This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Why is the Obama Cabinet- template only half-filled? It includes only some of the secretary nominees Obama has made. ABC101090 ( talk) 23:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
What were the three documents he signed right after he sat down, after the inauguration ceremony? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.202.89.108 (
talk)
18:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Is this really a current event? Presumably he will be president for the next 4 years, with new developments practically every day. How long do we plan to have that template up there? -- causa sui talk 00:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I have merged information from the discontinued "Barack Obama's first 100 days"-page, per the AfD discussion. I have also made a thorough rewrite, so as to avoid crystal balling, and simply report on the centrality of the term and public expectations of the period. Lampman ( talk) 20:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I added information regarding the pay freeze and stricter lobbying rules he's announced on his first day, but I'm not happy with the way I've worded it. So if anyone can make it sound a bit better, please do. Umbralcorax ( talk) 21:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Morning- I'm wondering if it would be prudent, considering the President's proclivity for instituting frequent, substantive, effectual Executive Orders, to make a sub-heading or list of the Order's with a brief summary for each.
Hello-
I changed "Legislative Action" to "Actions and Accomplishments". The term "Legislative Action" does not really apply here, and a more broad range of the president's actions can be described here.
I hope people will continue to update this section as the president continues to make history.
InterwebUsr (
talk)
23:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
hello-
President Obama repealed executive order 13233 of Nov 2001, which preserved executive privilege beyond 12 years, and authorized review of former president Bush's presidential records which he had claimed executive privilege. this means that if President Obama decided Bush's privileged records are not a matter of national security, he may disclose such information notwithstanding the former presidents claim of privilege.
the order is available here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ExecutiveOrderPresidentialRecords/
I do not know how to edit wikipedia. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.73.6.131 (
talk)
07:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
It's true that right-margin items being stacked through the use of "fixBunching" must be of approximately the same width in order not to cause excess blank space. This is because the fix puts all these stacked items together into a unified column. To rectify this problem, I've now moved the right-margin Obama cabinet table down the page. Please note that until "fixBunching," my friend's browser on his Apple would show no edit buttons for each section; instead all of the article's section buttons were bunched together toward the bottom of the page. "FixBunching" provides the standard fix for this problem. For more info, see Template:fixBunching. ↜Just me, here, now … 03:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
In this article, this sentence struck out to me as a POV misstep:
"but the Bush Administration still supported the torture of prisoners of war and other federal detainees, as former Vice-President Dick Cheney admitted in a December 2008 interview"
In order to keep it npov, I would suggest changing it to harsh tactics. Thoughts? Rapmanej ( talk) 08:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Based on a suggestion on Talk:Barack Obama, a new baby Wikiproject has been formed:
Please check it out, watchlist it, join and sign up. Let's get some GAs and FAs going out of this! :) rootology ( C)( T) 20:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that it makes the most sense to have a broad section on his Presidency and subsections dealing with foreign policy and domestic policy to allow for easy research. Researchers shouldn't have to read through the entire article to determine actions by the administration that deal with a specific issue. I would like to see a more detailed review of these issues but I don't have a lot of time to do so. I hope others will add to the foreign policy section, create a domestic policy section. Edward Lalone | ( Talk) 22:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I think this section should be expanded; as of now it just says that he hasn't nominated any Supreme Court justices, so the cabinet template extends farther down into the next sections than it should. In my opinion, there should be information about his claims to "the most transparent administration in history," his ethics reforms, etc.. There also needs to be something about the confirmations of all his appointees.. Then when he does nominate justices, we can make a subheading like all the other Presidency articles do. After expanding it more, I think a br clear:all should be added so the template does not stretch into the next section.. -- Dudemanfellabra ( talk) 20:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
←Oppose I do not feel it is necessary or appropriate to remove cabinet nomination information from First 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency. I don't even think that article is suppose to have that level of detail. The change was enacted two hours after a merge tag was added. That is not procedurally correct.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 03:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Constitutionally speaking, Obama's presidency began automatically at noon, january 20, rather than at the moment he was inaugurated. While the inauguration is a constitutional requirement to exercize his powers, it is not a requirement to hold the office. The expiration of one term and the beginning of a new is automatic and defined in the Constitution as taking place at exactly noon of jan 20. Supersexyspacemonkey ( talk) 04:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that the Actions and accomplishments section is already quite detailed for a man who's only been president for under a week. Would it be useful to create something like Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama to fit all this in, so that this page's section can eventually just focus on the most important stuff? Joshdboz ( talk) 07:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Tomorrow will end his first week in office, so I think we should shorten the section after tomorrow to be something like "In his first week, Obama...." instead of talking about each day. We won't need 100 paragraphs in this section (for each of the first 100 days).. the day by day thing can go on Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama. -- Dudemanfellabra ( talk) 19:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if i may seem over zealous with these pages, but i would still like to help make the article better.I have seen some things on the article that I think could use some change or should be addressed.I have put them together but have bolded the important parts to make it easier to see what the point addresses:
Durga Dido ( talk) 09:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Or Executive Office of the President. Eg see "West Wing on steroids in Obama W.H.", January 25, by Jonathan Martin. (And if so, what should its "header" be?) ↜Just me, here, now … 16:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to have the long quote of his inauguration speech in this article? Should it not be summarized into a few sentences? I also don't think there should be so many subheadings under the section. As the "Policies" section grows, there will be an increasing number of subheadings, so I think all the sub-subheadings (Guantanamo, Abortion, etc) should be removed, and just leave the "Foreign Policy" section. -- Dudemanfellabra ( talk) 03:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
FYI, I've activated the Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration article (which was previously a redirect to here), as an article of that form exists for GWB, Clinton, and Reagan, and because there's already need for it to contain material being put into various other articles where the level of detail is unwieldy or inappropriate. Wasted Time R ( talk) 04:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that none of the items in the "Legislation passed" section are legislation: they are all policy decisions. I think the term "legislation" means bills passed by Congress (the "legislature " which deliberates about the decision) and then signed by the executive to become a law. I think that we should separate out Obama's policy decision from the list of bills he signs. If wwe are going to have a simple chronological list, then we should consider factoring it out to its own article since it is likely to get lengthy.-- Spellage ( talk) 01:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Very important presidential assigned positions in the admisistration should be included. I started to put in Fed Chair, Sepcial Envoy to the Middle East, Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistanetc. (Since someone started to undue these changes I stopped.) These assignments are just as important as "official cabinet" and ARE part of the administration as the title of this section states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.131.140.124 ( talk) 20:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Who decides what is a "notable position"
Envoy to mideast? Fed? CIA? National Intelligence? Surgeon General? Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration?
