Jump to content

Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

2010 election results

I feel we should add something on here about the Republican victories in the 2010 elections and how that will be a turning point for Obama similar to the Presidency of Bill Clinton article. Where should we put that? Politics2012 (talk) 03:39, 09 November 2010 (UTC)

How will it be a "turning point"? Do you have a crystal ball or something? -- Scjessey (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I meant that we should put somewhere in here something about Republicans victories in general. It says something in the Bill Clinton Presidency article about the 94 Republican victories and in the George W. Bush presidency article about the Democratic victories in the 2006 elections. We need to put something in here about the 2010 Republican victories. But where? Politics2012 (talk) 03:39, 09 November 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. The information in those other articles has been written with the benefit of an historical perspective, but we do not have that luxury here. We must wait and see what sources say about how Republican victories have significantly impacted the Obama presidency, if and when they appear in the future. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Scjessey, I disagree with you. The very result of the 2010 elections, ignoring possible ramifications, is itself a greatly relevant event to the presidency of Barack Obama. He has gone from having his party in a majority in both houses of the legislature to a minority in the lower house, and barely holding a majority in the upper house. Consider that on election he held a strong majority in the lower house and a super-majority in the upper house, and the election result itself becomes a notable event. It is not difficult to cite from reliable sources (which should be done) that this result was motivated by a dissatisfaction with the performance of this president and his legislature over the last two years among the actively voting electorate. President Obama has himself said as much. We only need a "wait and see" approach when writing about the impacts of the election results and new makeup of Congress, the notability of the specific result. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it should be mentioned, and this is the article to mention it. I will disagree with a few things you state. The Democrats did not have a 'super majority' in the Senate, they had 57 seats + 2 Independents, for a total of 59 seats. 60 is needed for a supposed filibuster-proof majority, and two-thirds(67) is needed for a 'super-majority'. They lost 6 Senate(two of which were razor close) seats and now have Also, we can debate on the 'whys' or reasons for the big swings, but there won't be much consensus for that. At least until there is enough time for reflection. Any addition needs to be worded correctly, and with sources. Which I would support. Dave Dial (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys. Here's the test of relevancy to the article about the presidency of a sitting president: whether it's being widely discussed and reported in RS, and news pieces in particular in the case of politicians. And both President Obama's affect on the elections and the affect of the election results on his presidency are being so reported. Here are just a few examples from after the elections describing his effect, the affects on his presidency, and his quoted remarks about the implications of the election.
The Washington Post
The New York Times
The New Haven Register
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
The Ohklahoman
The Herald | Sunday Herald
60 Minutes interview
And these of course don't include any of news out there concerning this topic from before Nov. 2. That should satisfy any questions about relevance. -Digiphi (Talk) 19:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm still not seeing it, quite frankly. From where I'm sitting, nothing much has changed. Congress did fuck-all in the last two years and it will doubtless do fuck-all in the next two. There are two things to consider here:
  1. Nothing has happened yet. Congress does not change until January, and only the House will change significantly.
  2. There is still the lack of historical perspective.
Once we start seeing sources that report the significance, rather than opinion pieces that speculate on the significance, we can certainly return to this issue again. That being said, Wikipedia is run by consensus. I recommend working up a proposal for including something, post it here, and then we can all discuss it. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Here's how it breaks down. It doesn't matter to the article what you—and who knows, you might end up right—forsee happening in the 112th Congress. When congress starts its new session you should source and report the important happenings at the 112th Congress article. This is about the relevance of the 2010 midterms as they relate to the presidency of Barack Obama, the topic of the article. TV news, news blogs, and newspapers are widely reporting stuff about the election as it affects the President, and vice versa. We don't report things with historical perspective (well, not as a matter of course). We report what RS-tested sources say in a way consistent with policy. Reporting in the article what's being said by RS-tested sources about what is going on regarding the president, and then citing those sources is exactly what we do on "Presidency of" pages. Things are sometimes slightly different on the straight BLP pages, like Barack Obama, and that might be a place to entertain "historical perspective", but this isn't. A good start would be for you to address, for example, the sources sampled above and state specifically for each one from what policy you've concluded it's inappropriate for this article. -Digiphi (Talk) 23:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the way it breaks down is not that someone has to read seven or eight articles and do their best to argue how many ways Wikipedia policies run counter to the inclusion of every sentence in all seven or eight. The way it breaks down is that someone suggests an actual specific addition to the article as supported by those sources, and then we determine whether policies lead us to conclude that addition is appropriate or inappropriate.
However, without yet having read those articles (though not living in a vacuum) I am inclined to think that what pundits and journalists think could or are likely to happen in or to his presidency after the midterm isn't any more relevant to what pundits and journalists thought could or were likely to happen in or to his presidency before it, for example after his nomination or after his election or even once in office with major legislation on the table. We wrote what he had set out as his platform during a two-year campaign, not what anybody thought about his chances at getting it done or why. Did we write that his presidency was expected to be a cakewalk because his party had a majority in both houses of Congress and the opposing party had been humbled by their support of George W. Bush? Not only did we not, but had we done so it would have been ridiculously erroneous prognostication as well as a lousy job of encyclopedia editing. There are those who argue that a president does better with a different party in Congress because his administration can take off the kid gloves and fight for their principles. But that's all anecdotal and no more relevant to an encyclopedic account of the Presidency of Barack Obama prior to there actually being some relevancy.
This is like people talking about what happened in other ballgames during a new ballgame. It fills dead air, it can create a sense of drama or suspense, it lets everybody sound like an insightful expert (if not a cynical know-it-all), thereby justifying their salaries, but in the end it's merely superstitious rhetoric, and isn't actually about that game, even though it's what the media is talking about as the game goes on. Should that game go the same way as other games in history — or buck the trend and create an anomaly or even a new trend — is something that could well be mentioned in an encyclopedia after that happened but not before. At a serious article, we're here to note, and give some context for, what happens, not set the stage for a predicted happening, no matter how widely or notably predicted. Abrazame (talk) 03:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiLeaks release of secret documents

Perhaps there should be a section on the leaking of secret documents posted on WikiLeaks and reaction by the administration. Here is a good source. Thoughts? --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, this page needs to be updated. The latest events are from July 2010.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a section on this should be added, but with care. I don't think it is playing "crystal ball" to say that these releases do represent important moments in this administration, but we need to hold back on how important these are. We can't say that the impact will be as large as, say, the Pentagon Papers. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

2010 elections

I added a section to the bottom of the article about the 2010 Midterm elections and I cited it. Please help me improve it and revise it as necessary. Thank You! Politics2012 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC).

I'm not sure I'm happy with the wording of the addition, particularly the stated "reasons" of unpopularity of the health care law and spending increases. Those are certainly the talking points of the Republicans/Tea Party on why they say they won, but that's their opinion rather than citable fact. Your own CNN source rates those issues lower down. Case in point is health care, which you give first mention, but your article says was far less important than other issues in exist polling ("The economy was rated the most important issue by 62 percent of voters, far eclipsing health care reform (19 percent), immigration (8 percent) and the war in Afghanistan (7 percent), according to the exit polling."). In the case of one of the only interviewed voters to give a reason for their ballot positions, anti-incumbency more than anything was listed. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

An editor removed some text and comment "health care reform was NOT "unpopular" (see dozens of polls)."

So I looked up a poll. This source should be added to the article, because On December 13, 2010, Rasmussen Reports reported "Time doesn’t seem to be winning the new national health care law any more friends. Most voters have favored repeal of the law every week since it was passed and support for repeal has now inched up to its highest level since mid-September... The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 60% of Likely U.S. Voters at least somewhat favor repeal of the health care law while 34% are opposed... Support for repeal has ranged from 50% to 63% in weekly tracking since Democrats in Congress passed the law in late March."

Errr951 (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Until very recently, polling has shown that a majority of Americans do not favor repeal of the health care reform. This was up to and including voting in the midterm elections. The Rasmussen poll showing a majority favoring a repeal is a new phenomenon. Their tracking poll has also differed considerably from other polls from AP, Stanford, and Gallup. Presumably, this may be related to Rasmussen's well-known right-wing bias. One poll does not a trend make. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Filibuster, etc.

This came up as a side-effect of a drive-by change I made to the article. Let me walk through that change and edits which followed it:

  • This edit (Economy: more neutral wording than 'wealthiest'; add payroll tax reduction, also a major feature of the compromise) came up on my watchlist. I looked at the cited Reuters-attributed source a sentence further on and saw that it did support "wealthiest Americans".
  • Agreeing that the more neutral wording was better, I dug up a source which better supported wording change and added it in after the sentence with the wording change.
  • While looking at the article diff, the sentence preceding the Reuters cite (Senate Republicans also said that, until the tax dispute was resolved, they would [[filibuster]] to prevent consideration of any other legislation, except for bills to fund the U.S. government.) caught my eye. I had the cited source open in another window, so I looked for support there. I didn't find any mention of "filibuster", and changed it speak of refusing to support (I think I might have mistakenly gotten the wording I used from another news article I had open -- the Reuters source says "blocked", and speaks as if reporting past actions, not as if reporting contemplated future actions).
  • I saved the edit here, summarizing: (Cite source which supports article assertions. Remove unsupported (probably supportable) mention of filibuster. (note, though, the Reuters source does say "wealthiest Americans").
  • This edit (Not sure why this was removed. Fillibuster is the method they used to block legislation from being voted on.) put "filibuster" back in, still citing the Reuters source which doesn't mention filibuster. That edit was actually a reversion of my prior edit, and removed the source citation I had added to support the sentence preceding the one with "filibuster" re-added.
  • I've now made this edit, which reinserts revert-removed cite I had added earlier, replaces the sentence mentioning filibuster and the Reuters cite with rewritten material located one sentence further along and supported by a different cited source.

All of this is a bit more than I intended with my original drive-by edit. I'm not wedded to the specifics of my changes—feel free to improve them. However, I would like to see article assertions which are actually supported by cited sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Looneymonkey's ES -- filibustering is the method by which the minority can block bills. See, for example, the DREAM Act. It failed on a vote of 55-41.[1] Does that mean 55 Senators opposed it? Nooooo, 55 Senators supported it, but with the GOP willing to use the filibuster so promiscuously (in contrast to longstanding custom), a majority of 55 isn't enough. If it had come up for a vote, it would have passed, but the Democrats couldn't get it to a vote because they needed 60 votes to break the Republican filibuster. It's overly pedantic, in my opinion, to insist on a source that uses the word "filibuster" -- it's like saying we couldn't refer to the Republican Party as the "GOP" if that initialism isn't in the cited source. There's no good-faith dispute about whether the blocking would be by filibuster. Nevertheless, rather than edit war over the subject, I've dug up a source stating the obvious, that the blocking would be by filibuster, and restored that information to the article. The source is the ultra-conservative Fox News, so no one can object that it's biased against the Republicans. JamesMLane t c 06:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm neither following these events closely nor trying to argue R vs. D political matters in the U.S., but I do hope to see cited sources which actually support the assertions to which they are attached. The edit subsequent to the above restored the bit about republicans planning to filibuster and added a source supporting that, which I see as an improvement. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree that assertions should be supported by sources. My point was that the assertion in the Wikipedia article doesn't need to follow the source verbatim if the paraphrase is accurate. It doesn't violate WP:NOR for us to employ trivial inference. The Reuters article supports the assertion; even though the article doesn't use the word "filibuster", that's an accurate paraphrase of its contents. (Note that the article says that 60 votes were needed. The article doesn't use the word "cloture", either, but the 60-vote requirement makes clear that this was a cloture vote.) This is now of historical interest only as to this particular passage, given that you accept the source I provided that does use the word "filibuster", but I wanted to explain why I made the initial edit. JamesMLane t c 17:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
That's simply WP:TEDIOUS. It is not necessary to cite something so commonly and frequently referred to in the references already provided. It's like demanding a reference for the fact that Congress meets in the Capitol. If you didn't realize that the GOP uses filibusters to prevent bills from coming to a vote, then you need to educate yourself on the subject before editing. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

New source - Terrible, Horrible, etc.

