take effect when the certification is signed by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget or his or her designee.

(b) The public interest shall include, but not be limited to, exigent circumstances relating to national security or to the economy. De minimis contact with an executive agency shall be cause for a waiver of the restrictions contained in paragraph 3 of the pledge."

This is making the point that, while they will/have move(d) away from the business as usual in D.C., they will not bite off their noses to spite their faces. Clean-keeper, I do take your point about a car crash; on the other hand, if the car crash placed Barack Obama's health in question, it would belong in the article. Abrazame (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I find it highly ironic that people are censoring the sections called "Ethics" and "Transparency."

This is what I added, but other people keep taking out. First I put it in one section, then after someone erased it, I put it in the other section, and then someone erased it from there too. Given that these sections are called "Ethics" and "Transparency," I find it highly ironic that people keep erasing this information:

On his webpage titled "Agenda and Ethics," Obama had promised, "As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days." [96] Furthermore, during his speech at the Democratic National Convention, Obama had stated, "I will also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less - because we cannot meet twenty-first century challenges with a twentieth century bureaucracy." [97] He broke both promises when he signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. [98]

Grundle2600 (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Whatever "The Rosett Report" is (WP:SPS?), by no means is it a reliable, secondary or tertiary source per WP:PSTS that would allow us to state as objective fact that Obama "broke" any "promises." Perhaps you could preface this opinion with, "According to conservative journalist Claudia Rosett," but that raises the question of whether Rosett is notable enough to single out in this article in the first place. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Grundle has been told several times why his edits are not acceptable. He has broken WP:3RR in an attempt to push his agenda. Grsz¹¹ 04:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I see Grundle partaking in edit warring on the two articles, but I don't see any violations of WP:3RR. At this point he's only got 3 reverts in 24 hours on both articles.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The federal budget and the stimulus package are two different things. That your sources don't understand that would seem to illegitimize them as sources; that you don't should make it occur to you to read them more critically when your edits are challenged. We are still operating under George W. Bush's 3.1 trillion dollar 2009 budget, which he submitted last year and covers the fiscal year that began in October 2008 and ends in September 2009, and which does not include the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The stimulus package to prevent the Great Depression II is obviously considered something of an emergency. This is not your run-of-the-mill bill. Nor was this some about-face, secret midnight signing statement like Bush was doing. This is one of the most talked-about spending packages ever passed. Is there something else you'd like to have said about it? Wikipedia isn't the place to cathart that feeling. This stimulus package doesn't categorically preempt responsibility in tailoring the 2010 budget. Beyond that, the convention was in August, before the scope of this financial crisis had hit anybody. While in the long term it's more important than ever to conserve and prevent waste, in the short term it's more necessary to make sure credit markets are working, and to make sure foreclosures and job losses don't increase, because those three things stand to make this damaging recession a full-blown depression. To that end, Obama has acknowledged increasingly since September that more than anybody would previously have considered will be necessary to come through this thing by the end of this coming decade much less the end of this coming year. Precisely because going line by line takes so long, Obama has pushed back the deadline for submitting a budget which, coming the first Monday in February, two weeks after inauguration, is a ridiculously short amount of time to expect anyone new to the job to do anything comprehensive. Both Bush and Clinton submitted their first budgets late, though probably not anywhere near as late as Obama will, as this is rather an unprecedented time in history and his was a major pledge. Presumably at some point in the next two months[2], Obama will present this fine tooth-combed budget, and for his sake as well as yours I hope he does so five days in advance of submitting it. In the meantime, either drop the anti-Obama agenda or go write a blog. Abrazame (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ethics in government

Still not entirely sure that this subsection heading is necessary. Aren't all policies aimed at producing governmental action of an ethical nature? For example, while I happen to agree with both the closing of Guantanamo Bay and the halting of offshore drilling, I'm not sure how the former pertains to governmental ethics in a way that the latter does not. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

why is there no criticism of obama? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.186.67.7 (talk) 05:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Most likely because criticisms on the way that you are probably looking for, does not help the article, if you feel something is missing from the article please be specific about it, the article wont get better if we put criticism just for the sake of putting in criticism. We try for balance on the page but that might not always happen, but when we see something wrong we try to fix it, give us examples of stuff you think are missing and we will discuss why they shouldn't be in the article or how to get a good source so it can be put in the article. Durga Dido (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Outsourcing

The article needs to mention Obama administration's strong stance against outsourcing and its possible consequences. The issue has already been covered extensively by international media [3] [4] [5]. --128.211.201.161 (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the article,I think we need to know how much if the stance is actually Obama's stance, I mean we know that Obama wanted this bill, however we don't know how much part of it is actually stuff Obama wanted in it, I know for example the tax cuts are a part that Obama wanted in it, but don't know much after that, This could be just as easily something a particular Democratic senator wanted for his vote so it had to be included.From the 3 references you posted this is the one line i found that says it is something Obama wants/wanted : "Obama said his government will not give tax breaks to US companies that offshore jobs." .That is from ref3 ,I haven't seen the address yet because I did not know about it then, but maybe i should.That line that Obama said could be very likely be referring to congress and not himself, because after all congress is part of his government.If we can find something that says that this is something Obama feel strongly about then we shall have to include it. Durga Dido (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Cabinet-level positions

Is Drug Czar a cabinet-level position? It isn't listed here on the list, but Christina Romer, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers is. Sources in the Administration and Cabinet section don't include the CEA, but do include Drug Czar. Which is correct? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, she was present at his Congressional speech as a member of Cabinet. I'm not sure if Acting Members were present or, if they were, if they were accorded the same seating as confirmed members. Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Twitter

Does anybody else who reads this article[6] added here today think that what Williams twittered, about the White House seeking his advice on the economy, might be a sardonic joke at best? Even if he's dead serious in interpreting the meeting as such, an executive's twitter isn't a source for an assessment of the purpose of a future meeting that he did not call or set the agenda for. And is any of this encyclopedic? How many meetings which have not yet happened are? By spinning that twitter into an article, even as flimsy and speculative and gossipy as the blurb of an article is, it seems The Business Insider writer may be pushing an opinion or partisan or philosophical prejudice, one popular among the business media at present. "Even though we don't think government should get involved at all, given that a huge ship can't turn on a dime, let's use this time to blame and mock the current administration for this decades-in-coming unraveling of regulation and oversight and reasonable business practices." The meeting is described elsewhere as a summit of "young business leaders", which sounds like it may be a rally to spur them to get involved in creating jobs and stepping up to be the movers of the economy going forward, considering how the rest of the business community seems intent upon downsizing us into a depression. But I don't think we should print my speculative post in an encyclopedia either. If this meeting does turn out to be encyclopedic after the meeting happens and is reported on, please re-add a mention with an accurate depiction of its purpose and its results as cited in a legitimate source. Abrazame (talk) 08:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Unscientific survey should not be included in an "Approval ratings" section

Unscientific surveys are routinely removed from Wikipedia's opinion poll articles, e.g Opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2008, Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2008, Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_Republican_Party_2008_presidential_candidates, Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2008. However, I have twice tried to remove the unscientific WSJ survey from the "Approval ratings" section in this article and it has been added back twice, and even the simple fact that the survey is unscientific was removed. Wikipedia's approval rating article states, "Many unscientific approval rating systems exist that skew popular opinion. However, the approval rating is generally accepted as the general opinion of the people." Because they skew popular opinion, they should not be included in a section that is supposed to reflect popular opinion. Wikipedia would not include an AOL online poll or a Fox News text poll in an Approval ratings section for the same reason. 68.35.125.63 (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I was just adding something to that section and found myself in an edit conflict with you. I believe that if the poll is going to be cited in the article, it's important to understand the context of the rating. By reading the article, you can see that only 30% of those economists found the rest of the world's response to the global economic crisis to have been adequate. Put another way, they grade the rest of the world worse than Obama. Put yet another way, if it were to be graded on a curve, Obama would be doing quite well in their eyes. Bernanke and the Fed get relatively good grades as well. I could write till my eyes bled about what I think Obama has been failing to do with the bully pulpit and the stimulus package to give a quick jump start to this economy and the market at the same time by restoring faith in and re-energizing certain industries. But that doesn't mean he's doing worse in my eyes than George W. Bush or Angela Merkel, etc. A great many of these Journal economists concur. By taking one snippet out of context we are being editorially irresponsible. Abrazame (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a bit tangential, but the economists surveyed by the WSJ are far more Republican than American economists in general. For example, a survey of National Bureau of Economic Research economists found that 80% of respondents thought that Obama had a better grasp of economics than McCain [7]. Another survey of American Economic Association economists found that only 31% of respondents preferred McCain over Obama on the economy [8]. However, among the economists in the WSJ survey, 75% of respondents preferred McCain's fiscal policy over Obama's or Clinton's [9]. So it would be disingenuous to present this survey as if it is the opinion of economists in general, which I think is the implication given by including it in an "Approval ratings" section. 68.35.125.63 (talk) 04:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, then I think adding the words "unscientific" to the sentence may make sense, but Wiki doesn't choose sides, so it's complete removal is inappropriate. Newguy34 (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