Without defined criteria, any person that Obama appoints could be on this list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.39.103.200 ( talk) 05:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
On Jan 21, Obama....
On Jan 22, Obama....
On Jan 23, Obama....
I know this is the natural tendency, but it's terrible writing and awful to read. Can we figure a way to make this into more integrated prose?-- Loodog ( talk) 19:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that much of the information in this section (particularly about cabinet members' tax concerns) should be moved, perhaps to another article or to a new section on this page. This is a subsection of policies, and whether or not a nominee paid his/her taxes has nothing to do with policy. Perhaps this should be moved to a subsection of Administration and Cabinet - something like a section named "Tax concerns" maybe? -- Dudemanfellabra ( talk) 20:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 4 for a DRV on a First 100 days article.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 19:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Gates or any other person, who moves seemlessly from one cabinet to another, shouldn't have the tenure from the other cabinet shown. Gates should be shown in this article, as Secy of Defense, 2009-present & thus Secy of Defense 2006-09 in the Bush cabinet. GoodDay ( talk) 20:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
For example: it would look odd to have all of John Adams' original cabinet, as being shown serving since 1789. Or Andrew Johnson's Secy of State as serving from 1861. This covers the George H. W. Bush article, too. Dick Thornburgh shouldn't bee shown as 1988-93. GoodDay ( talk) 20:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
How does one 'edit' the Cabinet section? GoodDay ( talk) 01:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
It's cool trivia to mention that Obama became Prez at 12:00 EST. But is it necessary to mention this occured before he took his oath of office? I'm guessing that all US Presidents, did not take their oaths of office at the exact momment of terms beginning . GoodDay ( talk) 15:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia NPOV policy states, "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors."
Some of you keep erasing this paragrpah form the Lobbying Reform section:
U.S. Congresswoman Hilda Solis (D-California), Obama's nominee for Secretary of Labor, was a board member of an organization called American Rights at Work, which lobbied Congress on two bills that Solis was a co-sponsor of - the Employee Free Choice Act, and the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act. Furthermore, Solis did not reveal her board membership to other House members on her financial disclosure forms. [79]
You claimed that it was "irrelevant" and that it contained "weasel words." But when I asked you explain why it was "irrelevant" and what "weasel words" it had, you never answered.
Erasing relevant, well sourced info violates wikipedia NPOV policy. Please stop doing this. Grundle2600 ( talk) 13:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the need for this section/subsection to mention any of the hired lobbyists. The section is entitled "Policies." Lobbyists are people, not policies; a laundry list of their names does nothing to expand the reader's knowledge of the policy at hand. The sentence about the USA Today review can be left intact; it points to the fact that lobbyists have indeed been hired, but more importantly, it summarizes for the reader what the policy might mean in practice. And without some huge fallout over the hiring of lobbyists, the mention of their names and details in an article with such a broad scope would seem to be WP:UNDUE and not to be in WP:Summary style. Cosmic Latte ( talk) 17:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
This is what I added, but other people keep taking out. First I put it in one section, then after someone erased it, I put it in the other section, and then someone erased it from there too. Given that these sections are called "Ethics" and "Transparency," I find it highly ironic that people keep erasing this information:
On his webpage titled "Agenda and Ethics," Obama had promised, "As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days." [96] Furthermore, during his speech at the Democratic National Convention, Obama had stated, "I will also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less - because we cannot meet twenty-first century challenges with a twentieth century bureaucracy." [97] He broke both promises when he signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. [98]
Grundle2600 ( talk) 23:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Still not entirely sure that this subsection heading is necessary. Aren't all policies aimed at producing governmental action of an ethical nature? For example, while I happen to agree with both the closing of Guantanamo Bay and the halting of offshore drilling, I'm not sure how the former pertains to governmental ethics in a way that the latter does not. Cosmic Latte ( talk) 04:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
why is there no criticism of obama? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.186.67.7 ( talk) 05:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The article needs to mention Obama administration's strong stance against outsourcing and its possible consequences. The issue has already been covered extensively by international media [3] [4] [5]. -- 128.211.201.161 ( talk) 17:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Is Drug Czar a cabinet-level position? It isn't listed here on the list, but Christina Romer, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers is. Sources in the Administration and Cabinet section don't include the CEA, but do include Drug Czar. Which is correct? -- Dudemanfellabra ( talk) 21:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Does anybody else who reads this article [6] added here today think that what Williams twittered, about the White House seeking his advice on the economy, might be a sardonic joke at best? Even if he's dead serious in interpreting the meeting as such, an executive's twitter isn't a source for an assessment of the purpose of a future meeting that he did not call or set the agenda for. And is any of this encyclopedic? How many meetings which have not yet happened are? By spinning that twitter into an article, even as flimsy and speculative and gossipy as the blurb of an article is, it seems The Business Insider writer may be pushing an opinion or partisan or philosophical prejudice, one popular among the business media at present. "Even though we don't think government should get involved at all, given that a huge ship can't turn on a dime, let's use this time to blame and mock the current administration for this decades-in-coming unraveling of regulation and oversight and reasonable business practices." The meeting is described elsewhere as a summit of "young business leaders", which sounds like it may be a rally to spur them to get involved in creating jobs and stepping up to be the movers of the economy going forward, considering how the rest of the business community seems intent upon downsizing us into a depression. But I don't think we should print my speculative post in an encyclopedia either. If this meeting does turn out to be encyclopedic after the meeting happens and is reported on, please re-add a mention with an accurate depiction of its purpose and its results as cited in a legitimate source. Abrazame ( talk) 08:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Unscientific surveys are routinely removed from Wikipedia's opinion poll articles, e.g Opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2008, Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2008, Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_Republican_Party_2008_presidential_candidates, Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2008. However, I have twice tried to remove the unscientific WSJ survey from the "Approval ratings" section in this article and it has been added back twice, and even the simple fact that the survey is unscientific was removed. Wikipedia's approval rating article states, "Many unscientific approval rating systems exist that skew popular opinion. However, the approval rating is generally accepted as the general opinion of the people." Because they skew popular opinion, they should not be included in a section that is supposed to reflect popular opinion. Wikipedia would not include an AOL online poll or a Fox News text poll in an Approval ratings section for the same reason. 68.35.125.63 ( talk) 23:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