If anyone cares to wade through this, here is a comprehensive article that could serve to give some perspective as to the WP:WEIGHT and relevancy of various events in the presidency during 2010. Lest anyone criticize this as being published by Newsmax, it is an AP article. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Job approval ratings

Obama's job approval ratings have been rising with the recent CNN poll showing his approval rating currently at 57% after recent lame duck legislation victories and also after his speech at the Tuscon shooting memorial. They seem to like it when he pushed for a cooling of political rhetoric and also the need for people to work together. While I want to add this information as it is a significant shift in polling, I'm hesitant and want to see if there is agreement before we do add this info. I also note other polls show him with a higher job approval rating then before: Washington Post/ABC poll has him at 54% job approval, and USE Today/Gallup poll show still a 47% job approval rating, but a 53% favorable rating that is up from their previous polls. This is not meant to be glowing about him as much as there seems to be an upward trend for now that may need to be noted against previous downward polling. Brothejr (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, the entire approval rating section needs to be rewritten. It cites so many different polls that it minimizes the one poll that can be compared to other administrations(Gallup). Rasmussen is given way too many lines, while Gallup barely is mentioned. I thought I read this article some time ago where it was agreed that in order to compare administrations, the polling firm that was used should be highlighted. I'm not suggesting other polling should not be mentioned, but the main gist of that section should rely on Gallup polling. Dave Dial (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I've not really seen other presidential pages using exclusively Gallup unless that was the only polling around. Though, I think I understand what you are saying in that the article should focus less on which polls and instead on consistent polls. (I.E. using one or two polling companies for a consistent line of information.) My thinking is that if Gallup tends to be the most reliable with the least amount of interpretation (I.E. bias from groups who are looking to prove a point.) then we should stick to that anyway. Brothejr (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Protection tag at start of the article is broken (showing up in article text). Please fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverstreet82 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done Fat&Happy (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Explanation of reversion

Closing up with a big fat helping of WP:DENY. Tarc (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I just reverted a substantial addition that appeared to violate WP:WEIGHT (and probably WP:NPOV). I suspect the addition was made by a sock of User:Grundle2600, but that will need to be checked by an admin. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

A more recent reversion with additional text can be found here. DD2K, the user who reverted it, commented, "Take it to Talk page --sock of G2600." So even if it is a sock, DD2K still thinks these entries are worth discussing on the talk page. As it stands right now, this article is a puff piece - it needs the kind of reliably sourced criticism that was added and then reverted. 108.3.70.111 (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
A comparison of the two versions shows they are identical, so I'm not sure what you are talking about. Your claim the article is a "puff piece" is unhelpful. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
No, they are not "identical." According to the edit history, the July 15 version (which was later reverted) is 149,856 bytes, whereas the July 31 version (which was also reverted) is 168,864 bytes. That's a difference of approximately 19K, hardly something that would show the two versions to be "identical." The "comparison of the two versions" can be seen here. Clearly, they are not "identical." 74.98.46.65 (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
IMO, I would say that the "take it to talk page" part was more a basic courtesy than an actual interest in dialog, along the lines of "how are you?" being a casual greeting rather than an invitation to chronicle the day's activities for the asker. Tarc (talk) 16:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • The "Take it to Talk page --sock of G2600" edit summary was covering both bases, because I didn't have time to investigate if the edits were from a G2600 sock or not, even though I thought it was probable. Now that I see they are almost 100% definitely from a Grundle sock, not only should they be reverted on sight, but the Talk page comments can be reverted too. This type of disruption doesn't need to be encouraged, imo. Dave Dial (talk) 18:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Impeachment (revisited)

Last October, I wrote how it's only a matter of time before there will be an Impeachment of Barack Obama article. We are now a step closer to this, as a member of Congress is calling for his impeachment just to stop the president (again, "Scandal TBD"). I'd have to say that if two or three more members of Congress publicly come out in favor of impeaching Obama, then an article Efforts to impeach Barack Obama could surpass the WP:Notability threshold, similar to the article Efforts to impeach George W. Bush. Victor Victoria (talk) 13:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Random Texas lawmakers call for impeaching Obama and seceding from the union all the time. Nobody pays them any serious attention unless it is to highlight their foolishness. Let's see actual articles of impeachment first, please. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Remember, the criteria for a Wikipedia article is notability, not lack of lunacy. This is why this article has survived two nominations. Victor Victoria (talk) 15:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
You make my point for me. There is absolutely nothing notable whatsoever about this impeachment call. Come back when it's all over the national news and we have a fistful of reliable sources to cite. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
It may well be a notable subject, although it's a little tricky to maintain compendium list articles about a subject as opposed to individual articles about single things. The conspiracy theory articles have had a rocky path. As with them, the relevance if any to the main biographical article is unclear - if they don't go anywhere they'll just be a footnote to history. We do have articles about lunatic and not-so-lunatic efforts to secede, at least from a U.S. state. See Jefferson (Pacific state). - Wikidemon (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Herman Cain has just called for the impeachment of President Obama. Were getting closer. Victor Victoria (talk) 00:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Political opponents rousing up the unwashed masses in campaign stops does not give the slightest bit of notability or credence to the issue, the point where it would ever be mentioned in the Obama biography. Seriously, go find something better to do with your time, because this is a non-issue. Tarc (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I think we should posthumously impeach Ronald Reagan. I guess that makes it notable enough for Wikipedia. Carlo (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Wait until someone actually brings up articles of impeachment, like Kucinich and Wexler did, and then we'll talk. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The Obama Cabinet

Gary Locke has resigned as Commerce Secretary in order to serve as Ambassador to China...the Cabinet table should be updated to reflect his departure as of the end of July http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/gary-locke-confirmed-as-us-ambassador-to-china/2011/07/27/gIQAHqR0cI_blog.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.135.25 (talk) 09:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

What's the opposite of "recentism"?

This page has nothing after the midterm elections, other than Obama's reelection campaign. Shouldn't this be more balanced? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by balance? Even if it is to be considered out of date, out of date is not "unbalanced," it's out of date. Do you have a specific proposal for something to add to the article? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
How about this from September 27, 2011?
Ford Pulls Anti-Bailout Ad After Pressure From Obama Admin
We could put it in the "Transparency" section.
71.182.242.38 (talk) 05:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with transparency. What Ford chooses to do with its ad campaigns has absolutely nothing to do with government transparency, even if their decision was influenced by the government --OuroborosCobra (talk) 10:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Nationality

I've reverted this edit, but that got me to thinking. Does BHO hold multiple nationalities? British from the timeframe of his father's citizenship situation at the time of his birth, and perhaps Indonesian from his childhood situation there? I haven't dug into this at all, but the questioning thought does occur. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Depends on how one defines nationality, as some equate it to ethnicity while others to citizenship. It is a bit of a loaded term, esp in regards to Obama and all the birther nuttery, so it may be best to simply leave it as-is. At the very least I would say that British is not applicable, since Obama spent little to no time actually "being British", for lack of a better way to phrase it. Tarc (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Relevancy

Seriously? An entire section of the Gates controversy yet virtually nil on the debt ceiling crisis, American credit or his presidency past 2010?

I think we'll need to do a run-through for importance and significance, with the Gates controversy being first on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.5.8 (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Presidency of Ronald Reagan comparison, resource

Obama's jobs record looks a lot like -- Ronald Reagan's by Tim Mullaney, for USA Today 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

And? What exactly do you want us to do with this? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Here are some sources that compare Obama's presidency to Reagan's:
This article from April 15, 2011 states, "Policy matters. If Barack Obama matched Ronald Reagan's post-recession recovery rate, 15.7 million more Americans would have jobs."
And this article from October 8, 2011 states, "103,000 vs. 1.1 Million. A tale of September jobs, 28 years apart. Yesterday's September jobs report... with 103,000 new jobs in the month... As it happens, the biggest one-month jobs gain in American history was at exactly this juncture of the Reagan Presidency, after another deep recession. In September 1983, coming out of the 1981-82 downturn, American employers added 1.1 million workers to their payrolls, the acceleration point for a seven-year expansion that created some 17 million new jobs. The difference between then and now isn't the magnitude of the recessions but the policies the U.S. pursued to restore growth. In the Reagan expansion, spending and tax rates were cut, regulations were eased, and government was in retreat. Today, we've had a spending and regulatory boom, the threat of higher tax rates, and a general antibusiness political climate. Policies have consequences."
And this article from November 4, 2011, which is called "The Scariest Jobs Chart Ever," has a chart that really puts the Reagan-Obama comparison in perspective. You need to click on the chart to be able to see it full size.
71.182.242.245 (talk) 20:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
The question remains; what do you want us to do with this? Do you have a concrete suggestion for an addition or change to the article? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 01:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Environment resource

Environmentalist icon to play hardball with Obama Nov 05, 2011 by Aamer Madhani, USA Today; excerpt ...

When environmentalist John Adams was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom earlier this year, President Obama said that the man once dubbed by Rolling Stone as the planet's lawyer had a simple way of operating. Obama said Adams thinking boiled down this way: "If people want to protect the environment, we'll support their efforts. If not, we'll play hardball." ...

See related Natural Resources Defense Council, Keystone XL pipeline, anthropogenic global warming and effects of global warming with related ocean acidification. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Related article in [http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj1111&article=standing-up-for-the-earth Standing Up for the Earth Largest U.S. climate action says no to pipeline.] by Rose Marie Berger in November 2011 Sojourners page 26. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

And...? Fat&Happy (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Cleaned Up the Infobox

I've decided to take a look at the Infoxbox and I've noticed that there's too much sourcing on information that doesn't need to be sourced. Why? Well, I've finished reading the entire Article of Barack Obama and the contributors practically explained with sources everything that was heavily sourced in the Infobox. I decided to clean up the Infobox to make it more leaner in its code and accurate as possible based off the date we've received by now. I hope that we can all come to an understanding about this, I sure hope so. If you have a problem then I strongly recommend that you respond to me via this the Talk Page on this Article first. XCentristFiasco (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Without commenting on the content of the edit, I will tell you that a sizeable change like that on an article like this should have discussion and consensus before the changes are made. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

There's hardly any major changes, brother. Did you even check back to back what I've changed? It's simply a clean up in the code for the Infobox, nothing more. I've got rid of the references that were in the Infobox because it was merely clutter and top of that, they were all introduced within the Article itself. XCentristFiasco (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The references are there because this information has been controversial over the course of Obama's presidency. Other changes you're making are poorly formatted compared to what was there before. As to the content of the changes, you're listing the "expiration" of Obama's term as January 20, 2012; in other words, today. If he loses reelection, it'll be January 20, 2013. Including that would violate WP:CRYSTAL since we don't know when his presidency will end. Otherwise, these changes don't seem beneficial. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
We don't put end dates on Presidency articles before they happen. Also, much of what you removed was compromised solutions in the infobox, after many Talk page discussions. So without going through too much, I don't see a immediate reason to change anything and think we should just stick with the consensus version for now. This article is under a 1rr restriction(which you have already violated. Stop it. Dave Dial (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Read the Comment on the Revert. XCentristFiasco (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Lobbying reform

It seems to me that the section on Lobbying reform should at least give passing mention to his policy barring lobbyists from federal advisory panels. It hasn't gotten as much attention as the waivers, but it is relevant to the topic.