In that spirit of not choosing sides, I thought I'd present the other side given in the article cited, and changed the wording to more clearly show the unscientific nature (economists chosen by the Journal) and to compare apples to apples (instead of 70% inadequate, 30% adequate). I would argue that, given that these economists are neither randomly chosen for a spectrum of political views nor notable enough to be quoted independently, we should move the entire two sentences from "Approval ratings" to "Economy". Abrazame (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Teleprompt

• We should mention that he uses the teleprompter in his Q&A sessions at the whitehouse right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.12.223.111 (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No, because that would be factually inaccurate. He uses a teleprompter for speeches and statements (just like every other president since teleprompters because ubiquitous), but not for Q&A sessions. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Trying to prove broken tax promises

proposal to add material has not gained consensus after 2+ weeks - discussion no longer productive
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Okay, anyone want to take a swing regarding why this proposed material[10] is well sourced, neutral, of due weight, or relevant to an article about the presidency of Obama? To me it looks like a simple matter of opinion, on a subject barely related to the presidency, of detractors looking for something to criticize. This is an article about the presidency, not campaign promises. Further, the position that increasing a sales or excise tax is taxing people based on income is clearly a stretch. If we want to talk about regressive taxation, that can be centralized on an article about the subject, rather than repeating each side's partisan positions every time such a tax comes up. Also, please note that this article is subject to article probation (something I just pointed out by adding the template here), so please discuss proposals like this civilly rather than edit warring disputed material into the encyclopedia. Wikidemon (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC) I see that the point you brought up was changed.I just wanted to show my support and the change in the article,the part you brought up was a huge stretch to me.It seems like the news article either missed the point Obama was making or that they were trying to simply look for something to to criticize Obama about.The line of Obama was obviously referring to income tax and the business tax etc.Also I don't buy the line that it affects poor more then the rich.Durga Dido (talk) 11:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC) No. Obama did not say it was just the income tax. He said his promise applied to all taxes. I added this to the article, but someone else removed it: "According to an April 1, 2009 Associated Press article, while campaigning in Dover, New Hampshire on September 12, 2008, Obama said, "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes... you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." The same article also stated, "One of President Barack Obama's campaign pledges on taxes went up in puffs of smoke Wednesday. The largest increase in tobacco taxes took effect despite Obama's promise not to raise taxes of any kind on families earning under $250,000 or individuals under $200,000. This is one tax that disproportionately affects the poor, who are more likely to smoke than the rich." The article also said, "Now in office, Obama, who stopped smoking but has admitted he slips now and then, signed a law raising the tobacco tax 62 cents on a pack of cigarettes, to $1.01." <ref>Promises, Promises: Obama tax pledge up in smoke, Associated Press, April 1, 2009</ref>" I won't be putting it back in again. I already got blocked for 24 hours for edit warring over that addition to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC) The cigarette tax does indeed affect the poor more than the rich, for two reasons. First, it has a bigger impact, as a percentage of income, on a poor person than on a rich person. For someone who smokes two packs a day, Obama's tax increase is $452.60 per year. That's a lot of money to a poor person, but not to a rich person. Second, there's this information: "Smoking prevalence varies according to education levels. Smokers who had a general education development diploma had the highest prevalence rate at 44%. People with nine to 11 years of education had a prevalence rate of 33.3%, compared with 11.4% of those with college degrees and 6.2% with graduate degrees." Grundle2600 (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC) This is original research. —Korath (Talk) 15:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Yes, you're right, it is original research. But I wasn't suggesting using that source for the article. I was mentioning it only in response to Durga Dido's statement of "I don't buy the line that it affects poor more then the rich." Grundle2600 (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC) I don't think the current state of the article is unreasonable. The Washington Post article still appears as a reference; Wikidemon's point that the broken campaign promise being tangential is correct; and the source doesn't even make a pretense of neutrality. —Korath (Talk) 15:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC) The article on George H.W. Bush quotes his statement of "Read my lips: no new taxes." Why can't this article quote Obama's statement of "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes... you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."? Actually, wikipedia has an entire article called Read my lips: no new taxes. Perhaps I should create an article called Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes... you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC) I am seeing an incredible amount of bias here. When a Republican breaks a promise on taxes, it gets an entire article. But when a Democrat breaks the same promise, we aren't even allowed to quote his promise as a tiny part of an article. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC) This section of the talk page is called "Trying to prove broken tax promises." But I am not trying to "prove" anything. All I want is for the article to cite Obama's quote of "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes... you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime," along with the date and location of the quote, and then mention that he signed a bill raising the cigarette tax by 62 cents per pack early in his presidency. Then the readers can determine for themselves whether or not Obama "broke" his promise. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Is it a fact, not an opinion, that Obama said, "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes... you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime," in Dover, New Hampshire on September 12, 2008. It is also a fact, not an opinion, that Obama raised the cigarette tax by 62 cents early in his Presidency. I want the article to state these facts. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC) What Obama said in the campaign is a campaign promise, not a presidential act. This is an article on the presidential acts. The "and then" part is synthesis, trying to connect two facts arising in very different circumstances, in order to make a point that is not contained in either. Whether you say so much or just imply it, the purpose of grouping those two facts together is to imply that there is a contradiction, and hence a divergence between the campaign promise and the actual performance. However, as people point out that is a stretch. Obama's promise was not about excise taxes. Some people are using that as a minor partisan criticism (meaning that there is off-Wikipedia synthesis being done) but this article is not reportage on every partisan complaint about Obama, it is about what he actually does as president. Wikidemon (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Wikidemon - It's not "synthesis" if I get everything from the same Associated Press article. It's a fact that Obama said that quote. And it's also a fact that Obama increased the cigarette tax. And it's also a fact that Obama's quote included the words "... not any of your taxes... you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." He did not make an exception for the cigarette tax when he said that quote. It's also a fact that the article said, "One of President Barack Obama's campaign pledges on taxes went up in puffs of smoke Wednesday. The largest increase in tobacco taxes took effect despite Obama's promise not to raise taxes of any kind on families earning under $250,000 or individuals under $200,000. This is one tax that disproportionately affects the poor, who are more likely to smoke than the rich." By erasing these facts that were reported by Associated Press, you are being POV. Why do you think it's OK for George H. W. Bush's quote to have its own entire article, but Obama's quote can't even have just one paragraph in an article? Grundle2600 (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC) I said that what the commentator (in this case the AP article) was doing is the same as synthesis - connecting two unrelated dots in order to draw a conclusion, which is that Obama took an action that breaks a campaign promise. That, as I explained, is a disputed political opinion. And it is an opinion about something that is not even the subject of this article. We should not have pro and con political arguments for all the things Obama does in office. That politicizes everything, and this is an article on governance, not politics. The politics is only relevant where it has a significant impact on the presidency. Further, what this particular opinion politicizes is not even the subject of this article - it is about campaign promises, not the presidency. There is nothing POV about insisting we stick to facts rather than opinions. In fact, to claim that removing an opinion shifts the POV is to admit that the opinion is a POV matter. Wikidemon (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Proof that it's a news article, and not an opinion column: The entire piece is written in the third person. It says "7:43 PM" next to the date. Opinion columns only have the date - never the time. It says, "WASHINGTON" at the beginning. News articles list the city - opinion columns don't. It has a slide show with pictures. This is a news article, not an opinion column. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Still no answer I can't find anything on any talk page or talk page archive that answers my question about why Read my lips: no new taxes gets to have its own entire article, while Obama's quote on taxes isn't even allowed to have one part of one paragraph. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Because it's irrelevant to this issue. You've been around long enough to know that. Grsz11 23:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC) (unindent) Note - this edit[11] is objected to by three editors above, for reasons noted, and at least two others who have not commented on this talk page.[12][13] Please use this talk page to establish consensus for disputed changes, and keep the article stable by not re-adding disputed content until and unless there is consensus. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Grundle, it might help your case if you can reference the who that is accusing the president of breaking his "no tax increase" promise. Some of the issue that other editors may have with your proposed inclusion (and they can speak for themselves) is that the text seems very vague as to who believes he broke his promise and who believes that raising cigarette taxes breaks his "no tax increase" promise. Is it the Washington Post? The reporter who wrote the piece? Experts who were interviewed by the reporter? Partisans who were interviewed by the reporter? The wording, as you have proposed it, is just too vague for inclusion. It needs to be: a) better sourced with multiple sourcing, and b) needs to be clearer as to who is making the claim. Absent these two improvements, the text attempts to take an obtuse claim of vague language and present it as an accepted fact, which as you know, violates NPOV. QueenofBattle (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Indeed. This insistence on trying to indicate an increase in tobacco taxes equates to a broken campaign pledge is ridiculous. The increase is targeted to provide funding for improvements in health care, and any reduction in the number of people smoking would result in reduced health care costs for the taxpayer. The reduction in taxes to the poor will be far greater than any additional taxes they might pay for specific items like cigarettes. And they could always quit - cigarettes are luxury items, not necessities like bread and milk. And the notion that "some considered" is not a clear violation of WP:WEASEL is laughable. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC) First of all, the Associated Press article stated that the tax increase breaks his promise, and Associated Press is a reliable source. Second, the fact that Obama said the quote is an objective fact, not an opinion. Third, you said: "The reduction in taxes to the poor will be far greater than any additional taxes they might pay for specific items like cigarettes." Really? Prove it. Please cite a source. And even if you do prove it, it doesn't negate the fact that Obama said what he said. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Does anyone here dispute the fact that Obama said the words that the Associated Press says he said? No - there's no dispute on that. If the wikipedia article can merely quote Obama's words in the same paragraph that mentions him increasing the cigarette tax, that's good enough for me. No one here is disputing that Obama said those words. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC) This is Obama's quote. The bolding is mine: "I can make a firm pledge... Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes... you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." Obama did not make an exception for the cigarette tax in his quote. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Grundle, I'll re-request that you help clarify the "who" that is making the claim that Obama broke his promise, as that is really at the heart of this. If the words said something along the lines of "According to so-and-so, Obama broke his pledge..." that would help. Also, the article cited as a reliable source requires registration to view the reference. I think it would be much, much better to find a reliable source that is freely viewable. QueenofBattle (talk) 23:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC) It was freely available when I added it to the article. Perhaps after a certain amount of time, it goes into a password protected archive. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC) Whether or not the source passes some threshold of reliability, it is not a strong source because based on the tone and content of writing that specific claim is made in editorial / analysis mode rather than strict news reportage. With hundreds to thousands of sources covering each piece of legislation and any other significant presidential action, I do not think that an occasional source here and there is sufficient as a sourcing matter to argue here on Wikipedia that Obama broke a campaign promise. If there is some controversy or criticism over the fact, we would need substantial sourcing for that to pass WP:RS. However, RS is not the only objection. One significant objection is that this article is not about campaign promises at all, so the entire subject matter is irrelevant to this article (and becomes a WP:COAT / WP:POV problem if shoehorned in here). Wikidemon (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC) I think we should take the WP:Coat arguement back off the table. The article is about Obama's presidency, including the policies of his administration. This seems to fit well within the wheelhouse for inclusion in an article about his presidency. If we can't write about the intersection of the proposed policies his was elected on and those policies he is able to enact during his presidency, there is really little use for the article, save a timeline and list of cabinet appointments. QueenofBattle (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC) You are synthesizing additional meaning from the source and then using weasel words to indicate more support for this view than there is. The writer of the piece, Calvin Woodward, is known for writing AP pieces that favor the conservative point of view. A Washington Post columnist, Dan Froomkin, gave a much fairer assessment of the tax increase and referred to Woodward's piece specifically. Taxes on individual items go up and down all the time, and in all fairness they cannot be equated with what a traditionally referred to as tax increases. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC) Whether Mr. Woodward is "pro-conservative" or Mr. Froomkin is "fairer" is not really the issue, as those labels are largely subjective. For example, you say Froomkin was fairer, I say he soft-balled it. So, on that point we can never hope to find consensus. What we do need for this to be included is better sourcing and less weasel words. If that can't be produced, the material doesn't belong. If that can be produced, we can re-consider. QueenofBattle (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC) Actually, no. Froomkin was fairer because (like Wikipedia) he offered views from third parties with both positive and negative assessments of the tax increase; however, Woodward's piece took a more negative stand - a sad reflection of the decreasing ability of the AP to remain neutral. Furthermore, even if higher quality sourcing could be found, we are talking about a tax rise on a single item. Already unduly tipping the scales, this information would burden the article still further if negative and positive spin, such as that proposed by Grundle, was applied. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC) I think we are generally saying the same thing, namely that the proposed inclusion just doesn't measure up. You, of course, are saying it from your viewpoint as a squishly, mamsy-pamsy liberal and I am saying it as a patriotic, right-minded American. I know, I know, "comment on the article not the editors"! It was a joke, people, well, except for the first sentence. QueenofBattle (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC) The Froomin piece looks great. However, I suspect that after a while, it too, will go into the Washington Post password protected archives. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC) Where does Obama make an exception for the cigarette tax? This is Obama's quote. The bolding is mine: "I can make a firm pledge... Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes... you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." Obama did not make an exception for the cigarette tax in his quote. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC) That is an argument with which many would disagree. The bottom line is it is not reliably sourced information, and even if sourced it would simply be a sourced opinion about a subject that is not directly relevant to this article. If sourced it might belong somewhere but not here. At this point it has been discussed and rejected, so it will not go anywhere to keep re-proposing. Please review WP:SYNTH carefully. Wikidemon (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Sourcing? See Obama's First 50 Days: Devastating to Taxpayers, Reuters, March 10, 2009, which quotes Obama saying "I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes", citing this YouTube clip of a September 12, 2008 Obama speech in Dover NH. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Er... that's not Reuters. They are just the publisher. That is a press release from Americans for Tax Reform - a group of right wing, low tax lobbyists. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC) breitbart.com cites Associated Press quoting Obama as saying, "I can make a firm pledge... Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.... you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." Grundle2600 (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC) I quoted Obama accurately, from a reliable source. But you people still want to censor the article. That violates NPOV. You are afraid to let people read the truth. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"Off-the-books funding"