proposal to add material has not gained consensus after 2+ weeks - discussion no longer productive |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I don't think the current state of the article is unreasonable. The Washington Post article still appears as a reference; Wikidemon's point that the broken campaign promise being tangential is correct; and the source doesn't even make a pretense of neutrality. — Korath ( Talk) 15:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I am seeing an incredible amount of bias here. When a Republican breaks a promise on taxes, it gets an entire article. But when a Democrat breaks the same promise, we aren't even allowed to quote his promise as a tiny part of an article. Grundle2600 ( talk) 15:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC) This section of the talk page is called "Trying to prove broken tax promises." But I am not trying to "prove" anything. All I want is for the article to cite Obama's quote of "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes... you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime," along with the date and location of the quote, and then mention that he signed a bill raising the cigarette tax by 62 cents per pack early in his presidency. Then the readers can determine for themselves whether or not Obama "broke" his promise. Grundle2600 ( talk) 15:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Is it a fact, not an opinion, that Obama said, "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes... you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime," in Dover, New Hampshire on September 12, 2008. It is also a fact, not an opinion, that Obama raised the cigarette tax by 62 cents early in his Presidency. I want the article to state these facts. Grundle2600 ( talk) 15:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Still no answerI can't find anything on any talk page or talk page archive that answers my question about why Read my lips: no new taxes gets to have its own entire article, while Obama's quote on taxes isn't even allowed to have one part of one paragraph. Grundle2600 ( talk) 23:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Note - this edit [11] is objected to by three editors above, for reasons noted, and at least two others who have not commented on this talk page. [12] [13] Please use this talk page to establish consensus for disputed changes, and keep the article stable by not re-adding disputed content until and unless there is consensus. Thanks, Wikidemon ( talk) 23:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone here dispute the fact that Obama said the words that the Associated Press says he said? No - there's no dispute on that. If the wikipedia article can merely quote Obama's words in the same paragraph that mentions him increasing the cigarette tax, that's good enough for me. No one here is disputing that Obama said those words. Grundle2600 ( talk) 23:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC) This is Obama's quote. The bolding is mine: "I can make a firm pledge... Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes... you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." Obama did not make an exception for the cigarette tax in his quote. Grundle2600 ( talk) 23:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The Froomin piece looks great. However, I suspect that after a while, it too, will go into the Washington Post password protected archives. Grundle2600 ( talk) 17:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC) Where does Obama make an exception for the cigarette tax?This is Obama's quote. The bolding is mine: "I can make a firm pledge... Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes... you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." Obama did not make an exception for the cigarette tax in his quote. Grundle2600 ( talk) 14:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I quoted Obama accurately, from a reliable source. But you people still want to censor the article. That violates NPOV. You are afraid to let people read the truth. Grundle2600 ( talk) 03:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC) |
proposal has not gained consensus; productive discussion has concluded |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I'm not surprised to see another of this person's edits completely oblivious to the point. Grundle, do you remember my post to you when you confused the Stimulus Package with the Budget Proposal? It's still on this page. I mentioned then that we are currently operating under George W. Bush's final budget, which he signed early last year, which went into effect in October of 2008 and which remains in effect until September 2009. BUSH, then, is responsible for this "off-the-books funding" of the wars one last time, as it was BUSH'S BUDGET which once again pulled a fast one on the American people by failing to account for the costs of the war. That was the whole fricking point of what Obama took issue with, and why he wouldn't vote for it. Not because he doesn't want to fund the troops, but because he wants that funding to be honestly faced as a part of the cost of running this country. So, if "anti-war activists", those "who got him elected", or the irresponsible types of media writers and editors who like to whip up tit-for-tat tempests in teapots miss this point, it doesn't mean Wikipedia editors are free of our own responsibility to understand the issue before we write it into an encyclopedia article. You will notice the source says it is for "the current fiscal year". Well, the current fiscal year is still what it was a couple of months ago, October 2008 through September 2009. Obama's FIRST budget goes into effect in October 2009 to cover the successive twelve months. None of that budget money gets spent until September 2009. So unless Obama wants to be accused of underfunding the troops—something else Bush is guilty of—Bush's sleazy "off-the-books" funding is the only way to do it. Obama included the cost of Bush's necessary war in Afghanistan and the cost of Bush's unnecessary war in Iraq IN HIS FIRST BUDGET, which goes into effect, if you'll recall from my mention a few sentences ago...IN SEPTEMBER 2009. But of course those are the costs from September forward, and not from now until then. If we're going to point any of this out, it's perfectly reasonable. But if someone is blaming Barack Obama for it, the only notable thing about that is their ignorance. Abrazame ( talk) 18:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Abrazame - What I wrote was based on the source that I cited. That's what wikipedia editors are supposed to do. To remove such content, as you did, is POV. Grundle2600 ( talk) 20:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
|
Forgive the section title (I think it's funny) but we just got a massive data dump of material from the "first hundred days" article. Should we send it back? This article is already nearly at full length and we're less than 10% of the way through the term. It's inevitable that we're going to have to bud off a lot of child articles and farm content out to them. Why not do that now for the "administration" and "appointments" material? Wikidemon ( talk) 22:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Wasn't Michael Chertoff formally a member of Obama cabinet, since he remained on the post until January 21? Shouldn't he be noted? Darth Kalwejt ( talk) 23:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
No, Chertoff could not be considered a member or Obama's cabinet by any definition. -- Loonymonkey ( talk) 23:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I have removed this from the article, per WP:NOTNEWS:
Given that it's been in the article for 2 seconds and already sparked a minor edit war, I think it would be better if we allowed time for the story to mature a bit - there is no rush. It may not prove to be particularly significant, or it may need more development once it has had a chance to get additional reporting and commentary. -- Scjessey ( talk) 17:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
First you people censor my quote of Obama's exact words regarding his promise on tax cuts, and now you censor my citation of some exact numbers. You people are censoring the article, and that's all there is to it. Grundle2600 ( talk) 18:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
OK. Here's an analogy. I can't put this in the article, because it's original research. But I can use it as an example on the talk page. $100 million out of a $3.5 trillion budget is 1/35,000. Obama says CEO bonuses are too high. So if a CEO is getting a $3.5 million bonus, and the bonus was cut by $100, that's the same kind of percentage cut that Obama is talking about. But I'm sure Obama would say the $100 bonus cut was a token with no meaning at all. Grundle2600 ( talk) 04:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Since yesterday, quite a few sources have commented on this. The one that I am citing first is the one that I most favor using in the article:
CBS News said, "Considering his budget this year calls for over $3.9-trillion in spending, $100-million is the same percentage of reduction as taking a buck off the price of a $50,000 car."