63.232.147.98 (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The section on lobbying reform is very POV, as it seems to imply that giving out "waivers" somehow makes it OK for Obama to break his campaign promises regarding lobbying. Also, the section does not include some of Obama's other tricks that he had used to break his promises, despite the fact that such info has been reported by the New York Times.
I propose adding the following two paragraphs to the section:
While running for President, Obama promised that he would not have any lobbyists working in his administration. However, by February 2010, he had more than 40 lobbyists working in his administration.[1]
In June 2010, the New York Times reported that Obama administration officials had held hundreds of meetings with lobbyists at coffee houses near the White House, in order to avoid the disclosure requirements for White House visitors, and that these meetings "reveal a disconnect between the Obama administration’s public rhetoric — with Mr. Obama himself frequently thrashing big industries’ 'battalions' of lobbyists as enemies of reform — and the administration’s continuing, private dealings with them."[2]
55 fifty-five (talk) 05:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
These are not notable. And after seeing your previous edit, I can see that you are clearly here to push an agenda. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
How are those things "not notable" to a section called "lobbying reform"? Is the section only supposed to include verifiable facts that make Obama look good, and ignore verifiable facts that make him look bad? 55 fifty-five (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Your first proposed sentence is already covered (albeit sightly differently) in the article. The second proposed sentence does not discuss lobbying reform, but instead suggests that the meetings in coffee houses are done "to avoid disclosure requirements", which the NYT article does not specifically say. Since the article already discusses this matter, adding this additional material (if you could somehow make it be neutral) would probably also make the section have too much weight. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Is this a good idea for the article?

Three days ago the Washington Post published this article, which includes the following:

"Obama campaigned on what he called 'the most sweeping ethics reform in history' and has frequently criticized the role of money in politics. That hasn’t stopped him from offering government jobs to some of his biggest bundlers, volunteer fundraisers who gather political contributions from other rich donors. More than half of Obama’s 47 biggest fundraisers, those who collected at least $500,000 for his campaign, have been given administration jobs. Nine more have been appointed to presidential boards and committees."

Since the Washington Post article specifically uses the word "ethics," and since this wikipedia article has a section called "Ethics," and since the Washington Post is about as reliable a source as one can find, I propose that this information be added to the article. It's certainly notable and relevant enough.

What do others here think of this proposal?

55 fifty-five (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The article points out that the administration appointments have been in line with those of previous administrations. So I fail to see how this is notable. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
It's notable because Obama promised that he would be different, and have higher standards, than previous administrations. The Washington Post article specifically points out that Obama's actions have contradicted his promises. What's the point of even having an "ethics" section if it can't point out that Obama broke his promises? 55 fifty-five (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
One article does not a story make. Besides, Obama's standards have been higher. For example, no previous administration has done anything like this. And this whole "broken promise" thing is a canard. Do you believe, for example, that if Newt Gingrich became President that he could arrange for gas prices to drop to $2.50 as he has promised? Candidates make all sorts of promises that never pan out. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
No, writing articles from the point of view of political commentary is not encyclopedic. Quack. Wikidemon (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
That's a .gov link which means it's from the federal government. Of course the federal government would say good things about itself. I'd trust the Washington Post over the federal government any day of the week. 55 fifty-five (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
By the way, if you came here from a solicitation on a Free Republic "activism" thread by a banned editor to help him insert the material we keep reverting, we take WP:NPOV pretty seriously and agenda accounts are not welcome. Remember if you are truly adhering to NPOV it should be impossible to tell from your edits whether you voted for Obama or not. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Here's the policy link. Antandrus (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much for that. I don't want to get in trouble. I won't edit this article, or any other controversial political articles. And this will be my last edit on this talk page. 55 fifty-five (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I have informed my colleagues at Free Republic that it is against wikipedia policy to do what a few of us had been doing. We are sorry and did not mean to break any rules. That being said, I still question the validity of a wikipedia article that mentions various promises made by the President (such as his promise of no more bailouts), without simultaneously mentioning that he broke those promises. My edit on that particular promise was reverted. Likewise, the section on Wall St. reform does not mention that Obama has gotten more donations from Wall St. than any other candidate in the past 20 years, even though this is the case. The transparency section does not cite the multiple examples of Obama's non-transparency, or mention that Transparency International said that corruption was rapidly increasing under Obama, even though this is the case. These omissions, and many others, can be found here: freerepublic dot com/focus/f-news/2853412/posts . And like 55, this is my last edit on this talk page. Peas 447 (talk) 07:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Notability and inclusion

I noticed that one incorrect standard (notability) has been used to exclude material from this article. In Wikipedia, notability is a requirement for existence of articles, not for inclusion of material in articles. The primary standard that applies for the types of inclusion/exclusion debates occurring there is wp:npov including wp:undue. North8000 (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Notability is a perfectly acceptable standard for inclusion or exclusion, just not the policy. One could say, for example, that something isn't notable enough to satisfy WP:WEIGHT. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
In the above you/they were implying that it is wikipedia standard for inclusion, which is incorrect. Further, notability has a specific meaning in wikipedia, wp:notability, and it is certainly not correct to invoke that as a standard for exclusion of material. And, from the looks of this article, who lot of excluding has been done, basically the whole other half of the story. North8000 (talk) 12:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
If a story gets very little media coverage, it isn't notable. Covering it would constitute a violation of WP:WEIGHT. I use the word "notable" for convenience, and I shall continue to do so if I wish. I can see from your last comment that your real objection is about what you think is missing from the content of this article, and that you brought up notability for different reasons. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, your substitution of IBF (inventing bad faith) for WP:AGF misfired into a baseless insult, linking to wiki-lawyering. At least it's clear what plane you operate on. Regarding use/non use of the term by you, I think that the clarification I posted will help resolve the issue either way. North8000 (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
You basically said in your earlier comment that "notability" was the reason only "half the story" was featured in the content of this article. The implication is that you think the dozens of editors who have worked on this article over the years have not followed WP:NPOV. Perhaps if that comment hadn't been so insulting to all those editors, I would not have needed to point out your apparent agenda on this talk page. If you have anything useful to contribute to the improvement of this article, please do so. Otherwise, please play elsewhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
That's a complete scrambling of what I said. What I essentially saiod was: 1. Implying that notability is a criteria for inclusion / exclusion of material is not proper. 2. bsereving that the article is missing 1/2 of the story. On your last point, saying that 1/2 is missing is not "insulting" everybody who has done anything here. To clarify, for the folks that built the half that IS here, good work. For the folks that worked to keep out the missing 1/2, not so good work. North8000 (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
It's a common Wikipedia colloquialism, not a misuse of anything. We certainly can and do use standards like the nature and extent of coverage of an item, as well as its appropriateness and relevance to the subject of the article, to decide whether a particular verifiable fact merits inclusion in the article. Different editors arrive at the point of WP:CONSENSUS along different paths, some invoking WP:WEIGHT (itself an important context but used here outside of its strict context) and WP:NPOV, and others describing a matter as encyclopedic or not. To avoid confusion I personally describe the concept as "noteworthiness" to avoid any implication that I've misread WP:NOTE, a question of whether a particular fact is worth noting in an article as evidenced by how reliable sources treat it in connection with the subject matter. Anyway, this is a terminology issue not a content issue. If the question is whether it's worth pointing out that some people are disappointed / critical / observe / etc., that Obama's campaign promises having to do with government transparency do not at this point seem to have come to fruition, then yes, I think it is worth a very brief mention in the context of discussing the issue of transparency. However, the "he broke his promises" thing cannot be stated neutrally about any politician as fact, as that kind of thing is campaign rhetoric and not historical account. If the rhetoric rises to the level where it makes a difference, then it can be mentioned in campaign articles. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Bills signed into law

Continued updating:

  • Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2011 (HR 1079), March 31, 2011. Extension of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, including taxes on aviation fuel, domestic and international ticket taxes, and taxes on cargo shipped by air. Extend Airport Improvement Program (AIP). The FAA has been operating under a series of temporary extensions.
  • Dept. of Defense Appropriations Act of 2011, April 14, 2011. This is the spending bill negotiated behind-the-scenes by congressional leaders and the Obama Administration. It would keep the government funded until the end of the 2011 fiscal year while cutting $38 billion in spending authority below 2010 levels. The Congressional Budget Office estimates it will lead to an increase in outlays of $3.3 billion over 2010 levels. All federal departments besides the Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs would face cuts under the bill.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.198.161 (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2011‎ (UTC)

Undue? Not.

This was removed as UNDUE and "not supported":

Journalist Ron Suskind interviewed Anita Dunn for his 2011 book, Confidence Men: Wall Steet, Washington and the Education of a President. Dunn said, "This place [the White House] would be in court for a hostile workplace because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women."[2]

UNDUE? Hardly. This was extensively covered by ABC, CNN, WaPo... Need I go on? Most of these outlets are firmly in the tank for Obama. "Not supported"? Huh? It's basically a quote. Anyway, the Vice President of the United States responded to it! On the record!!!!! Biden said:

"Obviously, they didn’t talk to Michelle Obama or Jill Biden. Because if there’s sexism in the White House, the person engaging in it is in trouble.” -- Joe Biden[3].

This is not some administration mouthpiece: this is the Vice President of the United States--only a heartbeat from the Oval Office.

Hey Wikidemon--why don't we just forego the part where you start throwing out irrelevant WP policy shortcuts for the next several days, and skip right to the part where my position prevails and the content is readded. Wuddya think? – Lionel (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Reading the sentence "Most of these outlets are firmly in the tank for Obama" makes me question your intentions. Check your personal biases at the door. As to the specifics of this, is this one person's opinion sufficient for due weight? What's the purpose of including this? I'm unconvinced. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I doubt asking Lionel to be unbiased is going to lead use anywhere. I will point out that Anita Dunn denied making that accusation, and the Washington Post released the actual transcript(of the one portion Suskind would let the Post listen to).

“I remember once I told Valerie that, I said if it weren’t for the president, this place would be in court for a hostile workplace”

Also, Christina Romer denied making the statement Suskind attributed to her, and is quoted as saying:

“I can’t imagine that I ever said (that)....What was different in the Obama administration is that there were so many women in important positions and, when problems arose, the president worked hard to fix them. I felt respected, included and useful to the team.”

So no, the text Lionel added should not be included in the article. One could question just why Suskind left out certain portions of the quotes, but that probably belongs his article, or that of the book. Dave Dial (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Are you saying the item should be excluded because it is not true?– Lionel (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

UNDUE? Has to be a mistake

Main article: Solyndra loan controversy

The Solyndra loan controversy is an alleged political controversy involving U.S. President Barack Obama's administration's authorization of a $535 million loan guarantee to Solyndra Corporation in 2009 as part of a program to spur alternative energy growth.[3][4] Solyndra and the White House had originally estimated that this government guarantee of Solyndra's financing would help to create 4,000 new jobs.[3] In early September 2011 the company ceased all business activity, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and laid off nearly all of its employees.[5][6]

  1. ^ Obama makes a mockery of his own lobbyist ban, The Washington Examiner, February 3, 2010
  2. ^ Across From White House, Coffee With Lobbyists, New York Times, June 24, 2010
  3. ^ a b Solar Energy Company Touted By Obama Goes Bankrupt, ABC News, August 31, 2011
  4. ^ Obama's Crony Capitalism, Reason, September 9, 2011
  5. ^ McGrew, Scott (September 2, 2011). "Solyndra to Declare Bankruptcy". NBC News.
  6. ^ Solyndra files for bankruptcy, looks for buyer. Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved: September 20, 2011.