proposal has not gained consensus; productive discussion has concluded
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm not surprised to see another of this person's edits completely oblivious to the point. Grundle, do you remember my post to you when you confused the Stimulus Package with the Budget Proposal? It's still on this page. I mentioned then that we are currently operating under George W. Bush's final budget, which he signed early last year, which went into effect in October of 2008 and which remains in effect until September 2009. BUSH, then, is responsible for this "off-the-books funding" of the wars one last time, as it was BUSH'S BUDGET which once again pulled a fast one on the American people by failing to account for the costs of the war. That was the whole fricking point of what Obama took issue with, and why he wouldn't vote for it. Not because he doesn't want to fund the troops, but because he wants that funding to be honestly faced as a part of the cost of running this country. So, if "anti-war activists", those "who got him elected", or the irresponsible types of media writers and editors who like to whip up tit-for-tat tempests in teapots miss this point, it doesn't mean Wikipedia editors are free of our own responsibility to understand the issue before we write it into an encyclopedia article. You will notice the source says it is for "the current fiscal year". Well, the current fiscal year is still what it was a couple of months ago, October 2008 through September 2009. Obama's FIRST budget goes into effect in October 2009 to cover the successive twelve months. None of that budget money gets spent until September 2009. So unless Obama wants to be accused of underfunding the troops—something else Bush is guilty of—Bush's sleazy "off-the-books" funding is the only way to do it. Obama included the cost of Bush's necessary war in Afghanistan and the cost of Bush's unnecessary war in Iraq IN HIS FIRST BUDGET, which goes into effect, if you'll recall from my mention a few sentences ago...IN SEPTEMBER 2009. But of course those are the costs from September forward, and not from now until then. If we're going to point any of this out, it's perfectly reasonable. But if someone is blaming Barack Obama for it, the only notable thing about that is their ignorance. Abrazame (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC) I just edited the section to include the accusation again, as it is noteworthy. I also included the White House response, though, which elaborates your point. We are still operating under the Bush 2008-2009 budget, and the Obama budget won't begin until September 2009. Instead of simply looking over the accusation, I included both sides of the story: Accusation and response. You can't get any more NPOV than that.. Give the reader both sides and let him/her make the decision. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Dude, ignorance isn't a "side". Abrazame (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Let's keep this moving... I agree that on a simple matter like which year something is funded, if a clear majority of sources say X, yet a few sources say that "critics are claiming Y", we need not cover a minority opinion that is simply wrong. If this were an article on the budget, the fact that there is an erroneous but common opinion and an dargument might be worth mentioning because it's relevant to the subject. But the subject here is the presidency of Obama, and the fact that he has some minority critics on a particular issue is not usually going to be relevant in the first place, and where the criticism is both unfounded and unlikely to make any direct difference it's not relevant to the article. So I'll restore a more neutral version. However, the aside that Bush underfunded the troops is not relevant either. That's what a supplemental budget is - not enough money, needs more. But blaming Bush is beside the point. Wikidemon (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC) In the interest of maintaining my editorial integrity around here, I would like to point out that while I suggested here on the talk page that it was my opinion that Bush's supplemental funding caused the troops to be UNDERfunded, I wrote in the article that the troops were UNfunded by his budget. It is a major distinction both in fiscal concept and in editorial integrity. The budget does not fund the war, that's the whole point. The supplemental funding funds the war. So by saying the budget unfunded the war, that's not opinion, it's fact. "Blame" has nothing to do with it. Clearly even people like Grundle who have the thing explained to them don't grasp or are unwilling to accept that for the first 8 months of Obama's presidency this country's budget is still Bush's. That fact is central to the topic. People are ignorant of the fact that the Obama budget is not what we are currently operating under. That's the sort of unusual fact someone might be well served by reading in an article such as this, given that we're discussing a supplemental funding. Wikidemon, you yourself have called it "Supplemental budget" when that's a conflation of terms. Bush's budget unfunded the war, requiring it to be funded by supplemental funding. That's a fact, it's a notable fact, it's something Obama is notable for discussing, it's what could help people understand the issue, and that's what I put in the article. That the supplemental funding underfunded the war is my opinion, and I kept my opinion—and blame—out of the article. Abrazame (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Abrazame - What I wrote was based on the source that I cited. That's what wikipedia editors are supposed to do. To remove such content, as you did, is POV. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC) If you believe that a disputed piece of content is right for the article please stick to why it belongs. Also note in my comment above that claiming a deletion has a POV effect (which is far more productive than accusing editors of POV actions) is a double edged sword. If deleting something has a POV effect, then adding it has a POV effect too, and the question becomes what is the appropriate POV, something very hard to work out, or just what is the status quo. Re. Abazame, perhaps it is better described as a supplemental appropriation? Exactly what is it? I suspect that the reasons there are not enough money are manyfold (war harder than expected, a pattern of under-funding and then supplementing, "off the books" funding that dried up due to the recession or being wasted somewhere else, etc) and that explaining why gets us into a thicket of analysis and opinion. Were the subject of this article the 2008 budget or the war, or the appropriation itself, all of that is interesting and we should hunt around for a balanced, comprehensive presentation. I just think that blaming it on the Bush budget is narrow and overly political. In fact, what makes it the "Bush" budget? It's America's budget, even if Bush proposed it - Bush introduced it, it got marked up, there were compromises, it got adopted. Labeling it as Bush's introduces some partisanship without helping explain anything relevant to this article. Wikidemon (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC) No, Grundle, Wikipedia editors are not supposed to indiscriminately add material from articles they read just because they happen to exist, especially when, as in your case, they have the knowledge to discern that the article is wrong. Nor are Wikipedia editors supposed to distill said references down to the sharpest slant presented therein, again, especially when that editor has reason to believe the claim is spurious. Wikipedia editors are supposed to know the difference between fact and fiction and not absolve themselves of editorial and intellectual responsibility by saying it was published by notable media. You didn't have to believe what I told you about the budget, but if you intend to continue to edit articles about fiscal policy, you either need to better educate yourself about the facts or you will continue to be called out over your willful ignorance. Why choose to pretend that you haven't been given a clearer picture of the subject? Yes, sometimes an encyclopedia editor is going to have to know more about the subject than the paid writers of a legitimate article. While we're free to show a little spunk here in our relevant and constructive discussions on the talk page, in the actual articles it is our imperative to put notable facts as they are relevant to the subject of the article, and to do so in a way that leads to a greater understanding of those facts and presents it in the proper context. By knowing that we are still operating under Bush's budget, as you do, yet publishing this "accusation" of Obama as if it were well-founded, you are essentially spreading a rumor, perpetuating a lie. I don't know if you're paying close enough attention to recognize it, Grundle, but Wikidemon removed what you added as well. It was your disingenuous amplification of the unenlightened impression in the article that was the POV. Abrazame (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Wikidemon, it's called a Supplemental Appropriation.[14][15][16] Respectfully, I would offer that it's a bad sign when we're putting something into an encyclopedia article that we don't even know the correct terminology for, and that successive edits are entirely about adding or stripping POV and actually shun the idea of honing the specificity and accuracy and relevant context. I respect your instinct to cut through contentiousness and admire your fortitude at these articles. But I don't see the controversy in acknowledging that Obama is expected to fight and/or resolve the Iraq and Afghanistan wars under a budget that never intended to fully fund it. Like so many things in the Bush Administration, it was Bush's conscious choice to work this way. If your philosophy is don't call things "Bush's" so we don't have to call things "Obama's", given the recalcitrance of the Republican congress, I can kind of appreciate that. So then why not call it "the final budget passed during the Bush administration"? To answer your question, it is Bush's budget because he chose not to put the costs of the war into the budget. When Democratic congresspeople would ask, in hearings, if this or that element needed more funding, the Bush administration's answer would be "NO", or they would avoid directly answering the question, because they knew it was politically unpopular with their base to increase spending. But the point isn't just that it was Bush who chose to do it that way (a point that Obama criticized frequently in his campaign, which is the reason this sounds like controversy to some and which is the reason that fact belongs in this article if the subject is going to be raised here), the point is that it was a budget that preceded Obama's presidency, and it is not the budget people might be aware Obama submitted recently. By not making this point, we are complicit in presenting something that lends itself to misinterpretation of the sort that the Telegraph fell prey to and that Grundle exploited. There are a good deal of people who are unhappy that insurance companies, banks, automakers, labor interests, state governments, and other "special interest groups" arrive at Washington's doorstep looking for special emergency funding to keep themselves going, and the desire to have more scrutiny of is it really necessary, is there any better investment, what is given, where it is spent, whether they're getting the best bang for the buck and whether there will be a good return on the investment. There are articles—some created or contributed to by brother Grundle—that seek to lay blame and foment unhappiness over this state of affairs. Why, then, is there so much disinterest in the two to three trillion spent in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the way those responsible show up breathlessly and desperately requesting tens of billions, often several times a year? Not only doesn't the Presidency of George W. Bush article not indicate that for last year $190 billion[17] in Supplemental Appropriations was requested for the Iraq war, it doesn't address the issue of war funding whatsoever, and there is only one mention of budget, in reference to the deficit. Yet the Iraq war was his choice, and he "led" during its first six years. There are plenty of media articles about this fact, and the war and its many costs including money are still relevant today—perhaps more so now than when 66% of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. The issue of funding doesn't even figure into the Iraq War article. So why should we should consider putting this in the Presidency of Barack Obama article if A) it's not truly a glaring hypocrisy on Obama's part, as Grundle was hoping he could get away with claiming, and B) we're not going to explain the facts and place it in context? Abrazame (talk) 03:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC) I think I get it, but Obama inherits a lot of things, many of which were put in place by the Bush administration - Guantanamo Bay, signing statements, a bunch of politicians and rules. The wars themselves. There would have to be a special reason to tag them all, or even put them in context, with reference to Bush even if Bush initiated them. But on to the other point of context, how would you phrase the fact and do we have a good citation that the supplemental appropriation was part of a practice of having supplemental appropriations in the middle of budget years because the budgets were incomplete? Wikidemon (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC) It is a fact, not an opinion, that Obama requested this additional war funding. It is a fact, not an opinion, that antiwar activists who helped get Obama elected have criticized Obama for doing this. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Sure. I don't think those facts are worth reporting in this article. If we do we should report it accurately and neutrally. Reporting a misconception as a criticism, without more, is misleading. Wikidemon (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC) All I did was report what the source said. If you want to add more to it, then please do so. But don't erase something that is well sourced just because you disagree with it. I never, ever erase anything from any article that is well sourced. The only reason I've ever been in any edit war was because other people here tried to censor stuff that I added to articles. You and several other people here are afraid of people finding out the truth about Obama, and that's the only reason you keep erasing the stuff I add to these articles. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Respectfully, much of your contributions seem to follow this pattern, Grundle: See something negative to report about Obama or his administration. Find reliable source that describes it, or at the very least a source you think is reliable. Shove it into one or more articles without any prior talk page discussion, even if it is something highly contentious in a hotly-contested article. Edit war as much as you can get away with. Finally come to the talk page and engage in endless circular debates about how these things are "facts". Some of what you have been putting in is perfectly acceptable, although introducing things via the talk page first would make your task much easier. Much of it is not acceptable, and a fair proportion of that falls foul of WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV or (and I believe this is an example) WP:NOTNEWS. I think you would have a much easier time of things if you would propose and debate additions instead of just sticking them in and hoping for the best. You are obviously a very hardworking and diligent editor, but it is a shame to see such a high percentage of your hard work going to waste. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Also, the most important thing that Scjessey has not noted is that verifiability in reliable sources is a necessary but not sufficient criteria for adding something to Wikipedia. Being true and verifiable is well and good, but there can be any number of reasons why it does not belong in a particular article. It isn't just about finding a reliable source, and then dumping some verifiable fact into an article. Such concepts as relevence need to be considered as well. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC) It's relevant because it shows that Obama is a warmongering hypocrite. I hope we get to see Ron Paul debate Obama in 2012. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Don't hold back on your support for our President or anything! -- Scjessey (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC) My userpage makes it very clear that I support Ron Paul. Everyone who keeps deleting my well sourced info is an Obama supporter, because they are afraid for people to know the truth. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Data dump