The Washington Times wrote, "...yesterday's tiny effort works out to about 35 cents per American."
The Christian Science Monitor cites a blogger who said, "One hundred million dollars represents .003 percent of $3.5 trillion. To put those numbers in perspective, imagine that the head of a household with annual spending of $100,000 called everyone in the family together to deal with a $34,000 budget shortfall. How much would he or she announce that spending had to be cut? By $3 over the course of the year — approximately the cost of one latte at Starbucks. The other $33,997? We can put that on the family credit card and worry about it next year."
Paul Krugman said, "Let’s say the administration finds $100 million in efficiencies every working day for the rest of the Obama administration’s first term. That’s still around $80 billion, or around 2% of one year’s federal spending."
CNS News said, "Less than a week after the nationwide 'tea party' protests against high taxes and government spending, President Barack Obama on Monday directed his cabinet secretaries to slice $100 million out of their departmental budgets--an amount equal to 0.007 percent of the deficit spending Obama plans to undertake in 2010."
U.S. News & World Report has an article titled, "Obama Cabinet Spending Cuts Ridiculed."
CNN said, "... the president has asked government agencies to trim the equivalent of .003% of the federal budget..."
marketwatch.com wrote, "Symbolic move proves insulting... Put another way, if the budget were a yardstick, the administration would be proposing to shorten it by 1/1000 of an inch. That's 25.4 microns, or about half the width of a human hair."
Grundle2600 ( talk) 23:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
redundant discussion - matter already addressed |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This is breitbart.com citing Associated Press quoting Obama. The link works. The bolding is mine: "I can make a firm pledge... Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes... you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." Obama did not make an exception for the cigarette tax in his quote. I quoted Obama accurately, from a reliable source. After I addded the quote, you erased it, and you added the part about how the cigarette tax increase will be used to pay for children's health care. I did not erase what you added. Why did you erase what I added? Grundle2600 ( talk) 04:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
|
I have posted a notice to WP:AN/I describing our efforts to deal with off-topic discussions and accusations that have been appearing on this page for the past day. Please direct any comments about the matter and any editor's participation in it there, and save this page for proposals regarding the article. Thanks, Wikidemon ( talk) 17:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
An editor has just proposed (by editing) to add the following material:
I have the following concerns / issues:
I think it would be good for Obama's article: U.S. GDP sees worst drop in five decades See the sources on that page. Multiplyperfect ( talk) 15:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I've now twice been forced to revert this long, context-free quote from the article. Wikipedia is supposed to offer a summary of what a preponderance of reliable sources say about a matter. What we have here is a wholesale repetition of a cherry-picked quote added without any discussion or attempt at consensus building. -- Scjessey ( talk) 22:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
This bit and the source have been removed completely from the article:
A May 6, 2009 USA Today article stated, "Although President Obama has vowed that citizens will be able to track 'every dime' of the $787 billion stimulus bill, a government website dedicated to the spending won't have details on contracts and grants until October and may not be complete until next spring — halfway through the program, administration officials said." <ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2009-05-06-stimulus_N.htm Details thin on stimulus contracts], USA Today, May 6, 2009</ref> ChildofMidnight ( talk) 00:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
When USA Today runs a story on something doesn't that indicate it's notable? What is the substantive policy basis for determining that this material isn't appropriate anywhere on WIkipedia? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 00:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
In regard to the sentence currently in the article which reads:
I'd like to invite the editor who inserted this specificity (I have not checked the edit summary) and/or anybody interested to weigh in on this. As I wrote at Talk:Barack Obama with regard to inserting the same exact wording there, "What method did you use to cull those particular specific expenses as most notable to single out among the dozens and dozens and dozens on the list? "Food stamps" strikes me as a bizarre choice for the second mention when there are several much larger programs in terms of money and others far more notable in terms of representing fundamental shifts. I'd rather see the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 specifically noted and Wikified in that section so that people might perceive it in its totality and full scope rather than one editor's pet projects—or pet peeves." Thanks, Abrazame ( talk) 19:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
This proposed addition, [18] ("Obama also cut the Public Safety Officers' Death Benefits Program, a benefits program for the families of slain police and safety officers, from $110 million to $60 million") reverted twice now, has obvious WP:WEIGHT problems. Isn't Obama promising to cut 100 or 200 federal programs? Why single this one out in particular? It does seem to make Obama look bad. That is, until you realize it distorts the AP source, [19] which points out that according to the Justice Department this budget proposal does not in fact cut anybody's benefit, but is rather an adjustment to reflect lower payouts due to fewer officers killed in the line of duty. The source also mentions that in past years when the program exceeded its budget the money was always found. So... it's a non story too. Wikidemon ( talk) 05:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Lots of times appear in the main article the word "health", but 0 times the "flu". Could you tell me why? Just to remind you some facts, WHO raised the pandemic alert level to five, the second-highest level. More than half of the confirmed cases are currently in US (today 4714 from total=8310). Dinprog ( talk) 22:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
See: Anger at Obama Guantanamo ruling
It's quite interesting that this is not in the article: "Civil liberties groups have reacted angrily to US President Barack Obama's decision to revive military trials for some Guantanamo Bay detainees."
, only closing Guantanamo. Dinprog ( talk) 22:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to add this info to the article, but I guess it's better to ask other people here what they think of it first.