Scjessey removed the above saying that it is WP:UNDUE. I can't believe that he's trotting out that policy again! It has to be a mistake. We have an entire article on this. There are hundreds of reliable sources about this. He's blocking even a brief mention??????? Surely Scjessey meant to use WP:IDONTLIKE, because WP:UNDUE obviously doesn't apply. Would you like to try another policy? What about NPOV? BLP? NOTNEWSPAPER? I don't think you're gonna get nuch traction from UNDUE.– Lionel (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Authorizing a $535 million loan guarantee to a company that later goes bankrupt does not appear to be a significant event in the Presidency of Barack Obama. However, it is a notable event and political controversy in and of itself, and as such has its own article. There are thousands (probably) of articles on subjects related to Obama and the Obama administration, and obviously we can't have a paragraph on each in any given article. Similarly, there are hundreds of millions of pages and hundreds of thousands of recent news articles about Obama, so not every subject about which a thousand articles are written gets on the main Obama page. We all know this is a partisan issue, with Obama's opponents using it as part of an effort to discredit him. Most of the recent coverage is about Solyndra as a campaign issue, not the underlying events. Is that effort a significant one vis-a-vis the overall weight of his Presidency? One could argue it both ways but on balance I would say no, there are dozens if not hundreds of comparably important items. On the other hand, if there were a passage about similar issues it might merit a partial sentence somewhere. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
See... I told you it was WP:IDONTLIKE!!! – Lionel (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
It's not that at all. Wikidemon is absolutely correct. The so-called "Solyndra controversy" is only controversial when viewed through the lens of a campaign. America needs to invest in sustainable and renewable energy, but this particular investment didn't pan out. Other similar investments have been successful. That's the nature of business. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
With Obama himself having repeatedly touted Solyndra, it's hard to see how you can argue that it is WP:UNDUE to mention it here.William Jockusch (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Because it barely registers on the importance meter when considering the totality of Obama's presidency. Seriously, this is only of significance in the right wing echo chamber. A Google News search of "solyndra" yields 6,000 hits. Remove "fox" and "blog" from that search, and the number drops to only 3,000. Further pruning of right-wing sources reduces it to a mere handful. It's another fauxtroversy, dude. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
In trying to exclude this you are inventing a standard that does not exist in Wikipedia. And what a double standard is being pushed! Laws which are passed by the House and Senate (which do not report to him) and which he merely signed are listed in the article. But then an agence that is not only a part of his administration but which reports to him does this ill-fated loan and you pretende that it isn't germane beacuse it was doen by "somebody else". On top of that RS's cover that he was directly involved in in it, including pushing to expedite approval. North8000 (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Foreign policy should mention political events in the Muslim world, not just the OBL killing.

Iran, Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Libya, and Syria all went through major upheavals during the Obama administration. Very little of it is even mentioned. These are important events in the world, and the Obama admin. influenced them by its action and/or inaction. It should be covered.William Jockusch (talk) 00:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, in fact I would say that most of the events of the Presidency aren't covered, particularly those for the last couple years. This is a major ongoing world event, and the US and administration were mostly on the sidelines except to assist NATO in Libya and put some pressure on Egypt, right? Would you care to draft a paragraph to get us started? Hopefully a short, neutral, uncontroversial starting paragraph won't have to go through an RfC or act of Congress to get in the article :) - 00:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Might be hard to fit it all into one paragraph. I'll see what I can cook up. Will take a few days.William Jockusch (talk) 00:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Just a note so this doesn't get auto-purged. I'm constructing this. Presently there is one paragraph for Iran, and one for the Arab Spring, which feels like a natural way to divide it up. It's under construction on my user page. I'll bring it here when it's done.William Jockusch (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
To be honest, I think what you have written thus far is already way too much. Why, for example, is the "Arab Spring" of significance to this article? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is a proposal. I had some problems with the beginnings of the Syria uprising, as the earliest sources are in Arabic.

Should the Solyndra controversy be included?

Main article: Solyndra loan controversy

The Solyndra loan controversy is an alleged political controversy involving U.S. President Barack Obama's administration's authorization of a $535 million loan guarantee to Solyndra Corporation in 2009 as part of a program to spur alternative energy growth.[1][2] Solyndra and the White House had originally estimated that this government guarantee of Solyndra's financing would help to create 4,000 new jobs.[1] In early September 2011 the company ceased all business activity, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and laid off nearly all of its employees.[3][4]

References
  1. ^ a b Solar Energy Company Touted By Obama Goes Bankrupt, ABC News, August 31, 2011
  2. ^ Obama's Crony Capitalism, Reason, September 9, 2011
  3. ^ McGrew, Scott (September 2, 2011). "Solyndra to Declare Bankruptcy". NBC News.
  4. ^ Solyndra files for bankruptcy, looks for buyer. Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved: September 20, 2011.

Arguments for exclusion of this content are not persuasive to say the least. Afterall, the controversy is notable, extensively covered in reliable sources and obviously relevant. But alas Wikipedia operates on voting, not quality of argument, and it's 2 against 1.

I am looking for "outside input" (per WP:RFC) to determine whether this content should be included or excluded.– Lionel (talk) 04:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Note: While all editors may participate, an RFC is a process for requesting outside input.– Lionel (talk) 08:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
[removed by original poster] - Wikidemon (talk) 09:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
apparently nobody is taking this proposal and RfC very seriously after 24 hours so I'll remove my own comments here.
Note: While all editors may participate, an RFC is a process for requesting outside input.– Lionel (talk) 02:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Did you read the policy that you linked to? What you just said directly conflicts with it. Per policy weight is determined by coverage in sources. North8000 (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
With 18,000+ edits to Wikipedia, I'm intimately familiar with policy. The Solyndra fauxtroversy has received minimal coverage except in the right wing echo chamber. And since it's an outgrowth of a Bush administration policy, it isn't even an Obama-specific fauxtroversy. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
With almost 20,000 edits to Wikipedia, I'm also intimately familiar with policy. The ideology and political inclination of sources of sources is irrelevant. Whether content comes from the "right wing echo chamber" or whether it comes from the Socialist Party USA, if it is covered in reliable sources it is a candidate for inclusion. This is not just policy--it is a WP:PILLAR. – Lionel (talk) 02:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Point one - that's a spurious argument. Nobody's challenged the material's verifiability. The objection is undue weight. Simply counting news reports this is a minor issue as compared with the overall coverage of the president. Among reliable sources I don't see that conservative news outlets are any more apt to cover this than anyone else. 60 of the 19,700 Fox News archive pieces that mention Obama also mention Solyndra, .3%. 20 out of 11,700 NPR news articles do the same, .2%. At CNN it's 21 out of 14,000, about .15%. Where you see the difference is the unreliable sources. At Huffington Post, .2%. At Breitbart, 42%. That's the echo chamber. Point two, an RFC is a consensus process in which everyone gets to participate. It's not an end run around the editors - Wikidemon (talk) 07:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Reject as proposed but include in some form. The current wording fails per WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV and WP:COATRACK, and for mischaracterizing a political argument as an economic policy consideration. Here we have an event that resonated with the partisan media and became a minor talking point for Obama's detractors and opponents, and got modest but real coverage among the mainstream press. To the extent the press covered it in connection with Obama's presidency, it is mostly in the context of it being something the other team is using to embarrass him and impugn his integrity. That attempt was somewhat successful, and part of a larger campaign (both grassroots and organized) against federal stimulus spending. As such, a brief (perhaps half a sentence but definitely not a paragraph or article section) mention would be in order in the context of growing partisan opposition and public disenchantment with economic stimulus spending, which is indeed a significant issue in the presidency but not yet covered in this article. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Demon -- do you have a suggested wording? What parts of Lionel's proposal do you find objectional? William Jockusch (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for asking. I'll try to come up with something in the next few days. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay, here it is. I'll post it here first to get some feedback rather than prematurely munging up the RfC process:
The failure of solar panel maker Solyndra, which had been championed by the Obama administration and backed by $535 million in federal loan guarantees,[4] became a focus point for growing Republican opposition to federal economic stimulus and energy subsidy policies.[5]
Some of Lionel's text and sourcing could also be included to explain this more fully, just not a whole section heading. It would go in chronological order at the bottom of the economic policy section, which incidentally does not seem to cover anything that happened since late 2010. I approached this with an open mind, knowing little about the subject before digging into the news coverage. A couple surprises for me. First, per the "fact check" source, this loan guarantee was not initiated during the Bush administration. Second, per polling results the affair did not erode public support for energy subsidies or economic stimulus. Those programs did stall, in Washington gridlock. Neutrality issues aside, the article could use a wake-up, it seems to be in hibernation. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Going through some differences one by one:
Number of jobs. I agree with your exclusion of the information. It's not the core of the story.
Link to main article. I think it should be linked. Let the user get more information if they want to.
"Growing Republican opposition" -- how about just "growing opposition." It's true that large parts of the opposition are republican, but not all of it, e.g. Jon Stewart.
Linked news articles -- I think the Reason crony capitalism link should be there. "Crony capitalism" has been a part of the Solyndra story -- but not the center of it. Linking to a story on it, without putting it into the main article, seems about right.William Jockusch (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree about the main article link. I tried hard to source that the opposition was general, but the sources (as exemplified by the Financial Times piece and a bunch of articles about polls) said otherwise, that Solyndra became an issue for Republicans opposing the President, not part of a broader disenfranchisement with stimulus or energy subsidies (crony or otherwise). Maybe I didn't look hard enough. Are any nonpartisans, or liberals beyond Jon Stewart, singing in the chorus? I do think that so-called crony capitalism (a loaded term if there ever was one) is at the heart why an administration promoted a company without first making sure it was financially sound. The Reason Magazine article is an editorial analysis that stands for something quite different than the title ("Obama's Crony Capitalism") suggests. As it says, "The Solyndra story encapsulates a much bigger issue than mere crony capitalism": namely that government meddling in energy policy distorts the free market and invites corruption. That's a libertarian / free market critique. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
After looking through the sources, I am astonished that I was unable to find any Dem/liberal criticism of it beyond Jon Stewart. So I can accept "Republican Criticism". I still think that Reason is a good link. The libertarian argument is made elsewhere as well. [6] [7].William Jockusch (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

What rabbit hole have we jumped down here? In the Mitt Romney article they even covered that he had his dog ride on the roof of a car for a few hours 29 years ago. And here folks are trying to keep out a prominent,, widely covered mistake that lost over $500,000,000 of the taxpayer's money? North8000 (talk) 11:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

What? First of all, what some other article has in it has nothing to do with what goes into this article. Nothing. Secondly, there is a huge difference in the comparison you're making. I don't believe I would have advocated inserting the dog incident into the Romney article, but that was a decision Romney made, and not a decision most rational thinking dog owners would make. The loan process was initiated in 2005, and the President, or rather the Government, approve these types of loans all the time. The fact that the company went bankrupt isn't tied to any decision made by the Obama Administration. Right? Lastly, to be honest, I wasn't going to comment in this RFC because I didn't know enough about the subject to state whether this should be included or not. But the arguments here persuaded me to do some research, so I'm going to object to the current wording and inclusion. I do not like the biased manner it was inserted by Lionel(edit summary and wording) and I do not like North8000's reasoning. There is definitely an undue weight issue here, and this issue already has it's own article. I may be persuaded by more neutral wording from Wikidemon, but I have not seen such that I would believe deserves inclusion into this article. Dave Dial (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Solyndra should not be added because Seamus was included in Romney's article. It should be included because the coverage in RS linking Obama and Solyndra is overwhelming, compelling and exhaustive. It requires an enormous disassociation with reality to argue otherwise.