Forgive the section title (I think it's funny) but we just got a massive data dump of material from the "first hundred days" article. Should we send it back? This article is already nearly at full length and we're less than 10% of the way through the term. It's inevitable that we're going to have to bud off a lot of child articles and farm content out to them. Why not do that now for the "administration" and "appointments" material? Wikidemon (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

AHH! THERE'S TOO MUCH! Haha I don't think we need to send it back, but we need to put the stuff in its right place and WP:SS this article. Why are there so many "main" articles for this section? Can we not just move most of this to Confirmations of Barack Obama's Cabinet and rename it Cabinet of Barack Obama (or anything better we can think of?). Also, why are there two articles - one for Supreme Court nominations and one for "Judicial" nominations.. why not combine the two?--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Cabinet

Wasn't Michael Chertoff formally a member of Obama cabinet, since he remained on the post until January 21? Shouldn't he be noted? Darth Kalwejt (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No, Chertoff could not be considered a member or Obama's cabinet by any definition. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Cabinet cuts

I have removed this from the article, per WP:NOTNEWS:

On April 20, 2009, Obama convened his Cabinet for the first time, and ordered them to reduce the $3.5 trillion federal budget by $100 million.

Given that it's been in the article for 2 seconds and already sparked a minor edit war, I think it would be better if we allowed time for the story to mature a bit - there is no rush. It may not prove to be particularly significant, or it may need more development once it has had a chance to get additional reporting and commentary. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

As inserted it misconstrues the source. The source does not simply state that Obama asked the departments to trim $100M out of $3.5B, a mash-up (i.e. WP:SYNTH) of two facts that reported in isolation like that conveys the impression not contained in the source that the effort is on the face of it inadequate. The source is a run-down of administration economic issues, particularly Obama's budget-cutting moves. It points out two separate facts, that Obama asked the cabinet to cut $100M, and that this was a small part of the $3.5 trillion budget. It then describes the relation between the two: although small, this is one cut among others and signals an overall attempt to find cost savings. The bulk of the article goes over these other cuts, then moves on to the bank bail out. If we want to use the article to source a budget cut, fine. It may or may not be worth a sentence in the article. Wikidemon (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I cited two facts from the same reliable article. Please quote the part of WP:SYNTH that you think I violated. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Since this happened only in the last few hours, I strongly recommend that we wait for additional reporting and perspective before considering restoring any or all of this to the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The numbers cited in the source are facts. Why should we wait? Are you expecting those numbers to change? Grundle2600 (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No. Insufficient time has passed since the cabinet meeting to determine whether or not this is significant enough to be included in the article. If we give it a little while, we will have the opportunity to see more reporting and gain a better understanding of the significance. Then we can decide whether or not it should be here. Read WP:NOTNEWS for more information. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

First you people censor my quote of Obama's exact words regarding his promise on tax cuts, and now you censor my citation of some exact numbers. You people are censoring the article, and that's all there is to it. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to consider refactoring this comment because it obviously assumes bad faith and lacks civility. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Grundle - It's not that we're censoring you; we just want to wait for more information. Perhaps we should wait to see if the Cabinet actually reduces the budget by $100M, and then we can put in what they did and how they did it. As of now, we don't know if they are or aren't going to do anything, and we don't know what they will do. I welcome the contribution; we just need to wait until we know a little more about it. Maybe we can wait until Obama releases his line-by-line budget analysis and report some facts about that. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"Maybe we can wait until Obama releases his line-by-line budget analysis..." Ha ha ha! Obama said he would read all spending bills line by line. Then he signed it. Then after he signed it, he expressed his outrage at the fact that the bill that he just "read" and signed protected the AIG bonuses. And yet you still believe his already broken promise that he will be reading it line by line? Wow - you Obama supporters really are blind to the truth! Also, since Obama is increasing the budget by about a trillion dollars or so, a "cut" of $100 million will be impossible to spot. It's not even a "cut" - it's an increase of about a trillion dollars. A trillion dollar increase is not a "cut." My whole point in citing the $100 million "cut" and the $3.5 trillion budget is to show that the $100 million "cut" is insignificant, and that Obama is catering to people who don't understand math. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the impertinent comments that are addressed on Grundle2600's talk page, the above comment admits that the edit was trying to imply that the $100M cut next to a $3.M budget is some kind of sham. That is not in the source at all, and is in fact quite far from what the source says. If the real issue were to describe Obama's cabinet budget cuts, we could simply report that without any commentary or attempt to arrange other facts to make points about things. We do not add facts to make points. We add facts, and analysis, that are reliably sourced, and justified by the weight of the sources. Wikidemon (talk) 03:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) - Apart from ignoring WP:NOTNEWS (and also WP:RECENT), you (Grundle) aren't proposing anything like a fair summary of events. In the press conference when this was announced, Obama talked about how this was just a start:

"None of these things alone are going to make a difference," Obama conceded, emerging from the Cabinet room. "But cumulatively they would make an extraordinary difference because they start setting a tone. [If they cut] $100 million there, $100 million here," Obama said, "pretty soon, even in Washington, it adds up to real money." (source)

This was all about taking a step in the right direction, and your proposed wording does not do it full justice. Once the story has matured, perhaps we will be able to revisit this. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Cutting $100 million while adding $1 trillion is not a "step in the right direction." Grundle2600 (talk) 04:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well actually, cutting anything during a recession is a bad idea. We should be spending as much as possible, as fast as possible. The only thing we should cutting is "wasteful spending", like all the money being wasted in MN by Norm "sore loser" Coleman. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon - I never point out typos on talk pages, unless it results in a factual mistake. You said "a $3.M budget." The correct letter is "T," not "M." If it was "M," this would be a non-issue. The facts that I added are objective facts, and should be in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. Here's an analogy. I can't put this in the article, because it's original research. But I can use it as an example on the talk page. $100 million out of a $3.5 trillion budget is 1/35,000. Obama says CEO bonuses are too high. So if a CEO is getting a $3.5 million bonus, and the bonus was cut by $100, that's the same kind of percentage cut that Obama is talking about. But I'm sure Obama would say the $100 bonus cut was a token with no meaning at all. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Bad analogy. Remember that we are in a recession, so massive spending is important. There is no analog in business where "massive spending" might be needed. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Massive spending is really not a very sound plan to help an economy out of a recession. Throwing more cheap money around after cheap money makes everyone feel better in the interim, but leaves a very serious set of problems to deal with later on. The $100 million in cuts is clearly a political ploy on the part of the administration to make people feel as though the government is tightening its belt too. Most probably as a result and in reaction to all the tea parties on April 15. But, I don't think it really belongs in the article. QueenofBattle (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

And yet all economists call for massive spending to help the country out of recession. Many still think we aren't spending enough. Perhaps the term "investment" is more palatable? That is what we are talking about when we say "spending", after all. And the $100 million is cuts isn't "clearly" anything. That's your opinion. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

[deleted cut-and-paste of duplicate discussion already on user talk page, inappropriate here] - Wikidemon (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I responded to this on my talk page, where you originally posted it. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

We seem to have one editor proposing the material and three rejecting it or parts of it, for various reasons. The discussion is veering into accusations and a politics debate, so to keep the peace, unless people have something on topic to say about the actual content proposal let's close this discussion, or at least the impertinent parts, as something not gaining consensus. Anyone is free to make a new proposal within reason if it can be done in a straightforward way without accusing other editors. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The off-topic stuff should stop (I'm guilty too), but this is still an ongoing event. Although I don't agree with the current proposed wording, some wording will probably prove necessary in the next few days, and I expect this discussion to evolve in that direction. I'd recommend not closing. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Update since yesterday

Since yesterday, quite a few sources have commented on this. The one that I am citing first is the one that I most favor using in the article:

CBS News said, "Considering his budget this year calls for over $3.9-trillion in spending, $100-million is the same percentage of reduction as taking a buck off the price of a $50,000 car."

The Washington Times wrote, "...yesterday's tiny effort works out to about 35 cents per American."

The Christian Science Monitor cites a blogger who said, "One hundred million dollars represents .003 percent of $3.5 trillion. To put those numbers in perspective, imagine that the head of a household with annual spending of $100,000 called everyone in the family together to deal with a $34,000 budget shortfall. How much would he or she announce that spending had to be cut? By $3 over the course of the year — approximately the cost of one latte at Starbucks. The other $33,997? We can put that on the family credit card and worry about it next year."

Paul Krugman said, "Let’s say the administration finds $100 million in efficiencies every working day for the rest of the Obama administration’s first term. That’s still around $80 billion, or around 2% of one year’s federal spending."

CNS News said, "Less than a week after the nationwide 'tea party' protests against high taxes and government spending, President Barack Obama on Monday directed his cabinet secretaries to slice $100 million out of their departmental budgets--an amount equal to 0.007 percent of the deficit spending Obama plans to undertake in 2010."

U.S. News & World Report has an article titled, "Obama Cabinet Spending Cuts Ridiculed."

CNN said, "... the president has asked government agencies to trim the equivalent of .003% of the federal budget..."

marketwatch.com wrote, "Symbolic move proves insulting... Put another way, if the budget were a yardstick, the administration would be proposing to shorten it by 1/1000 of an inch. That's 25.4 microns, or about half the width of a human hair."