CAFE Obama -- Proposed Mileage Standards Would Kill More Americans than Iraq War
Grundle2600 ( talk) 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
discussion has degenerated. Please re-start if there is a viable proposal here |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I added info from USA Today, citing several different, independent studies, each of which showed that CAFE laws killed thousands of people every year. Scjessey erased the info on the studies, and commented, "rewrite a horribly one-sided paragraph with more neutral language." He then added false info to the article by saying "Critics have pointed out that CAFE laws may have forced tradeoffs between fuel economy and auto safety." That info added by Scjessey is false, because the article does not say "may have." The article is very definite that these deaths did indeed happen. This is proof that Scjessey is biased. If you people don't criticize Scjessey for doing this, and defend me for citing those studies in the article, then that will be proof that you people are being biased too. And if you ban me for this, it will be especially strong proof that you are biased. Grundle2600 ( talk) 14:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Bigtimepeace You threatened to ban me for adding true, well sourced info about CAFE. But you didn't criticize Scjessey for removing my true, well sourced info, and replacing it with false, unsourced info. Bigtimepeace, this is proof that you are being biased and unfair. Grundle2600 ( talk) 14:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The source states, "The National Academy of Sciences, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Congressional Budget Office and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have separately concluded in multiple studies dating back about 20 years that fuel-economy standards force automakers to build more small cars, which has led to thousands more deaths in crashes annually." That is a definite thing - there is no "may have" about it. For you to remove the sourced fact that I wrote, and replace it with an unsourced "may have," goes against the wikipedia policy of Wikipedia:Verifiability. In the name of verifiability, NPOV, and accuracy, I would like the article to quote that part of the source word for word, so there will be no doubt as to its accuracy. Grundle2600 ( talk) 19:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd much prefer to see the studies cited explicitly -- nothing guarantees the writer of the article actually got them right. If the studies aren't verifiable, we shouldn't cite them.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 19:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
|
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Why is the Obama Cabinet- template only half-filled? It includes only some of the secretary nominees Obama has made. ABC101090 ( talk) 23:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
What were the three documents he signed right after he sat down, after the inauguration ceremony? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.202.89.108 (
talk)
18:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Is this really a current event? Presumably he will be president for the next 4 years, with new developments practically every day. How long do we plan to have that template up there? -- causa sui talk 00:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I have merged information from the discontinued "Barack Obama's first 100 days"-page, per the AfD discussion. I have also made a thorough rewrite, so as to avoid crystal balling, and simply report on the centrality of the term and public expectations of the period. Lampman ( talk) 20:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I added information regarding the pay freeze and stricter lobbying rules he's announced on his first day, but I'm not happy with the way I've worded it. So if anyone can make it sound a bit better, please do. Umbralcorax ( talk) 21:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Morning- I'm wondering if it would be prudent, considering the President's proclivity for instituting frequent, substantive, effectual Executive Orders, to make a sub-heading or list of the Order's with a brief summary for each.
Hello-
I changed "Legislative Action" to "Actions and Accomplishments". The term "Legislative Action" does not really apply here, and a more broad range of the president's actions can be described here.
I hope people will continue to update this section as the president continues to make history.
InterwebUsr (
talk)
23:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
hello-
President Obama repealed executive order 13233 of Nov 2001, which preserved executive privilege beyond 12 years, and authorized review of former president Bush's presidential records which he had claimed executive privilege. this means that if President Obama decided Bush's privileged records are not a matter of national security, he may disclose such information notwithstanding the former presidents claim of privilege.
the order is available here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ExecutiveOrderPresidentialRecords/
I do not know how to edit wikipedia. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.73.6.131 (
talk)
07:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
It's true that right-margin items being stacked through the use of "fixBunching" must be of approximately the same width in order not to cause excess blank space. This is because the fix puts all these stacked items together into a unified column. To rectify this problem, I've now moved the right-margin Obama cabinet table down the page. Please note that until "fixBunching," my friend's browser on his Apple would show no edit buttons for each section; instead all of the article's section buttons were bunched together toward the bottom of the page. "FixBunching" provides the standard fix for this problem. For more info, see Template:fixBunching. ↜Just me, here, now … 03:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
In this article, this sentence struck out to me as a POV misstep:
"but the Bush Administration still supported the torture of prisoners of war and other federal detainees, as former Vice-President Dick Cheney admitted in a December 2008 interview"
In order to keep it npov, I would suggest changing it to harsh tactics. Thoughts? Rapmanej ( talk) 08:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Based on a suggestion on Talk:Barack Obama, a new baby Wikiproject has been formed:
Please check it out, watchlist it, join and sign up. Let's get some GAs and FAs going out of this! :) rootology ( C)( T) 20:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that it makes the most sense to have a broad section on his Presidency and subsections dealing with foreign policy and domestic policy to allow for easy research. Researchers shouldn't have to read through the entire article to determine actions by the administration that deal with a specific issue. I would like to see a more detailed review of these issues but I don't have a lot of time to do so. I hope others will add to the foreign policy section, create a domestic policy section. Edward Lalone | ( Talk) 22:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I think this section should be expanded; as of now it just says that he hasn't nominated any Supreme Court justices, so the cabinet template extends farther down into the next sections than it should. In my opinion, there should be information about his claims to "the most transparent administration in history," his ethics reforms, etc.. There also needs to be something about the confirmations of all his appointees.. Then when he does nominate justices, we can make a subheading like all the other Presidency articles do. After expanding it more, I think a br clear:all should be added so the template does not stretch into the next section.. -- Dudemanfellabra ( talk) 20:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
←Oppose I do not feel it is necessary or appropriate to remove cabinet nomination information from First 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency. I don't even think that article is suppose to have that level of detail. The change was enacted two hours after a merge tag was added. That is not procedurally correct.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 03:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Constitutionally speaking, Obama's presidency began automatically at noon, january 20, rather than at the moment he was inaugurated. While the inauguration is a constitutional requirement to exercize his powers, it is not a requirement to hold the office. The expiration of one term and the beginning of a new is automatic and defined in the Constitution as taking place at exactly noon of jan 20. Supersexyspacemonkey ( talk) 04:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that the Actions and accomplishments section is already quite detailed for a man who's only been president for under a week. Would it be useful to create something like Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama to fit all this in, so that this page's section can eventually just focus on the most important stuff? Joshdboz ( talk) 07:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Tomorrow will end his first week in office, so I think we should shorten the section after tomorrow to be something like "In his first week, Obama...." instead of talking about each day. We won't need 100 paragraphs in this section (for each of the first 100 days).. the day by day thing can go on Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama. -- Dudemanfellabra ( talk) 19:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if i may seem over zealous with these pages, but i would still like to help make the article better.I have seen some things on the article that I think could use some change or should be addressed.I have put them together but have bolded the important parts to make it easier to see what the point addresses:
Durga Dido ( talk) 09:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Or Executive Office of the President. Eg see "West Wing on steroids in Obama W.H.", January 25, by Jonathan Martin. (And if so, what should its "header" be?) ↜Just me, here, now … 16:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to have the long quote of his inauguration speech in this article? Should it not be summarized into a few sentences? I also don't think there should be so many subheadings under the section. As the "Policies" section grows, there will be an increasing number of subheadings, so I think all the sub-subheadings (Guantanamo, Abortion, etc) should be removed, and just leave the "Foreign Policy" section. -- Dudemanfellabra ( talk) 03:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
FYI, I've activated the Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration article (which was previously a redirect to here), as an article of that form exists for GWB, Clinton, and Reagan, and because there's already need for it to contain material being put into various other articles where the level of detail is unwieldy or inappropriate. Wasted Time R ( talk) 04:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that none of the items in the "Legislation passed" section are legislation: they are all policy decisions. I think the term "legislation" means bills passed by Congress (the "legislature " which deliberates about the decision) and then signed by the executive to become a law. I think that we should separate out Obama's policy decision from the list of bills he signs. If wwe are going to have a simple chronological list, then we should consider factoring it out to its own article since it is likely to get lengthy.-- Spellage ( talk) 01:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Very important presidential assigned positions in the admisistration should be included. I started to put in Fed Chair, Sepcial Envoy to the Middle East, Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistanetc. (Since someone started to undue these changes I stopped.) These assignments are just as important as "official cabinet" and ARE part of the administration as the title of this section states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.131.140.124 ( talk) 20:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Who decides what is a "notable position"
Envoy to mideast? Fed? CIA? National Intelligence? Surgeon General? Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration?