However the inclusion of Seamus and the bizarre objections to Solyndra does in fact highlight the undeniable double-standard at Wikipedia. Adding insult to injury is that the BLP policy requires a very high bar for inclusion! And still the dog got in. This content has no BLP implications! No matter how many RS support content, it will be suppressed if it is detrimental to liberal causes. – Lionel (talk) 03:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes my comparison to the dog incident was more to point out what has been happening here, and the double standards being applied to Obama and Romney articles. Basically the "Re-Elect Obama" folks working these articles outnumber the "Elect Romney" folks working them and that is being used to determine article content. Great way to make an encyclopedia. Of course the 29 year old dog ride incident is not the reason for inclusion of Solyndra. I first came here from a noticeboard where it was pointed out that at this article a group of people was essentially using their numbers to override wp:npov. When I first came here even my talk page comments pointing out the problem were deleted via warring. North8000 (talk) 10:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Space is an issue here, and I don't think you can justify several sentences for Solyndra when more significant policies get little or no attention in this article. Cash for Clunkers was a much larger program (six times larger), and more it was more successful, but there's only a link to the legislation. The automotive bailout was at least 100 times larger, and there's no mention of it. It also likely saved many more jobs than Solyndra lost. Even ARRA only has a few sentences. I don't see why we should devote space to an economically minor issue when much more important policies are given short shrift. I also object to the proposed text as POV. It reads as "Obama poured all this money into a company and said it would create jobs, but it went bankrupt everyone lost their jobs." Some investments go bad. This doesn't make scandal. (I realize there are other scandalous aspects of the story, but they aren't mentioned).--Bkwillwm (talk) 05:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Article size is an issue. Sure, paper doesn't matter--that's why its fine to have a Solyndra loan controversy article--but article length does matter and this article is already approaching the upper bounds of recommended length. Meanwhile, it gives little or not treatment to issues I identified as more significant(You're free to argue otherwise, but you've summarily dismissed my comment). The article still needs to cover the rest of this term and very likely a second one. I don't see a justification for giving a minor issue undue weight given the need to add more to this article at present and in the future.--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
And "what if" he can't get anything done due to GOP resistance and he doesn't have a "rest of this term?" And "what if" Mitt wins? (have you looked at Obama's polling?) No. We write what we have now. And if necessary use WP:SUMMARIZE. We don't write an article based on speculation about the future--especially when we're talking about the reelection chances of Obama. There is absolutely no reason to WP:CENSOR this article. The Solyndra incident has just too much coverage in RS to make any rational argument against inclusion. – Lionel (talk) 03:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
We don't write articles based on what ifs. WP:CRYSTAL. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose/Exclude - It's WP:RECENTISM. No one is going to look back at this 50 years from now and say "Gee... That whole Solyndra thing played a defining roles in BO's presidency". It's also WP:UNDUE. Sure there might be dozens of sources covering Solyndra's relationship to BO. There are hundreds that covering BO's relationship to Bo the dog. Should we include the dog in this article too? NickCT (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Per wp:npov, "played a defining role" is not the criteria that determines inclusion/exclusion, including due/undue. Coverage in sources does. North8000 (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Coverage makes it notable. A great volume of coverage, when compared to other topics related to the subject, makes it WP:DUE. Fact is, google testings "Obama Solyndra" yields 4,500 hits. Which makes it only slightly more popular than the white house dog. NickCT (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
And most of those hits are from blogs, Fox, Drudge, Newsmax, etc. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
WP:Notability is the standard for existence of a separate article, not inclusion of material within an article. The relevant standard for inclusion in a case like this is wp:npov which essentiall/roughly say that coverage (not notability) is the criteria. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Nobody quoted WP:NOTABILITY. WP:UNDUE (part of WP:NPOV) is relevant here. You've tried this argument in an earlier section of this talk page already. When someone keeps banging on about the same thing while ignoring the consensus, it's called being tendentious. Please stop it and move on. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Quit that nasty BS/crap in the last three sentences in your post. My posts are nothing of the sort. You are trying to imply that notability is a requirement for inclusion of this material and I am telling that such is not correct. And even if there was a consensus to exclude that, that can't override wp:npov. And you are quoting wp:npov/wp:undue implying that it supports your desire to exclude the material, but in fact it does the opposite. That was the noted problem situaiotn with this article at the noticeboard which originally brought me here, implying that (alleged or actual) "consensus" can override wp:npov. It can't. North8000 (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Where did I (or anyone, for that matter) imply that WP:NOTABILITY applies to this issue? And how have you managed to pervert the meaning of WP:NPOV to actually support your claim that this fauxtroversy is of significance when considering the entire Obama presidency? You need to take a step back and gain some perspective. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
@North8000 - re "coverage (not notability) is the criteria" - That's obviously sheninigans. Do you know how much "coverage" there is out there regarding Obama? We can't add it all. If WP:DUE/WP:NOTABLE is grounds for exclusion, what is? How do we decide what minutia doesn't go in? NickCT (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Solyndra will be relevant in 50 years. In any event, WP:RECENTISM is only an essay and we need a policy with a little more consensus to exclude content. And NickCT, your statement "We can't add it all" smacks of other-stuff-exists. We're only discussing Solyndra. WP:NOTABLE does not apply to article content--it only applies to AFDs. – Lionel (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
@Lionel - "Solyndra will be relevant in 50 years." - Oh come on.... Really? Watergate. Bay of Pigs. Monica Lewinsky. Iran Contra. These were major scandals which will remain notable over time. Solyndra ain't on par with those.
All I'm hearing are rationales for why content should be included. There has to be some policy that prevents trivia from cluttering major articles. Just answer one question : How do we decide what minutia doesn't go in? NickCT (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • There is no policy requiring content to be accusatory; nor that it be named "something-gate". Is this in WP:UNDUE? Because I didn't see it. – Lionel (talk) 04:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • What about the enormous coverage of Solyndra in reliable sources? I guess the sheer magnitude of the coverage doesn't count, right? – Lionel (talk) 04:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am trying to assume good faith, but Wikidemon you are making it very difficult. Right after the RFC was certified you were one of the first editors to voice support. Then, when you thought the RFC wsn't gong anywhere, you conveniently removed your support when you realized if noone else comments Solyndra would be added based on your !vote. Nice way to cover all of your bases. Now you've just removed the POV tag, when here [8] you state that this is a POV issue. I could be, let's say harsh about your conduct, but for now all I'll say is that the community expects consistency from its veteran editors. – Lionel (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    • You've been accusing editors here of bad faith here for several weeks now, so I'll ignore the rhetorical flourish. I removed my comment, commented again,[9] and removed the POV tag[10] for the exact reasons I stated, so no need to imagine some ulterior motive. It's allowed to be on the fence about a proposal, review it with an open mind, be convinced by the stronger argument, and insist on collaboration. Having reviewed the sources, it's a close call but there is enough there to establish due weight, and relevancy to Obama's presidency in the context of the politics of the stimulus package. That may reflect poorly on Obama, but so what? We're not here to praise or criticize a politician, but to explain subjects to readers in an encyclopedic way. That describes my position and approach here, which is how I think we're supposed to edit articles. We've got an RfC here, which is probably overkill for a single issue, but here we are. If consensus forms around adding the content it will be added, if it does not form it will not be added. A POV tag does nothing to help that, and is a disservice to the reader. It's only if you view the content and editors here through a pro-Obama versus anti-Obama lens that you can could see an editor favoring anti-Obama stuff sometimes and opposing it others as game-playing. It's a POV issue exactly because you made it one. You've stated several times that the article should have more negative material, and that both the article and its editors are editing out of bias, deliberately, by rejecting various items that happen to mirror anti-Obama talking points. You say you will counter the bias you perceive in the article by deliberately adding negative stuff. That's something you're bringing to the table, an approach that runs against collaboration and good editing practice. I was going to ask you to self-revert the POV tag but another editor already did that.[11] I don't think a POV tag will get very far per this, the most recent discussion on the subject at the main Obama article. If you are seeking a content outcome, sparring about behavior and edit warring over process are going to make consensus a lot less likely. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • NO VOTE NECESSARY - This is a heated topic to discuss especially in an election year. It is clear from many of the comments contained on this page which side of the fence many of you sit. Keep in mind that “Wikipedia operates on voting” is not entirely true (see “Wikipedia is not a democracy”). Wikipedia operates on consensus which should not be confused with voting. If voting was the only thing taken into consideration, each person could vote along their own personal lines of belief (left or right) and the majority would rule.
With that in mind, it is good to step away from our own personal beliefs (as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to express our own political points of view). It is also not about “Winning” so allowing other’s comments to run without debating them with our personal points of view is only harmful to the discussion (debating them with logical arguments based on Wikipedia policies is more helpful).
Now, looking at this outside of the political realm, there are a couple of questions that need to be answered in order to decide if the content should be included:
1. Is the information notable?
Wikipedia General Notability Guidelines states that there must be “significant coverage” in “reliable sources” that are “independent of the subject.” If this is the case, it is presumed notable. The fact that it is being debated so heavily makes it notable; however, take into consideration that this topic has passed notability guidelines for a stand-alone article, and as such it is clear and undisputed that the topic is notable.
2. Should the information be included in THIS particular article?
In order to determine the answer to this question, we need to look at other similar articles. George W. Bush has similar “controversy” information tied to his administration (see the sub articles for each term of office) as does Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. As this topic ( Solyndra) is tied to his presidency and there is plenty of independent reliable sources tying this to his presidency, it should be included in the article.
3. If the information is applicable to the article, can it be written in an unbiased matter to reflect the NPOV guidelines?
In order to make this happen, I would suggest reviewing the NPOV Tutorial and have a Rfc about the specific wording to be used in the aritlce. If a consensus cannot be reached, then take the topic to NPOV Notice Board for suggestions. Final Note – I see that many people are using Due and Undue Weight as an argument to exclude; however, keep in mind that this does not deal with the issue of who believes if his administration is involved with the controversy or not. It deals with the fact that it should represent ALL SIGNIFICANT VIEWPOINTS. The only viewpoint to consider is if it is tied to his administration, not if you agree or disagree with the topic. As NPOV seems to be the most common argument here, I would strongly suggest going to the Noticeboard if a consensus cannot be reached on the wording to contain within the article.--Morning277 (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
There are a couple fundamental flaws in that analysis. First, consensus is always necessary, as the opposite basically comes down to "I'm right and you're wrong". Second, it's not true by a longshot that every matter that is both notable and relevant to a subject gets covered in the main article about the subject. The issue we're grappling with is whether a criticism or controversy (or a talking point or smear) becomes part of a description of a politician's term in office merely because the opposition drums up a fuss over it. The answer across the encyclopedia, generally, has been no, and we have conventions like WP:WEIGHT and WP:COATRACK to explain that. If we did that, histories of governments would be long litanies of the opposition's obstructionist tactics. Here, the job of the politician isn't just to be elected but to govern. Whereas the daily news sources feed on the back and forth of partisan rivalries, we're covering the horse here, not the race. Whether the material goes primarily into the hierarchy of articles about governance, or the articles about politicking and campaigning, rests on whether this is a real issue affecting the running of the nation, or it is more of a political diversion. How high up and how prominently we cover it is a question of due weight. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I think that the political articles have fallen into bias by voting, via a double application of standards. The top level Romney article we have coverage that his dog rode in a cage on the roof 29 years ago. At the top level Tea Party article, we can't get rid of huge section on a twitter comment by a low level guy, or that somebody suspects that his BBQ grill got damaged by an unknown TP'er. , removals being blocked by solemn arguments of "it's covered in RS's, any attempt to remove is an attempted coverup etc.". Folks of the same political persuasion at this article make it so that even to get in a 1/2 $Billion dollar mistake which Obama was directly involved in which was extensively covered by sources requires immense man-hours in an RFC. No wonder this article is so lopsided! North8000 (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. That is one of my main points exactly. Politics needs to be set aside. When a political argument develops, many people will grab at straws to support their point of view. What should happen is that we look at the straws (the Wikipedia guidelines) and base our views (the article contents - unbiased of course) on that. What I mean is that we cannot look at whether or not we "personally" want to include the information based on our beliefs and then pull up whatever Wikipedia policy supports our view. We need to know the different Wikipedia guidelines and then determine if this information should be included based on those guidelines. There are policies that would support both arguments (if you simply pick and choose which policy suits each person's point of view); however, by looking at similar pages you can see that there is a consensus for similar articles that this type of information (in some form) should be included. That is why I strongly suggest that this go to the NPOV Notice Board. The discussion on this page seems to be getting off topic on whether or not the content should be included. The arguments are leaning too much towards discussion the political lines that each person supports. This is the opposite of what it should be as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a political debate venue. Just my thoughts. --Morning277 (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Agree, we should check those biases at the door; we have a job to do here. North8000 (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
If there is a problem with those other articles, go and fix them. Just because those articles have been edited to a lower standard doesn't mean this article needs to be dragged down to the same level. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I gave those as examples to establish some perspective for THIS article, to show far off base the "exlude due to weight" arguments given here are. North8000 (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
But as I said, about a million times, each article is independent so using other articles as "perspective" is absolutely irrelevant. My head is getting sore from bashing it up against the wall. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, political "baiting" such as THIS on my talk page only goes to show why this issue should go to NPOV Notice Board. If anyone wants to know my political points of view, ask me outside of Wikipedia. --Morning277 (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