Grundle2600 (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Of the sources: CBS = editorial blog, washingtontimes = editorial, christian science monitor = editorial blog, new york times = editorial, cns = partisan and appears to be editorializing, us news = roundup of editorial coverage (minor but reliable source that criticism exists), cnn - reliable source that puts this in context and contradicts repeated proposals to belittle cuts, ("The $100 million in trims are not Obama's only promised spending cuts..."), marketwatch editorial. It all amounts to the same thing and I do not support adding to the article, sourced or not, an argument that a particular budget cut is a small in proportion to the federal budget. The CNN source mentions that Obama announced that he will cut 100 federal programs. Are we going to repeat all hundred, along with an editorial criticism that each is puny in connection with the federal deficit? The material is an argumentative partisan position in nature. I'm more or less concluded that unless there is some new twist to this that makes it noteworthy as a significant event in the presidency it is simply not suitable for this article, and presented the way it is proposed not suitable for the encyclopedia at all. May we please concentrate on the substantive events? Wikidemon (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This is why people who don't know and don't care should be employed to edit Wikipedia political articles. It's not the right place to argue economics. Argue about whether it passes WP:NPOV to put that in there. For that, Grundle, you should show good faith by putting as much effort in finding media praise for the action as you have for finding media outrage. Because you're making it very obvious that you're POV-pushing here. --Raijinili (talk) 01:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Where does Obama make an exception for the cigarette tax?

redundant discussion - matter already addressed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is breitbart.com citing Associated Press quoting Obama. The link works. The bolding is mine: "I can make a firm pledge... Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes... you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." Obama did not make an exception for the cigarette tax in his quote. I quoted Obama accurately, from a reliable source. After I addded the quote, you erased it, and you added the part about how the cigarette tax increase will be used to pay for children's health care. I did not erase what you added. Why did you erase what I added? Grundle2600 (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Why are you bringing this up again? This has already been discussed, and the matter was closed as it became apparent that was no consensus for your "broken promise" thing. This is an example of tendentious editing. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC) It was not "discussed" because no one answered my question. I just want the article to cite Obama's quote, and let the readers make up their own mind about whether or not Obama broke a promise. What's wrong with letting readers read the quote and make up their own mind? Grundle2600 (talk) 04:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

AN/I report

I have posted a notice to WP:AN/I describing our efforts to deal with off-topic discussions and accusations that have been appearing on this page for the past day. Please direct any comments about the matter and any editor's participation in it there, and save this page for proposals regarding the article. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan / anti-terrorism

An editor has just proposed (by editing) to add the following material:

• President Obama has been aggressive in Pakistan targeting al-Qa'ida operatives with [[Unmanned Aerial Vehicle]] (UAV) [[Predator UAV|Predator]] strikes and utilizing the [[CIA]]'s elite paramilitary operatives from their [[Special Activities Division]]. <ref> Secret U.S. Unit Trains Commandos in Pakistan, Eric Schmit and Jane Perlez, New York Times, 22 February 09</ref> <ref>U.S. missile strikes signal Obama tone: Attacks in Pakistan kill 20 at suspected terror hideouts, By R. Jeffrey Smith, Candace Rondeaux, Joby Warrick Washington Post,Saturday, January 24, 2009</ref> <ref>Pakistan: Suspected U.S. Missile Strike Kills 27, Saturday, February 14, 2009 (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,492944,00.html)</ref><nowiki>'' *''<nowiki>In an [[NPR]] report, a senior official states that al-Qa'ida has been "decimated" by SAD's operations. Another senior counterterrorism official states, "The enemy is really, really struggling. These attacks have produced the broadest, deepest and most rapid reduction in al-Qa'ida senior leadership that we've seen in several years." <ref>U.S. Officials: Al-Qaida Leadership Cadre 'Decimated' by Tom Gjelten, February 14, 2008 (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100160836)</ref> CIA Director [[Leon Panetta]] himself acknowledged these efforts in Pakistan are "the most effective weapon" against senior al-Qa'ida leadership. <ref>CIA Pakistan Campaign is Working Director Say, Mark Mazzetti and Helene Cooper, New York Times, 26 February 09, A15</ref>

I have the following concerns / issues:

• Length, which gets to WP:WEIGHT. This is too long and too much detail on an issue, the importance of which has not been fully demonstrated. Sure we can argue that an anti-terrorism success is very important, and there are no doubt hundreds or thousands of sources on this by now. But... the proof is in the sourcing. Everything under the sun connected with the administration and current world events gets hundreds or thousands of news articles. If the US were really turning the tide of the war on terrorism we would expect sustained coverage, announcements, books, etc. I think it's way to early to announce victory here.
• "aggressive" - too active a verb, and it is slightly a metaphor here. Has Obama personally been agro over this, or are we using an evocative verb (or repeating a commentator's assertion) to simply say that he made a decision that was either strong or that chose something other than the least peaceful option?
• "Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)" - no need for this detail. It does not clarify what a Predator is in most people's reading, but rather introduces another term that has to be considered and defined.
• "CIA's elite paramilitary operatives from..." - The adjective "elite" (though no doubt true) is unnecessary praise for the CIA, and is not relevant to the point being made. It does not really matter for purposes of this article about the Presidency which part of the CIA was doing this. If we want to say this at all we would simply say the "CIA" or at most "The CIA's xxx division". Best to just say it, not use the space to document tangential things about the CIA.
• NPA, senior official... There is or should be no need to attribute where a source like this came from, just say it. If the attacks seriously hurt Al Qaida, we should just say so and footnote it. However, the fact that we have to quote an unnamed senior official (who if with the administration is not a neutral source), or say that we don't know if it's true but just that NPR said it, that suggests we don't really have strong sourcing for the claim. The fact that NPR said something is, in itself, not notable. Either we can source the claim adequately or not.
• "Decimated" - too flowert and opinionated a term, and rather dubious. Has the US truly decimated Al Qaida? I don't think we use such loaded words even talking about the English rout of the French knights at the Battle of Agincourt. We just say "victory". Plus, it's dubious. Has the US just won the war on terror? I think history will have to decide, not a senior official on NPR.
• "Another senior official..." - quote is far too long, and it sets the wrong tone to report a story (as news sources do) by highlighting and personalizing individual people giving quotes. Basically this official simply agrees. If it were important what officials think we could simply say that two officials said they believe the strikes are effective, but I don't think we should cover this by reporting what officials think.
• Leon Panetta... I don't think even the top CIA official's opinion is the issue here so I would remove this too. If it were worth saying, we would take out words like "acknowledged" and just stick to the fact, best without quotes: Panetta described the predator attacks as effective.
• Some general comments. Please use the quote templates ({{cite news}}, etc.). For proper context we shouldn't attribute this whole thing to Obama as if the predator program were his sole undertaking. Didn't these attacks also happen during Bush's administration, and aren't other government officials involved? If this is worth including we should say that Obama (fill in his role - did he decide, did he give a directive, was it something he elected to do) continued the use of predator drones to target and attack suspected Al Qaida leadership in Pakistan, a program that senior American officials describe as effective." To say anything beyond that we would have to wait. Finally, I'm concerned that the editor's account name, "Obamiac", suggests a bias or agenda and is likely to result in added scrutiny to any edits here. Wikidemon (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

A shorter version could be:

The Obama Adminstrations targeting of al-Qaeda operatives in Pakistan using unmanned aerial vehicles and the CIA's Special Activities Division has resulted in what one senior U.S. counterterrorism official called "the broadest, deepest and most rapid reduction in al-Qaida senior leadership that we've seen in several years."[sources]

It still relies on the unnamed source, but is much shorter and seems to avoid the flowery language you had concerns about. Also, the attacks in Pakistan haven't relied solely upon the Predator, they've also used the MQ-9 Reaper. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

We simply cannot use the quote from the anon senior official. For one thing, it's better if we don't use quotes from unnamed "senior officials" in our articles - at least without counterpoints - because that's bad sourcing (obviously major media outlets do it, but that's just bad journalism on their part, as many acknowledge, and we don't need to repeat it). But more importantly, look at the first paragraph of the NPR piece, which was published just two weeks after Obama took office. The quote above does not actually refer to Obama solely or even primarily, as the lead of the story says "CIA-directed airstrikes against al-Qaida leaders and facilities in Pakistan over the past six to nine months have been so successful..." (emphasis added). In other words, most of what was being discussed happened under Bush.