Without defined criteria, any person that Obama appoints could be on this list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.39.103.200 ( talk) 05:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
On Jan 21, Obama....
On Jan 22, Obama....
On Jan 23, Obama....
I know this is the natural tendency, but it's terrible writing and awful to read. Can we figure a way to make this into more integrated prose?-- Loodog ( talk) 19:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that much of the information in this section (particularly about cabinet members' tax concerns) should be moved, perhaps to another article or to a new section on this page. This is a subsection of policies, and whether or not a nominee paid his/her taxes has nothing to do with policy. Perhaps this should be moved to a subsection of Administration and Cabinet - something like a section named "Tax concerns" maybe? -- Dudemanfellabra ( talk) 20:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 4 for a DRV on a First 100 days article.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 19:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Gates or any other person, who moves seemlessly from one cabinet to another, shouldn't have the tenure from the other cabinet shown. Gates should be shown in this article, as Secy of Defense, 2009-present & thus Secy of Defense 2006-09 in the Bush cabinet. GoodDay ( talk) 20:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
For example: it would look odd to have all of John Adams' original cabinet, as being shown serving since 1789. Or Andrew Johnson's Secy of State as serving from 1861. This covers the George H. W. Bush article, too. Dick Thornburgh shouldn't bee shown as 1988-93. GoodDay ( talk) 20:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
How does one 'edit' the Cabinet section? GoodDay ( talk) 01:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
It's cool trivia to mention that Obama became Prez at 12:00 EST. But is it necessary to mention this occured before he took his oath of office? I'm guessing that all US Presidents, did not take their oaths of office at the exact momment of terms beginning . GoodDay ( talk) 15:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia NPOV policy states, "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors."
Some of you keep erasing this paragrpah form the Lobbying Reform section:
U.S. Congresswoman Hilda Solis (D-California), Obama's nominee for Secretary of Labor, was a board member of an organization called American Rights at Work, which lobbied Congress on two bills that Solis was a co-sponsor of - the Employee Free Choice Act, and the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act. Furthermore, Solis did not reveal her board membership to other House members on her financial disclosure forms. [79]
You claimed that it was "irrelevant" and that it contained "weasel words." But when I asked you explain why it was "irrelevant" and what "weasel words" it had, you never answered.
Erasing relevant, well sourced info violates wikipedia NPOV policy. Please stop doing this. Grundle2600 ( talk) 13:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the need for this section/subsection to mention any of the hired lobbyists. The section is entitled "Policies." Lobbyists are people, not policies; a laundry list of their names does nothing to expand the reader's knowledge of the policy at hand. The sentence about the USA Today review can be left intact; it points to the fact that lobbyists have indeed been hired, but more importantly, it summarizes for the reader what the policy might mean in practice. And without some huge fallout over the hiring of lobbyists, the mention of their names and details in an article with such a broad scope would seem to be WP:UNDUE and not to be in WP:Summary style. Cosmic Latte ( talk) 17:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
This is what I added, but other people keep taking out. First I put it in one section, then after someone erased it, I put it in the other section, and then someone erased it from there too. Given that these sections are called "Ethics" and "Transparency," I find it highly ironic that people keep erasing this information:
On his webpage titled "Agenda and Ethics," Obama had promised, "As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days." [96] Furthermore, during his speech at the Democratic National Convention, Obama had stated, "I will also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less - because we cannot meet twenty-first century challenges with a twentieth century bureaucracy." [97] He broke both promises when he signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. [98]
Grundle2600 ( talk) 23:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Still not entirely sure that this subsection heading is necessary. Aren't all policies aimed at producing governmental action of an ethical nature? For example, while I happen to agree with both the closing of Guantanamo Bay and the halting of offshore drilling, I'm not sure how the former pertains to governmental ethics in a way that the latter does not. Cosmic Latte ( talk) 04:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
why is there no criticism of obama? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.186.67.7 ( talk) 05:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The article needs to mention Obama administration's strong stance against outsourcing and its possible consequences. The issue has already been covered extensively by international media [3] [4] [5]. -- 128.211.201.161 ( talk) 17:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Is Drug Czar a cabinet-level position? It isn't listed here on the list, but Christina Romer, chair of the Council of Economic Advisers is. Sources in the Administration and Cabinet section don't include the CEA, but do include Drug Czar. Which is correct? -- Dudemanfellabra ( talk) 21:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Does anybody else who reads this article [6] added here today think that what Williams twittered, about the White House seeking his advice on the economy, might be a sardonic joke at best? Even if he's dead serious in interpreting the meeting as such, an executive's twitter isn't a source for an assessment of the purpose of a future meeting that he did not call or set the agenda for. And is any of this encyclopedic? How many meetings which have not yet happened are? By spinning that twitter into an article, even as flimsy and speculative and gossipy as the blurb of an article is, it seems The Business Insider writer may be pushing an opinion or partisan or philosophical prejudice, one popular among the business media at present. "Even though we don't think government should get involved at all, given that a huge ship can't turn on a dime, let's use this time to blame and mock the current administration for this decades-in-coming unraveling of regulation and oversight and reasonable business practices." The meeting is described elsewhere as a summit of "young business leaders", which sounds like it may be a rally to spur them to get involved in creating jobs and stepping up to be the movers of the economy going forward, considering how the rest of the business community seems intent upon downsizing us into a depression. But I don't think we should print my speculative post in an encyclopedia either. If this meeting does turn out to be encyclopedic after the meeting happens and is reported on, please re-add a mention with an accurate depiction of its purpose and its results as cited in a legitimate source. Abrazame ( talk) 08:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Unscientific surveys are routinely removed from Wikipedia's opinion poll articles, e.g Opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2008, Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2008, Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_Republican_Party_2008_presidential_candidates, Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2008. However, I have twice tried to remove the unscientific WSJ survey from the "Approval ratings" section in this article and it has been added back twice, and even the simple fact that the survey is unscientific was removed. Wikipedia's approval rating article states, "Many unscientific approval rating systems exist that skew popular opinion. However, the approval rating is generally accepted as the general opinion of the people." Because they skew popular opinion, they should not be included in a section that is supposed to reflect popular opinion. Wikipedia would not include an AOL online poll or a Fox News text poll in an Approval ratings section for the same reason. 68.35.125.63 ( talk) 23:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