  • With all due, you have no idea what was going on in TMCK's mind. Many editors mistakenly cite the "notability" policy to support content inclusion. Please only speak for yourself--speaking for other editors is against policy--you should know better. – Lionel (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Fascinating. I phrased my reasoning clear and simple and yet I get words stuffed up my throat. Maybe leave out any fantasy interpretation and take my words just as they are. So no, I made no mistake at all!TMCk (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion - Yet another attempt to attach a fringe controversy to a presidential campaign, nothing we don't see a million times during the political silly season. This article has been a notable haunt of Grundle for years. Tarc (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed wording

Per a discussion between me and User:William Jockusch above and on my talk page, here's a proposal to get the ball rolling on a mention of Solyndra that's of fairly moderate WP:WEIGHT, in the context of growing opposition to the stimulus / subsidy policies of the early years of the presidency. This isn't meant to be an up / down vote, but a starting point: if we are to agree this should be in the article, how to do it in the most relevant, informative way? (Links are inline for ease of discussion; feel free to make changes / edits) - Wikidemon (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The failure of solar panel maker Solyndra, which had been championed by the Obama administration and backed by $535 million in federal loan guarantees,[12] became a matter of controversy amidst growing conservative opposition[13] to federal economic stimulus and energy subsidy policies.[14]
or...
The failure of Solyndra, a solar panel maker backed by $535 million in federal loan guarantees as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, was exploited by Republicans attempting to undermine the Obama administration.
-- Scjessey (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment A few of the points Demon and I worked through to get this far. We felt that the number of jobs created was not the heart of the story and should not be included. We have some wording that does bring up the issue that is, we both feel, relatively non-partisan. Yet we do link to some rather critical (of Obama and of the policy) stories, so that information is available to the reader, if he or she wants to go there. William Jockusch (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
The problem with that is that we don't provide otherwise non-RS links simply to "make the information available." That goes against some of the core principals of Wikipedia. Inline citations are for references only (and must follow WP:RS, WP:V and WP:BLP), and external links are to be used very, very sparingly. Generally they just go to official websites of the subject and highly reliable general interest articles about the subject to give a little more depth. They're never used to counter-weight the article with praise or criticism or to "get the information out there." --Loonymonkey (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment If mention is warranted, it should be brief and neutral, something along the lines of the first one above. I'm not sure if this is the correct article, though. Really, it's primarily a campaign issue (as Romney has made it a focus of his campaign) and is noteworthy only because of criticism by the opposition. The criticism did not follow a "scandal" in the press, the criticism is the scandal. But this article is about the noteworthy things that the administration did, not the things that supporters or opponents said about them. Absent the criticism, this is no more notable than the Master Lock factory or any of the so-called success stories which Obama touts. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Investment in private companies as part of a government program or a stimulus package is normal and happens in every administration. Most of these businesses are successful but some inevitably fail. As governor, Romney invested millions in Massachusetts funds into solar companies and two of them have failed. All the controversy over Solyndra arose because of Republicans trying to exploit this particular failure for political gain, so really it's a matter for campaign-related articles. I would not support any inclusion, no matter how neutrally-worded, because it would be both inappropriate and undue weight. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
We can address Romney's doings in the Romney article, right? News is the business of covering important exceptional events. If there's a one-week transit strike, news reports don't devote 51/52 of their coverage to the weeks when the workers showed up as usual. We follow the coverage, and this particular event arguably did get significant coverage in the context of Obama's administration. Indeed, it is a campaign issue and should appear in the campaign article(s). It can also fairly be covered in this article, both as a campaign event (the most important campaign milestones are milestones in the presidency too) and as part of a sea change by which Obama was no longer able to get his stimulus and subsidy programs through Congress (which directly affects policy). Incidentally, the Reason article is chosen as a relatively sober and well reasoned statement of the conservative critique. We can and do sometimes choose opinion pieces in order to illustrate what those opinions are. It's not crucial, but that is an encyclopedic service to the reader, and it's backed by a direct cite for the proposition that there was partisan opposition.- Wikidemon (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
No, the Romney stuff I mentioned only to illustrate that this particular thing is a non-issue. It belongs in the campaign articles of both gentlemen, if anywhere, but this article is for material that defines Obama's presidency. I cannot agree that it has a place here. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Closing sock comments, WP:DENY, etc. Loonymonkey
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment It should not mention what the Republicans said about it. This article is about Obama's presidency, not Republican politics.
A proper summary must include all of these facts from Solyndra loan controversy:
  • Obama gave Solyndra a $535 million loan guarantee, and estimated it would create 4,000 new jobs
  • Instead of creating 4,000 new jobs, the company went bankrupt, and taxpayers had to pay the $535 million
  • High ranking Solyndra executives had made large donations to Obama's campaign, and Solyndra had spent a lot on lobbying
Those are the reasons this is notable. It's not about the Republicans reaction to it. Instead, it's about what Obama did.
I don't care how it's worded specifically, as long as all of those points are included.
3328lzc (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Consensus

Says North8000, "this does not even require consensus." Yes, it does require consensus, along with everything on Wikipedia. Outrageous. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

No it is not outrageous. The material is germane, has extensive coverage in sources; wp:npov dictates that it be included and not excluded. Even though it appears the is a consensus FOR inclusion, it does not require consensus to implement something clearly required by wp:npov. North8000 (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
If you didn't know, User:3328lzc is a sock of Grundle2600. The revert was correct as he's a banned user. --Bsadowski1 18:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
What consensus are you seeing? There is definitely not a consensus for inclusion that I am seeing. Quite the opposite in fact. And the NPOV issue should be used for exclusion, not inclusion. There are no accusations by any officials that the Obama Administration did anything wrong, there are many loans given by the government each year, and some fail. There is nothing to this, except for a campaign issue raised by detractors. If it becomes a bigger issue in the campaign, perhaps it should be included there. Right now, it's not even relevant enough for that. Dave Dial (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
North8000, if you're claiming that there is a consensus for you to repeatedly re-add the terrible edits of a banned sockpuppet, you're mistaken on so many levels. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
That's not what I said. In case the error was due to your computer display malfunctioning, here's an extra copy of what I DID say: The material is germane, has extensive coverage in sources; wp:npov dictates that it be included and not excluded. Even though it appears the is a consensus FOR inclusion, it does not require consensus to implement something clearly required by wp:npov. North8000 (talk) 11:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
This is a common error seen in new editors' understanding (or lack thereof) of WP:NPOV, rather rare to see it in an experienced one. NPOV is not achieved by simply balancing the good data with the bad criticisms. Tarc (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Not sure what you meant, and it does not seem related to my comment which was above the coverage-based provisions established by wp:npov. While I believe the goal here has been the imbalance, (including trying to keep all controversies out) the correction prescribed by wp:npov (which I referred to) is based on coverage, not simple balance. North8000 (talk) 16:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I cannot understand how you could possibly draw the conclusion that you have a consensus for inclusion. Do you have some sort of script running that ignores the comments of certain editors? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Admittedly that part is arguable, but please note the operative statement of the sentence that you took that from. North8000 (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
The key things to understand here are (a) you need a consensus to include, and (b) you don't have a consensus to include. Your interpretation of WP:NPOV is flawed, as is your interpretation of "extensive coverage" and "germane". -- Scjessey (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Disagree. My understanding of relevant policy: WP:DUE says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." It has been asserted above that this has fairly moderate weight. Given that "fairly moderate weight" (which I take as an evaluation of its prominence in verifiable sources) implies that it is a "significant viewpoint", neutrality requires that it be fairly represented, providing that the sources reporting it are considered reliable in that reportage. I don't get the sense from the discussion above that the reliability of sources or the reliability of individual reportages is a matter of contention here. Given that the sources and reportages are not considered unreliable by editorial consensus, and given that the prominence of reportages in reliable sources meets the "significant viewpoint" test, NPOV:DUE requires that each mainspace articles fairly represent the viewpoint. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
If there is consensus that it does, yes. If the consensus is that the material is not of due weight, then no. It doesn't have to, and in fact shouldn't, be an NPOV matter. Somebody stuck WP:DUE in the WP:NPOV policy but DUE is about a lot more than just avoiding bias. It's also about giving each relevant fact the right amount of coverage, regardless of whether that fits with somebody's point of view or not. The reason I bring it up is that when people start to see things as positive or negative, that injects POV into the discussion and it can become a morass. Best to simply consider the fact by itself: the involvement of the Obama administration in the Solyndra affair because a cause among Republicans / detractors of the President, rallying them to stymie efforts for further stimulus / energy credits. Is that a significant enough event in the scope of the Presidency that it bears mention, yes or no? The fact that some people see that as a negative towards Obama doesn't give it an extra boost to be included as a "significant viewpoint". That would be a perverse result, that NPOV would demand we lean in favor of including controversial material pro or con over uncontroversial material. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
That may be how you think it should read, but it isn't how it reads. And in this particular case, you are arguing on the side of continuing the heavy POV that this article exhibits. The "consensus needed to add" thing that several keep saying here simply does not exist. Not only is such a claim to the right to override wp:npov, but also (since a consensus sort of means an overwhelming "majority") such would be a recipe for a small POV group to be able to block the addition of any material, which is how I think that this article got as tilted as it is. The thinking of a few folks here is so far and blatantly off base that I think that a visit to the wp:npov noticeboard is needed to at least get that one narrow point straight. North8000 (talk) 11:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
No, Wikidemon is exactly right about this. Because you have bought your politics into your thinking, you see this trivial nothing of a story as a way to "balance" what you see as an article that seems too positive for your liking. If you would just step out of your partisan skin for a moment and think objectively, you would see how "blatantly off base" you have become. I mean seriously, dude. How can you possibly think this Solyndra thing is significant to the presidency? It is absolutely significant in the context of the election campaign, but not to the presidency itself. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm really talking about two different things at once. One is the non-existent policies and right-to-override wp:npov that the core of advocates here keeps stating. That is the narrower topic which I think needs a trip to the noticeboard to straighten out. What is being promulgated here by a few advocates in that respect is so far off base that I think that that trip would clear up that narrow topic pretty quickly. The other is the broader topic of general state of the article which could be considered a matter of opinion. North8000 (talk) 12:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Nobody is talking about overriding NPOV. You perceive it as thus because you don't think the article is neutral, but most regular editors of this article do think it is neutral. That being said, consensus and WP:BLP can (and should) override pretty much anything. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
That makes no sense. You just keep hurling insulting things that don't even respond to or follow the conversation. Unless you post something that is really germane and responsive to the actual conversation, I won't be responding to you any further in this thread. North8000 (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I opened this thread in the first place, so I'm pretty sure I know what is germane to it. I opened it because you seem to think consensus is irrelevant and the article isn't neutral unless you can ignore that consensus to add trivial, partisan crap in the name of "balance". -- Scjessey (talk) 12:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