And that points to what we should probably actually say about Obama with respect to going after AQ in Pakistan - i.e. he's largely continuing the counterterror policies/air strikes that started under Bush. Obviously we'd need sources for that, but I think that's arguably the most accurate and NPOV description, whereas the suggestion that something Obama has done has been uniquely devastating to Al Qaeda in Pakistan is not. In terms of targeting AQ, the situation between the two administrations seems to be one of continuity for the most part, which FWIW is hardly surprising since Obama said this was what he would do during the campaign. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

U.S. GDP sees worst drop in five decades

I think it would be good for Obama's article: U.S. GDP sees worst drop in five decades See the sources on that page. Multiplyperfect (talk) 15:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

There is already a section in the article about Obama's response to the global financial crisis, and also the public opinion on the matter. As the situation evolves, the article will likely be updated to reflect the progress of the recession and the Obama administration's role. I don't think a disconnected fact like what the GDP does from one quarter to the next will be part of telling that story, but eventually we'll probably want to briefly mention it - how long it lasted, how bad it got, when it turned around. Most of that belongs in an article about the recession. Of course, if you mean this as some kind of demonstration that Obama is not managing things well, that's not sourced and not a very appropriate thing for the encyclopedia. Wikidemon (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest this section be closed, just as this identical proposed addition was handled. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you read? This is another wiki article, another talk. Multiplyperfect (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You are shopping this stuff around Obama articles, yet it has no specific relevance to any of them. Virtually every proposal you have made since you first popped up on these pages has followed this pattern, and it is wasting the time and energy of a lot of honest, hard-working Wikipedians. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Quote fest

I've now twice been forced to revert this long, context-free quote from the article. Wikipedia is supposed to offer a summary of what a preponderance of reliable sources say about a matter. What we have here is a wholesale repetition of a cherry-picked quote added without any discussion or attempt at consensus building. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

And ChildofMidnight has edit-warred it back into the article diff claiming a "consensus", as we can see from this extensive discussion between me and me. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Nonstarter. It's yet another piece of pointless disparagement of Obama masquerading as near-trivia. Come on, folks, trying to show that Obama is a hypocrite, or says one thing and then says (or does) another thing, all this is really unencyclopedic. This article is supposed to be about the important events and sweep of the presidency. The difficulties of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, an agency so obscure it's barely even mentioned on Wikipedia, in setting up its own website is hardly such an issue. If phrased more neutrally and not an attempt to bash Obama, a note about the speed of implementation might be of some use to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 article. Wikidemon (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sane people know this, Wikidemon. People with an agenda do not. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 00:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed from article

This bit and the source have been removed completely from the article:

A May 6, 2009 USA Today article stated, "Although President Obama has vowed that citizens will be able to track 'every dime' of the $787 billion stimulus bill, a government website dedicated to the spending won't have details on contracts and grants until October and may not be complete until next spring — halfway through the program, administration officials said." <ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2009-05-06-stimulus_N.htm Details thin on stimulus contracts], USA Today, May 6, 2009</ref> ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the point of putting this here when it is already in the article history? I noticed you did the same thing at the ACORN article. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

He'll give it a couple of days so he's no longer in 3RR territory and then come back and start over again. This makes for an easy copy/paste. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 04:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It's called common courtesy. If you remove content that was added in good faith you should have the decency to post it on the talk page for discussion. That it's in the article's history doesn't really help facilitate discussion of the content in question. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If you truly wished to discuss it, then perhaps you should have started on the talk page first. Tarc (talk) 12:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Since the entire paragraph consists of a single quote, you could have achieved your goal by simply linking to the source. There was no need to actually reproduce the whole thing here, and then label it a "common courtesy". And who are you kidding with the "good faith" bit? Grundle's agenda, and your support of it, is pretty clear. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

As neither one of you has made any substantive objections I am readding it to the article. It doesn't appear you had any interest in discussing the content. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The addition was discussed and rejected in the previous section on this talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

When USA Today runs a story on something doesn't that indicate it's notable? What is the substantive policy basis for determining that this material isn't appropriate anywhere on WIkipedia? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed something but I am not aware of a proposal that this content is to be excluded from all of Wikipedia - such a decision is outside the scope of this talk page. Further, I am not aware of a suggestion that this matter is non-notable. The issue is that it is not suitable for this page because putting it here by way of blaming Obama for whatever it is, violates POV, WP:WEIGHT, and possibly WP:SYNTH. It's not very relevant. All in all, the content is very far from being appropriate to this article. There is, as I'm sure you know, no single exact policy governing inclusion or rejection of content that is not a policy violation - it is editor discretion, based on consensus, and the consensus usually relates to whether the content provides the reader a better encyclopedic understanding of the subject matter. Wikidemon (talk) 00:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Opening discussion of specificity in Budget mention in advance of changing the text

In regard to the sentence currently in the article which reads:

"On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law a $787 billion stimulus plan which included spending for unemployment, food stamps, health care, infrastructure, energy spending, education, aid to states, and a number of tax cuts and credits."

I'd like to invite the editor who inserted this specificity (I have not checked the edit summary) and/or anybody interested to weigh in on this. As I wrote at Talk:Barack Obama with regard to inserting the same exact wording there, "What method did you use to cull those particular specific expenses as most notable to single out among the dozens and dozens and dozens on the list? "Food stamps" strikes me as a bizarre choice for the second mention when there are several much larger programs in terms of money and others far more notable in terms of representing fundamental shifts. I'd rather see the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 specifically noted and Wikified in that section so that people might perceive it in its totality and full scope rather than one editor's pet projects—or pet peeves." Thanks, Abrazame (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The idea here is that the enumeration of these few expenditures is not sourced for relevance, and it's coming out of the article unless somebody can weigh in with some persuasive discussion on how it was determined that these issues got the nod here over others in the stimulus. I'm absolutely not opposed to giving a bit of detail to some of the major issues (possibly to shift or be expounded upon/reduced/removed as time passes and things prove themselves more or less notable to the article), I just want the detail to be appropriately weighted. Abrazame (talk) 06:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Safety officers material

This proposed addition,[18] ("Obama also cut the Public Safety Officers' Death Benefits Program, a benefits program for the families of slain police and safety officers, from $110 million to $60 million") reverted twice now, has obvious WP:WEIGHT problems. Isn't Obama promising to cut 100 or 200 federal programs? Why single this one out in particular? It does seem to make Obama look bad. That is, until you realize it distorts the AP source,[19] which points out that according to the Justice Department this budget proposal does not in fact cut anybody's benefit, but is rather an adjustment to reflect lower payouts due to fewer officers killed in the line of duty. The source also mentions that in past years when the program exceeded its budget the money was always found. So... it's a non story too. Wikidemon (talk) 05:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

2009 swine flu outbreak

Lots of times appear in the main article the word "health", but 0 times the "flu". Could you tell me why? Just to remind you some facts, WHO raised the pandemic alert level to five, the second-highest level. More than half of the confirmed cases are currently in US (today 4714 from total=8310). Dinprog (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The article 2009 swine flu outbreak is the most appropriate central place for the facts about the swine flu. This is neither very significant, nor relevant, to the life and times of Obama at this point as compared with the many other things in this article. The matter has been discussed on this page (available in the archives) and that is the consensus here. Wikidemon (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you know about pandemic flu/5-th level? It doesn't starts with 10 millions of deaths. The increase is exponentional. And I wouldn't call this minor thing, currently it is proved that this is in 47 states in US (probably in all), and that nearly 5,000 isn't small, including deaths. Dinprog (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what I know. What matters is what's in the sources. If 10 million people die then of course sources will write about it, then we can cover it. We're not in charge of prognosticating future disease spread. BTW, I should have said "presidency of" instead of "life and times of" in my first response above. At this point I would say the weight of Obama's flue response vis-a-vis his presidency overall is worth somewhere between zero and 1/2 of one sentence. If there is, or comes to be, a section on his public health policy I would support a phrase like ", including the federal response to the 2009 swine flu outbreak" but any more detail than that belongs in a sub-article. Wikidemon (talk) 23:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Anger at Obama Guantanamo ruling

See: Anger at Obama Guantanamo ruling

It's quite interesting that this is not in the article: "Civil liberties groups have reacted angrily to US President Barack Obama's decision to revive military trials for some Guantanamo Bay detainees."

, only closing Guantanamo. Dinprog (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but this is relatively new information (at least to me). I heard about it on the news yesterday, so it probably hasn't had time to make it into the article just yet. Feel free to add the information. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that that info should be in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Obama's proposed changes in CAFE standards

I'd like to add this info to the article, but I guess it's better to ask other people here what they think of it first.