proposal to add material has not gained consensus after 2+ weeks - discussion no longer productive |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I don't think the current state of the article is unreasonable. The Washington Post article still appears as a reference; Wikidemon's point that the broken campaign promise being tangential is correct; and the source doesn't even make a pretense of neutrality. — Korath ( Talk) 15:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I am seeing an incredible amount of bias here. When a Republican breaks a promise on taxes, it gets an entire article. But when a Democrat breaks the same promise, we aren't even allowed to quote his promise as a tiny part of an article. Grundle2600 ( talk) 15:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC) This section of the talk page is called "Trying to prove broken tax promises." But I am not trying to "prove" anything. All I want is for the article to cite Obama's quote of "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes... you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime," along with the date and location of the quote, and then mention that he signed a bill raising the cigarette tax by 62 cents per pack early in his presidency. Then the readers can determine for themselves whether or not Obama "broke" his promise. Grundle2600 ( talk) 15:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Is it a fact, not an opinion, that Obama said, "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes... you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime," in Dover, New Hampshire on September 12, 2008. It is also a fact, not an opinion, that Obama raised the cigarette tax by 62 cents early in his Presidency. I want the article to state these facts. Grundle2600 ( talk) 15:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Still no answerI can't find anything on any talk page or talk page archive that answers my question about why Read my lips: no new taxes gets to have its own entire article, while Obama's quote on taxes isn't even allowed to have one part of one paragraph. Grundle2600 ( talk) 23:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Note - this edit [11] is objected to by three editors above, for reasons noted, and at least two others who have not commented on this talk page. [12] [13] Please use this talk page to establish consensus for disputed changes, and keep the article stable by not re-adding disputed content until and unless there is consensus. Thanks, Wikidemon ( talk) 23:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone here dispute the fact that Obama said the words that the Associated Press says he said? No - there's no dispute on that. If the wikipedia article can merely quote Obama's words in the same paragraph that mentions him increasing the cigarette tax, that's good enough for me. No one here is disputing that Obama said those words. Grundle2600 ( talk) 23:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC) This is Obama's quote. The bolding is mine: "I can make a firm pledge... Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes... you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." Obama did not make an exception for the cigarette tax in his quote. Grundle2600 ( talk) 23:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The Froomin piece looks great. However, I suspect that after a while, it too, will go into the Washington Post password protected archives. Grundle2600 ( talk) 17:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC) Where does Obama make an exception for the cigarette tax?This is Obama's quote. The bolding is mine: "I can make a firm pledge... Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes... you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." Obama did not make an exception for the cigarette tax in his quote. Grundle2600 ( talk) 14:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I quoted Obama accurately, from a reliable source. But you people still want to censor the article. That violates NPOV. You are afraid to let people read the truth. Grundle2600 ( talk) 03:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC) |
proposal has not gained consensus; productive discussion has concluded |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I'm not surprised to see another of this person's edits completely oblivious to the point. Grundle, do you remember my post to you when you confused the Stimulus Package with the Budget Proposal? It's still on this page. I mentioned then that we are currently operating under George W. Bush's final budget, which he signed early last year, which went into effect in October of 2008 and which remains in effect until September 2009. BUSH, then, is responsible for this "off-the-books funding" of the wars one last time, as it was BUSH'S BUDGET which once again pulled a fast one on the American people by failing to account for the costs of the war. That was the whole fricking point of what Obama took issue with, and why he wouldn't vote for it. Not because he doesn't want to fund the troops, but because he wants that funding to be honestly faced as a part of the cost of running this country. So, if "anti-war activists", those "who got him elected", or the irresponsible types of media writers and editors who like to whip up tit-for-tat tempests in teapots miss this point, it doesn't mean Wikipedia editors are free of our own responsibility to understand the issue before we write it into an encyclopedia article. You will notice the source says it is for "the current fiscal year". Well, the current fiscal year is still what it was a couple of months ago, October 2008 through September 2009. Obama's FIRST budget goes into effect in October 2009 to cover the successive twelve months. None of that budget money gets spent until September 2009. So unless Obama wants to be accused of underfunding the troops—something else Bush is guilty of—Bush's sleazy "off-the-books" funding is the only way to do it. Obama included the cost of Bush's necessary war in Afghanistan and the cost of Bush's unnecessary war in Iraq IN HIS FIRST BUDGET, which goes into effect, if you'll recall from my mention a few sentences ago...IN SEPTEMBER 2009. But of course those are the costs from September forward, and not from now until then. If we're going to point any of this out, it's perfectly reasonable. But if someone is blaming Barack Obama for it, the only notable thing about that is their ignorance. Abrazame ( talk) 18:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Abrazame - What I wrote was based on the source that I cited. That's what wikipedia editors are supposed to do. To remove such content, as you did, is POV. Grundle2600 ( talk) 20:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
|
Forgive the section title (I think it's funny) but we just got a massive data dump of material from the "first hundred days" article. Should we send it back? This article is already nearly at full length and we're less than 10% of the way through the term. It's inevitable that we're going to have to bud off a lot of child articles and farm content out to them. Why not do that now for the "administration" and "appointments" material? Wikidemon ( talk) 22:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Wasn't Michael Chertoff formally a member of Obama cabinet, since he remained on the post until January 21? Shouldn't he be noted? Darth Kalwejt ( talk) 23:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