So, I posted before, don't know if it was unnoticed or uneeded. Either way, I will just say again, as a 3rd party asked to comment by RFC, I would agree with wikidemon that a short mention is probably worth noting. One or two sentences ought to do the trick. Soxwon (talk) 00:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Protected

Per the recent rapid edit war between multiple parties over the above issue, I have fully protected the article for one week. The admin that closes this RFC may lift the protection once the RFC has run its course and it is clear that edit warring will stop. --Jayron32 18:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Please consider unprotecting promptly, as there is no edit war. There were two related sock accounts[15][16] followed by a single editor reverting the sock edits under claim (false in both cases) that consensus is both established and unnecessary.[17] Please consider restricting those making disruptive edits, rather than allowing them to hold a relatively important article about a fast-moving subject hostage while we consider a request to add disputed content. That's the point of having the Obama articles under probation, a higher than usual standard for good behavior so that we can keep going. They're going to have to wait 30 days for the RfC to conclude as it is, best tell them to respect that instead of excluding the rest of us from normal editing. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I was getting ready to post the same comments as Wikidemon. I would add that locking an article down because a banned sockpuppet was repeatedly reverted is simply rewarding the bad behavior. What will happen when the page protection expires? Will you lock it down again when the sockpuppet returns (as he always does). Please consider unprotecting this article immediately. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Administrator efforts should be spent on finding Grundle's hidey hole and dropping some napalm in it, not giving him what he wants. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
You know that accusing North8000 of being a sockpuppet of Grundle is beyond the pale; I see no evidence that he is. --Jayron32 21:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Who accused North8000 of being a sock account? - Wikidemon (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Jayron32, I don't believe anyone accused North8000 of being a sock of Grundle, in fact, I'm sure that he's not. But two (now blocked) Grundle socks added the same material that he always adds and were reverted both times. Then North8000 reverted the reversion (re-adding the sock's material) and was reverted by another editor. So, taking the sock out of the equation you have one addition and one revert. That's hardly an edit war and certainly not enough to warrant locking a page down. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. North8000 is not a sock. He's just a sock enabler. </sarcasm> -- Scjessey (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
There has indeed been an ongoing problem with Grundle[18] and some of the other socks fomenting dissent[19] and edit wars among editors who swallow their bait in good faith, but really ought to know better. North8000 came to this article, by their own account from an NPOV noticeboard discussion.[20][21] After the point was already made[22] that the complaint was initiated[23] by a Grundle sock.[24] North2800 nevertheless joined the fray with their idiosyncratic interpretation of NPOV,[25] and came to this page to complain and agitate.[26] They've also edit warred nonconsensus changes[27] (complaining in their edit summary that their own accusations of bad faith,[28] over WP:DENY deletions[29] of material contributed by yet another Grundle sock[30] were in turn deleted as unhelpful). There's a bunch of other disruptive stuff, utterly not conducive to consensus editing and collaboration, differences pending if it ever comes to that. So yes, it is fair to say that North8000 is here to voice discontent at the urging of a sock. Grundle himself has not antagonized people or called them names, and is quite a courteous chap despite his his many uninvited appearances here. But he has suckered some people into causing trouble. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that there are more said "hidey holes" than a sieve. This includes a /12 range, a /13, a /15, a /16, two /17s, a /18, and two /20s. He's going to come back on another range, and it would be insane, even with someone with a banhammer like mine, to block them all. We know Grundle2600 is going to continue, and he knows it. Perhaps keeping him banned is not the answer. --MuZemike 21:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Well if he were to be unbanned, ArbCom should attach the proviso that it's okay for everyone to treat him like shit if they wish. </sarcasm> -- Scjessey (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't know anything about banned users or socks, but the material was beyond appropriate. North8000 (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Not really. Setting aside the various issues raised in prior discussion threads about the subject itself, the paragraph that you added back in was ridiculously non-NPOV, full of weasel words, stated opinion as fact and contained factual inaccuracies. Further, it is standard policy to revert the edits of banned sockpuppets. You may not have realized you were aiding a sockpuppet when you did it, but your edit was still inappropriate, particularly given that it comes in the middle of the discussion and without consensus (you can't claim that you "don't need consensus" as you did in your edit summary, you always need consensus). --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Your last sentence is not correct. You can't say that consensus is needed to add material which is mandated by wp:npov, which this article is in massive violation of. I know that people have been trying to assert that, and have probably been getting away with it at this article, which is probably how it got as bad as it is. I originally came here because such behavior was at a noticeboard, and I can see that it continues. Sincerley, North8000 (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
This is a complete non-issue. You absolutely must have consensus to add disputed material. You can't break ranks in the middle of an RfC to edit war on the theory that you're right, no matter what anyone else thinks. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sorry, North8000, you're incorrect. Consensus is always required. That's how Wikipedia works, and with good reason. Please read WP:CONSENSUS for further explanation on this. Additionally, see WP:BURDEN. As the editor seeking to add or restore material, the burden is on you to achieve consensus. So far you haven't done so and you're unlikely to if, instead of making coherent arguments for your position, you just keep repeatedly announcing that you don't need consensus because you like it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Since you are misstating what I said, so I can see we're not having a real conversation. I said that wp:npov dictates that it being in there. Germane, and immensely covered in sources. And you come back with the crap that the insertion basis was the you like it. crap. It is impossible to have an intelligent conversation with someone who is behaving in that manner. North8000 (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Nothing dictates that content must be added to an article. Wikipedians tried hard, years ago, to agree on the standard for including article content and never got there. The closest they got is a set of principles, that articles should explain the subject in an encyclopedic manner to the interested lay reader, that they should consist of material that is sourced to be of due importance and relevancy to the subject of the article and why it is notable, and so on. One rule is that the article must be told from a neutral point of view. Interpreting all of these is a matter of consensus. You (North8000) say that NPOV demands that we include certain material for the reasons you state. Others say that NPOV demands we omit the material for various reasons they give. The only way of resolving a difference like that here is through the consensus process. The alternative isn't quite ILIKEIT but is something similar, IMRIGHTANDYOURWRONG. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Alright. So I will be unprotecting this, under the following conditions:
1) Anyone who adds any information about this topic while the RFC is active, and before consensus is determined may be blocked.
2) Anyone who removes any information about this topic while the RFC is active, even if it was added in violation of #1, before consensus is determined may be blocked.
3) Anyone who comes to my talk page, the talk page of another administrator, ANI, AN, any drama-board, or similar, to report anyone else or request that another person be sanctioned, may themselves be blocked.
4) Anyone who complains that someone else deserves to be blocked for anything they do in regard to this issue, may themselves be blocked.
Let me make this clear, there is not a single person involved in this matter whose behavior makes them appear to be in the right, regardless of where they stand. There will be no more bad acting with regard to this article by anyone, and that includes trying to get one's perceieved enemies blocked. Work it out like adults, here, on the talk page. The sniping, tattling, fighting, and silliness over this article has gone on long enough. Just quit it. --Jayron32 17:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
The problem with that is that it ignores the central problem, which is that this article is a frequent target of a very disruptive sockpuppet, Grundle2600. You seem to be suggesting that his edits and the efforts to clean up his edits carry equal weight, as it this were a regular content dispute. Are you suggesting that when Grundle returns (which he will) you will block anyone who reverts him? Or that you will block anyone who reports his new socks? On what grounds would you block editors who are following policy and reporting or reverting a sockpuppet? --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I have suggested nothing of the sort. Look up the definition of the word "may". I never used the word "will". --Jayron32 17:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
No, that doesn't work. You seem to have trouble admitting a mistake? - Wikidemon (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
What mistake are you accusing me of? --Jayron32 18:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Of threatening to block people who are following policy and protecting an article from sockpuppets. That's clearly a mistake, and if you were to do so (regardless of whether it's a "may" or a "will"), it would be met with a very strong reaction by the community. As it is, the mere suggestion of it is a mistake as it will have a chilling effect on editors who are working in good faith to maintain the integrity of this article. The application of your threat would be a terrible, terrible mistake. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I have never once said I would block anyone for any such thing. What I have told you to do is to not fight with other editors over the content of this article in the article space. What you should be doing is achieving consensus as part of the above RFC before adding or removing content. I have made no mention at all of sockpuppets. You brought that matter up. --Jayron32 19:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I think it is pretty clear from the above discussion that (a) Jayron32 would take a dim view of any sort of edit warring, gaming, forum shopping and unnecessary drama, and (b) it doesn't extend to the usual business of Grundle2600 whack-a-mole. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
If it doesn't apply to sockpuppets, that should have been explicitly stated. And if you take the sockpuppet out of the equation, there's very little to get worked up about. Look back at the chain of events. You locked down this article in response to a series of reverts against the sockpuppet (and a single revert of an editor who re-added the sockpuppet's material for his own purposes). That was the first mistake, you misinterpreted that series of reverts against the sock as an edit-war. But then you doubled down. With the edit summary "Daddy's gonna tan some hides..." you announce that "Anyone who removes any information about this topic while the RFC is active, even if it was added in violation..." can be blocked. Or that "Anyone who comes to my talk page, the talk page of another administrator, ANI, AN, any drama-board, or similar, to report anyone else or request that another person be sanctioned, may themselves be blocked." That's ridiculous. We both know that you can't block an editor that is otherwise following WP:CIVILITY and WP:NPA for going to other admins or bringing something up on noticeboards. Those admins and noticeboards can deal with it if it's frivolous. See, that's where these kind of threats are particularly dangerous. Less experienced editors will not know that you do not actually have any higher status or Sergeant-like authority, that you're not a cop, you're just a guy with a mop and bucket. How will they react to such threats? Most likely by leaving this article and this subject alone entirely for fear of being blocked just for "complaining." That's the chilling effect. Splitting hairs over "may" vs. "will" is irrelevant at that point. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Who exactly are you accusing of being a sock? You know, you can't keep playing the "Grundle card" every time someone disagrees with you. It gets old after so many years. It couldn't possibly be that more than one person on Earth, could actually hold a view opposite of your own, could it? If you suspect someone of sock puppetry , then file a report, otherwise you need to stop your tendentious attitude and start trying offer compromise solutions.JOJ Hutton 20:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, Loonymonkey, which sock of Grundle are you currently having problems with? And, for the record, I took care of the most recent Grundle socks well before this was protected. I only protected the article when non-Grundle people started participating, and when people started reverting non-Grundle people. The protection has nothing at all to do with Grundle. The Grundle issue was handled before this had to be protected. Wikidemon said he would rather that the edit war was dealt with through blocks rather than protection, you concurred, and then I removed the protection and said that I would block people for bad-faith editing. You then complained about that. So which is it: do you, Loonymonkey, want to be prevented from editing warring at this article through protecting it, or do you wish to be prevented from edit warring by being blocked? --Jayron32 20:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I haven't accused anyone of being a sock, I'm not sure where you got that. And I haven't been edit-warring, so it's odd that you would threaten to block me after simply stating my opinion. But I stand by that opinion and I'm allowed to state it. Threatening to block editors engaged in bad behavior is one thing, but the threat was far too broad and could easily be misinterpreted. I would consider clarifying it for less experienced editors. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
If you have no intention of edit warring, don't know of any sockpuppet accounts that need blocking, and do not intend to use the noticeboards in bad faith to get people you disagree with into trouble, I don't understand what your problem is. Nothing you have done yet, and nothing you have expressed an interest in doing so far, would ever be something I would block you for. If, however, you started a) edit warring b) trying to find an admin to block someone who you were actively edit warring with c) trying to find an admin to block someone just so that you could revert their edits in order to sneakily edit war with them after they were blocked d) other means of gaming the system or forum shopping to attempt to gain the upper hand against people who you disagree with over the editing of this article over this specific RFC issue, then you may have a problem. You know what will never get you blocked? Calm, reasoned discussion on the talk page whereby you present evidence in a neutral manner that your particular version of the article should be the one shown to the public. As long you continue to do that, you're fine and in the clear. --Jayron32 21:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification, that's all I was asking for. Of course I'm in the clear. That was never a concern because I follow policy. As I said, I was concerned with clearing it up for everyone, particularly the less experienced editors who are trying to do right. I don't want them scared off from this (or any) article by a few overly-broad threats and a hostile tone. Honestly, I have no idea who you're referring to as having engaged in that behavior, it's not readily apparent from looking at this page and the individual edit histories, but it sounds like something that could have been handled on an individual basis, not by throwing accusations at everyone involved in this page. We're on the same side here, clearly this is just a series of misunderstandings that could have been diffused earlier. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps we're having a failure to communicate here. I am not advocating for anybody to be blocked. I used the word "restricting" - that's the fifth or sixth misreading of words on this page all around, so let's assume reasonableness here in addition to assuming good faith, rather than assuming everyone in the community is an adult child who needs to be rebuked and threatened. I'm saying that it's crucial to figure out where the problem lies and deal with those edits/editors directly without undue disruption to the rest of the community. In this case North8000 made an edit that was by any reasonable measure out of line. Not everybody here, not drama, but a single editor following some Grundle socks. They seem to be editing in good faith, and genuinely if incorrectly believe that they're entitled to do that, so one possible approach is to educate them authoritatively not to: (1) edit war (2) nonconsensus edits (3) in support of a sockpuppet (4) in the middle of an RfC on the subject. If naming or warning North8000 by name is too provocative, it's enough to say to everybody that they shouldn't add the material proposed in the RfC until the RfC reaches a conclusion. Nobody is playing a "Grundle card", Grundle has been very active here lately and we simply need to deal with it. Blocking the obvious Grundle socks is a sure first step but: (1) he'll surely be back, soon, and often, (2) not all of his socks are detected and blocked quickly, and (3) the discord he's created in the form of accusations, disputes, and edit wars takes some time to die down, particularly in case #2, but really ought to be kept in check per DENY/DFTT. The history of the Obama pages and Obama article probation is of illegitimate / fake editors, and perhaps a few hotheads, making life utterly miserable for the balance of the community, and administrative process giving troublemakers another venue to pile up yet more angst and inconvenience on the legitimate editors. Article probation, and the no-nonsense quick response that sometimes came with it, was a big improvement. As for mistakes, that's better to discuss on your talk page because it's off topic. The best give-and-take here is that we should bring concerns to your attention (or the nearest available administrator) if the community is having trouble dealing on its own, or matters that you may have missed, and you act in your experience and at your discretion. Right now there's no active disruption to stop so no need for any specific action. It really is just an RfC, though. Let it run, and let's try to avoid any edit wars or accusations against other editors. Hope this clarifies things. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
You have said nothing that I have disagreed with yet. Regarding your no-nonsense quick response, I did that. As soon as the first non-Grundle-related edits around this issue occured, the article was protected. And you disagreed about it instantly. My only point, indeed the only stipulation that I have on this matter, is that the only correct way to deal with this problem is to have a reasoned discussion whereby various parties make their case for their preferred version of the article, sit back patiently while others do the same, and then allow the RFC to run its course. One should not try any other method, at all, to see that their prefered version gets shown to the public. There is absolutely no reason for people who are involved in this conflict to make any edit in the article space, in the positive or the negative, regarding this current RFC, until after the RFC has reached its conclusion. "He started it" is not an exemption to this. --Jayron32 23:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Good! Thanks for clarifying. One slight difference. I'm proposing that we do include the material in the end, but out of process edits ought to be reverted until there's agreement. You'll find that anything else is a invites mischief. I'm pretty gun-shy about actually doing it, I usually just watch and comment about it on the talk page. We'll see in due course, if anyone is so brash. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment I received an RFC request on my page yesterday. After reviewing the above discussion and the sources (as well as doing some research on my own), I believe that the material in question represents a verifiable incident, but agree with Wikidemon that it is a minor controversy at best. I would suggest one or two sentences at most, something along these lines:

The solar panel maker Solyandra, became a point of controversy following its filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The company received 535 million in federal loan guarantees as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

Simple and to the point. Soxwon (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


Closing likely sock comments, WP:DENY, etc. Loonymonkey
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Proposed text

I propose that the following text be added to this article:

In 2009 the Obama administration gave a $535 million loan guarantee to Solyndra, with the promise that it would create 4,000 new jobs. However, instead of creating those 4,000 new jobs, the company went bankrupt. It was later revealed that the company's shareholders and executives had made substantial donations to Obama's campaign, that the company had spent a large sum of money on lobbying, and that Solyndra executives had had many meetings with White House officials.[1][2][3][4][5]

It was also revealed that the Obama administration had already been aware of Solyndra's financial troubles. For example, according to the company's security filings in 2009, the company had been selling its product for less than the cost of production.[6]

In September 2011, federal agents visited the homes of Brian Harrison, the company's CEO, and Chris Gronet, the company's founder, to examine computer files and documents.[7] Also in September 2011, the U.S. Treasury Department launched an investigation.[8]

On September 13, 2011, the Washington Post reported on emails which showed that the Obama administration had tried to rush federal reviewers to approve the loan so Vice President Joe Biden could announce it at a September 2009 groundbreaking for the company’s factory. The company was a hallmark of President Obama's plan to support clean energy technologies.[9]

The New York Times reported that government auditors and industry analysts had faulted the Obama administration for failing to properly evaluate the company's business proposals, as well as for failing to take note of troubling signs which were already evident. In addition, Frank Rusco, a program director at the Government Accountability Office, had found that the preliminary loan approval had been granted before officials had completed the legally mandated evaluations of the company.[10]

The New York Times quoted Shyam Mehta, a senior analyst at GTM Research, as saying "There was just too much misplaced zeal at the Department of Energy for this company." Among 143 companies that had expressed an interest in getting a loan guarantee, Solyndra was the first one to get approval. During the period when Solyndra’s loan guarantee was under review, the company had spent nearly $1.8 million on lobbying. Tim Harris, the CEO of Solopower, a different solar panel company which had obtained a $197 million loan guarantee, told the New York Times that his company had never considered spending any money on lobbying, and that "It was made clear to us early in the process that that was clearly verboten... We were told that it was not only not helpful but it was not acceptable."[10]

The Washington Post reported that Solyndra had used some of the loan money to purchase new equipment which it never used, and then sold that new equipment, still in its plastic wrap, for pennies on the dollar. Former Solyndra engineer Lindsey Eastburn told the Washington Post, "After we got the loan guarantee, they were just spending money left and right... Because we were doing well, nobody cared. Because of that infusion of money, it made people sloppy."[11]

On September 29, 2011, the Washington Post reported that the Obama administration had continued to allow Solyndra to receive taxpayer money even after it had defaulted on its $535 million loan.[12]

On October 7, 2011, The Washington Post reported that newly revealed emails showed that Energy Department officials had been warned that their plan to help Solyndra by restructuring the loan might be illegal, and should be cleared with the Justice Department first. However, Energy Department officials moved ahead with the restructuring anyway, with a new deal that would repay company investors before taxpayers if the company were to default. The emails showed concerns within the Obama administration about the legality of the Energy Department's actions. In addition, an Energy Department stimulus adviser, Steve Spinner, had pushed for the loan, despite having recused himself because his wife's law firm had done work for the company.[13]

In January 2012, CBS News reported that Solyndra had thrown millions of dollars worth of brand new glass tubes into garbage dumpsters, where they ended up being shattered. Solyndra told CBS that it had conducted an exhaustive search for buyers of the glass tubes, and that no one had wanted them. However, CBS discovered that Solyndra had not offered the glass tubes for sale at either one of its two asset auctions that took place in 2011. In addition, David Lucky, a buyer and seller of such equipment, told CBS that he would have bought the tubes if he had had a chance to do so. Greg Smestad, a solar scientist who had consulted for the Department of Energy, also agreed that the tubes had value, and had asked Solyndra to donate any unwanted tubes to Santa Clara University. Smestad stated, "That really makes me sad... Those tubes represent intellectual investment. These could have had a better value to do public good. I think they owed the U.S. taxpayer that."[14]

In April 2012, CBS News reported that Solyndra had left a substantial amount of toxic waste at its abandoned facility in Milpitas, California.[15]

  1. ^ Obama fundraiser linked to loan program that aided Solyndra, Los Angeles Times, September 16, 2011
  2. ^ Solyndra Spent Liberally to Woo Lawmakers Until the End, Records Show, New York Times, September 16, 2011
  3. ^ Bankrupt solar company with fed backing has cozy ties to Obama admin, The Daily Caller, September 1, 2011
  4. ^ Solar Energy Company Touted By Obama Goes Bankrupt, ABC News, August 31, 2011
  5. ^ Obama's Crony Capitalism, Reason, September 9, 2011
  6. ^ Loan Was Solyndra's Undoing, Wall St. Journal, September 16, 2011
  7. ^ Feds Visit Homes of Solyndra CEO, Execs, ABC News, September 8, 2011
  8. ^ Solyndra Loan: Now Treasury Dept. Is Launching Investigation, ABC News, September 8, 2011
  9. ^ Solyndra loan: White House pressed on review of solar company now under investigation, Washington Post, September 13, 2011
  10. ^ a b In Rush to Assist a Solar Company, U.S. Missed Signs, New York Times, September 22, 2011
  11. ^ Solyndra employees: Company suffered from mismanagement, heavy spending, Washington Post, September 20, 2011
  12. ^ Chu takes responsibility for a loan deal that put more taxpayer money at risk in Solyndra, Washington Post, September 29, 2011
  13. ^ Solyndra loan deal: Warning about legality came from within Obama administration, Washington Post, October 7, 2011
  14. ^ Bankrupt Solyndra Caught Destroying Brand New Parts, CBS News, January 19, 2012
  15. ^ Solyndra Not Dealing With Toxic Waste At Milpitas Facility, CBS News, April 28, 2012

John 439256 (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


Just in case it's not clear from the general discussion, I support the version Demon and I worked up. I think the WP:WEIGHT is right. The version fairly summarizes the controversy without going into unnecessary detail. The links to the detail make that information available if the reader wants to go there, which I think is fair. I believe WP:NOTABILITY is clear from the sources here and in the Solyndra Controversy article. I also believe that the controversy is not sufficiently prominent to support a more extensive discussion in this article. I don't know if there is WP for this, but I also believe our version represents a fair middle ground between those who want to omit the controversy and those who want to describe it more extensively. And the fact that we were able to agree on it, with our differing personal POVs, speaks for itself. Also, I don't know how these things are supposed to work in terms of multiple postings -- am I supposed to remove my earlier top-level answer, now that I've posted this one?William Jockusch (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Include - but in context - [from uninvolved editor; invited by RfC bot] - The topic has received tremendous coverage in the press, so it should be in the article. But rather than make the controversy the primary topic of the sentence, instead it should be worded something like: "The administration supported loan guarantees for green energy companies such as AAA and BBB; loans to Solyndra resulted in criticism of the loan program when Solyndra went bankrupt.". Presenting both sides (successful companies AAA and BBB) and presenting the fact (loan guarantee program) before the controversy) should help conform to the NPOV policy. --Noleander (talk) 02:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Presidency_of_Barack_Obama/Archive_5&oldid=1137096677"