CAFE Obama -- Proposed Mileage Standards Would Kill More Americans than Iraq War

Grundle2600 (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

discussion has degenerated. Please re-start if there is a viable proposal here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
An opinion piece from a source on par with worldnetdaily, i.e. not a WP:RS? Pass, thanks. Tarc (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC) (ec)Simply put: No. How many times do you have to be told that one source from one lunatic right-wing conspiracy artist is not notable enough to put in an article? Now if you could find several sources about criticisms of the gas mileage standards, this may (emphasis) slide into that section, but only at a passing glance. Something like "The standards have met criticism. ______ claims the standards will _________,[1] ______ have suggested ________,[2] and CNS News reported that the standards would result in the deaths of more Americans than the Iraq War.[3]" may be acceptable. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC) No. There is no way this piece of garbage could be acceptable in anything other than an article about the author's extreme fringe views, or an article about how totally wacky and "out there beyond Pluto" the people at Cybercast News Service are. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Okay, let's take a step back folks. The proposed change to CAFE and emissions rules is a current news story, but likely to be seen as an important event in the Obama administration. The resistance on the part of the auto industry, and by people who like the speed, weight, etc., price of bigger power powerful cars, is relevant to the issue but in a general article like this one might be worth a part of a sentence if even that. Most of the detail would go into a sub-article about any legislation or rule change. Finally, there will of course be lots of editorials and pieces in all kinds of sources, reliable and otherwise - we should stick to the reliable mainstream sources. Wikidemon (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC) If I could find better sources, would it be OK then? Grundle2600 (talk) 22:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC) A series of non-neutral additions by Grundle have now been added to the article, employing a fine blend of synthesis and original research. This is yet another shocking example of Grundle's agenda-based editing that is completely inappropriate. I urge this individual to self-revert this poorly-conceived, one-sided nonsense immediately. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC) I've warned Grundle2600 for a final time about these kind of edits, and the next time I see their like I will not hesitate to implement a lengthy topic ban for the editor in question on Barack Obama articles. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC) I added info from USA Today, citing several different, independent studies, each of which showed that CAFE laws killed thousands of people every year. Scjessey erased the info on the studies, and commented, "rewrite a horribly one-sided paragraph with more neutral language." He then added false info to the article by saying "Critics have pointed out that CAFE laws may have forced tradeoffs between fuel economy and auto safety." That info added by Scjessey is false, because the article does not say "may have." The article is very definite that these deaths did indeed happen. This is proof that Scjessey is biased. If you people don't criticize Scjessey for doing this, and defend me for citing those studies in the article, then that will be proof that you people are being biased too. And if you ban me for this, it will be especially strong proof that you are biased. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC) I responded to this nonsense on Grundle's talk page, but essentially I state that the article referenced does not indicate a direct relationship between fuel economy and auto safety, and use of "may have" reflects this. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Bigtimepeace You threatened to ban me for adding true, well sourced info about CAFE. But you didn't criticize Scjessey for removing my true, well sourced info, and replacing it with false, unsourced info. Bigtimepeace, this is proof that you are being biased and unfair. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC) I just went looking for info to debunk Grundle's ref. The first thing I found was this 2002 report from the National Research Council. It states, among other things, that lowering the average weight of both cars and light trucks by 100 pounds would result in approx 250 more deaths per year; raising each by 100 pounds would result in 250 _fewer_ per year. In 1999, there were about 37,000 motor vehicle fatalities, if I'm reading that report correctly. Grundle's statement isn't necessarily accurate, but neither is it completely off the wall. However, this report is quoting 10-year-old data: I'd much rather see current data involving current vehicle construction techniques before making blanket statements like he did. Besides, with fewer pollutants in the air, how many fewer people would die from respiratory issues? (Leaving global climate change completely out of the equation for now)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Just responding to Grundle above, your summary of the USA Today article was completely one sided. You cherry picked the negative aspects, giving a false impression of a USA Today article which also says things like "It has been heralded as a brilliant solution to the nettlesome mix of problems related to fuel consumption and greenhouse-gas emissions" and "Though it'll be expensive, Ford's Cischke says, a lighter car can be made as safe as a heavier car." The article is describing a debate, yet you only drew information from one side which is the problem since you are not presenting the issue of CAFE standards in an NPOV manner, and did not discuss your proposed change on talk (or at least receive consensus for it first). This is the problem. Plus two other edits I mentioned on your talk page ([20] [21]) are either original research (in the first case, since nothing is said of nationalization whatsover) or a combination of original research and non-NPOV as in the second (particularly blatant) case. I completely stand by my above warning (made more specific on Grundle's talk page), which is literally probably the fourth or fifth I have left for that editor. This is a longstanding pattern, it's disruptive and needs to stop now or you will be topic banned from these articles. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC) And a further point. From what I've seen (and I'd welcome counter-examples from Grundle), basically every single contribution Grundle has made to Obama articles has been to add some directly negative (or information which would be construed as negative) information about Obama. Not adding NPOV material which includes criticism, but strictly adding criticism. This has been going on for months, and there's a point where it becomes nearly impossible to continue to assume good faith about an editor's intention in that context, i.e. there's a larger picture here. Note that I would have the exact same attitude about an editor that was constantly adding plaudits in a non-NPOV (often OR, often using poor sources, often using the sources incorrectly) manner. Quite frankly Grundle is lucky he has lasted this long here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC) The source that I cited says the deaths are definite - there is nothing in the source that says "may have." Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect their sources. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Why don't you find me an example where notable negative information has been added by any one of the pro-Obama POV pushing editors cited in the O-Arbcom? BTP you have a very bad record for imposing your personal viewpoint on these articles and pretending your version is NPOV and that anyone you disagree with is violating policy. You're not impartial and you've done a very poor job of mediating. Your advocacy for one side has hurt the integrity of Wikipedia and is actively harming our content. Stop making malicious and mean spirited accusations that violate AGF. This is especially inappropriate when you carry it out againt good faith editors with a long record of contructive edits. If there's something you disagree with use the talk page to discuss the content. You should be desysoped for focusing on editors rather than content and for continuing to abuse yoru admin privledges. Stop it already. You've been warned repeatedly. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC) The source states, "The National Academy of Sciences, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Congressional Budget Office and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have separately concluded in multiple studies dating back about 20 years that fuel-economy standards force automakers to build more small cars, which has led to thousands more deaths in crashes annually." That is a definite thing - there is no "may have" about it. For you to remove the sourced fact that I wrote, and replace it with an unsourced "may have," goes against the wikipedia policy of Wikipedia:Verifiability. In the name of verifiability, NPOV, and accuracy, I would like the article to quote that part of the source word for word, so there will be no doubt as to its accuracy. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC) I did not replace anything you wrote, so I assume you mean to refer to Scjessey. We are not going to quote that word-for-word because there is no need to do that. But here's a possible fix, and first bear in mind that these are just some studies that say this, and it's possible they are outdated and therefore not really appropriate (you might want to actually find these studies, or better yet very recent ones, and see when they were done). But how about instead if we said something like "Organizations like the National Academy of Sciences have argued that CAFE laws would force tradeoffs between fuel economy and auto safety." That's stronger, but still puts the claim to a group, rather than us making the claim ourselves, which is problematic. But I'm actually not sure that's the best option. I don't know that the NAS has actually "argued that CAFE laws would force tradeoffs between fuel economy and auto safety." They have just done some research that says small cars lead to more deaths - there's no indication they have weighed in on CAFE standards, and indeed I'm guessing they have not. Adrian Lund, president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, who is cited in the article, is someone who has directly criticized the CAFE standards. It thus might make more sense to say "Organizations like the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety have argued that CAFE laws would force tradeoffs between fuel economy and auto safety." This group has both done a study, apparently, on the safety of small cars and opined on the CAFE standards, so this is a possible way to word it. But I don't know if they're an objective group, indeed the might not be, and if not that's worth considering/noting. Additionally I would note an important point on your source—USA Today is not very well regarded as a newspaper, and indeed has not been basically since its inception (receiving nicknames like "McPaper"). Other dailies like the NYT, the WaPO, the WSJ, etc. are much better sources. Quite frankly your best bet is to find a series of good sources that describe the debate about CAFE standards from all angles and write-up a full, balanced paragraph on it. Do some real research on this and figure out what the pro and con arguments are, what the administration's standard comment on the matter is, and put together a few sentences that describe what's going on here. That's what I would recommend, and honestly that's the only way to go about editing here. I've noticed that you've ignored the rest of my comments above, focusing instead solely on this one small issue, but I hope you have taken them to heart. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Where is your proof that USA Today is not a reliable source? Grundle2600 (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC) No proof, because I didn't say it was not a reliable source, I said "Other dailies like the NYT, the WaPO, the WSJ, etc. are much better sources." A source may pass the reliability threshold but still be less than ideal—we want to use the best possible sources and there are better papers than USA Today (I don't think that's very controversial, regardless of one's political views). But would you care to respond to the rest of my comment? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC) I'd much prefer to see the studies cited explicitly -- nothing guarantees the writer of the article actually got them right. If the studies aren't verifiable, we shouldn't cite them.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC) It's a fact that USA Today said what it said. I should at least be alloowed to quote the part of the article that cites the four studies. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC) One could get the impression from that statement that you don't care whether the story is accurately reporting what the studies say, just as long as it makes Obama look bad.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Second Sarek's remark, and it's also a mistake to think of things in terms of what you should be "allowed" to do. The goal is to write a good article, not to let certain users be allowed to do certain things, and that's a very strange way to put it (albeit one in keeping with your overall approach to these articles). I gave you some very specific suggestions above, which would admittedly require a bit of work, so you might want to respond to those. Whatever you do next, get consensus for changes here before making them in the article. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC) (comment moved as it was posted in the wrong place) Do you have something to offer that concerns improving the article, or are you just going to misuse this talk page with personal-attack-rants like this? -- Scjessey (talk) 00:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Scjessey, you have made multiple personal attacks in this very section of the talk page. Furthermore, I agree with the claim that certain editors only add things that are positive about Obama to these articles. If you have ever added anything that was negative about Obama, please show it to me. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)