No, Chertoff could not be considered a member or Obama's cabinet by any definition. -- Loonymonkey ( talk) 23:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I have removed this from the article, per WP:NOTNEWS:
Given that it's been in the article for 2 seconds and already sparked a minor edit war, I think it would be better if we allowed time for the story to mature a bit - there is no rush. It may not prove to be particularly significant, or it may need more development once it has had a chance to get additional reporting and commentary. -- Scjessey ( talk) 17:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
First you people censor my quote of Obama's exact words regarding his promise on tax cuts, and now you censor my citation of some exact numbers. You people are censoring the article, and that's all there is to it. Grundle2600 ( talk) 18:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
OK. Here's an analogy. I can't put this in the article, because it's original research. But I can use it as an example on the talk page. $100 million out of a $3.5 trillion budget is 1/35,000. Obama says CEO bonuses are too high. So if a CEO is getting a $3.5 million bonus, and the bonus was cut by $100, that's the same kind of percentage cut that Obama is talking about. But I'm sure Obama would say the $100 bonus cut was a token with no meaning at all. Grundle2600 ( talk) 04:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Since yesterday, quite a few sources have commented on this. The one that I am citing first is the one that I most favor using in the article:
CBS News said, "Considering his budget this year calls for over $3.9-trillion in spending, $100-million is the same percentage of reduction as taking a buck off the price of a $50,000 car."
The Washington Times wrote, "...yesterday's tiny effort works out to about 35 cents per American."
The Christian Science Monitor cites a blogger who said, "One hundred million dollars represents .003 percent of $3.5 trillion. To put those numbers in perspective, imagine that the head of a household with annual spending of $100,000 called everyone in the family together to deal with a $34,000 budget shortfall. How much would he or she announce that spending had to be cut? By $3 over the course of the year — approximately the cost of one latte at Starbucks. The other $33,997? We can put that on the family credit card and worry about it next year."
Paul Krugman said, "Let’s say the administration finds $100 million in efficiencies every working day for the rest of the Obama administration’s first term. That’s still around $80 billion, or around 2% of one year’s federal spending."
CNS News said, "Less than a week after the nationwide 'tea party' protests against high taxes and government spending, President Barack Obama on Monday directed his cabinet secretaries to slice $100 million out of their departmental budgets--an amount equal to 0.007 percent of the deficit spending Obama plans to undertake in 2010."
U.S. News & World Report has an article titled, "Obama Cabinet Spending Cuts Ridiculed."
CNN said, "... the president has asked government agencies to trim the equivalent of .003% of the federal budget..."
marketwatch.com wrote, "Symbolic move proves insulting... Put another way, if the budget were a yardstick, the administration would be proposing to shorten it by 1/1000 of an inch. That's 25.4 microns, or about half the width of a human hair."
Grundle2600 ( talk) 23:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
redundant discussion - matter already addressed |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This is breitbart.com citing Associated Press quoting Obama. The link works. The bolding is mine: "I can make a firm pledge... Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes... you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." Obama did not make an exception for the cigarette tax in his quote. I quoted Obama accurately, from a reliable source. After I addded the quote, you erased it, and you added the part about how the cigarette tax increase will be used to pay for children's health care. I did not erase what you added. Why did you erase what I added? Grundle2600 ( talk) 04:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
|
I have posted a notice to WP:AN/I describing our efforts to deal with off-topic discussions and accusations that have been appearing on this page for the past day. Please direct any comments about the matter and any editor's participation in it there, and save this page for proposals regarding the article. Thanks, Wikidemon ( talk) 17:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
An editor has just proposed (by editing) to add the following material:
I have the following concerns / issues:
I think it would be good for Obama's article: U.S. GDP sees worst drop in five decades See the sources on that page. Multiplyperfect ( talk) 15:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I've now twice been forced to revert this long, context-free quote from the article. Wikipedia is supposed to offer a summary of what a preponderance of reliable sources say about a matter. What we have here is a wholesale repetition of a cherry-picked quote added without any discussion or attempt at consensus building. -- Scjessey ( talk) 22:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
This bit and the source have been removed completely from the article:
A May 6, 2009 USA Today article stated, "Although President Obama has vowed that citizens will be able to track 'every dime' of the $787 billion stimulus bill, a government website dedicated to the spending won't have details on contracts and grants until October and may not be complete until next spring — halfway through the program, administration officials said." <ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2009-05-06-stimulus_N.htm Details thin on stimulus contracts], USA Today, May 6, 2009</ref> ChildofMidnight ( talk) 00:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
When USA Today runs a story on something doesn't that indicate it's notable? What is the substantive policy basis for determining that this material isn't appropriate anywhere on WIkipedia? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 00:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
In regard to the sentence currently in the article which reads:
I'd like to invite the editor who inserted this specificity (I have not checked the edit summary) and/or anybody interested to weigh in on this. As I wrote at Talk:Barack Obama with regard to inserting the same exact wording there, "What method did you use to cull those particular specific expenses as most notable to single out among the dozens and dozens and dozens on the list? "Food stamps" strikes me as a bizarre choice for the second mention when there are several much larger programs in terms of money and others far more notable in terms of representing fundamental shifts. I'd rather see the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 specifically noted and Wikified in that section so that people might perceive it in its totality and full scope rather than one editor's pet projects—or pet peeves." Thanks, Abrazame ( talk) 19:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
This proposed addition, [18] ("Obama also cut the Public Safety Officers' Death Benefits Program, a benefits program for the families of slain police and safety officers, from $110 million to $60 million") reverted twice now, has obvious WP:WEIGHT problems. Isn't Obama promising to cut 100 or 200 federal programs? Why single this one out in particular? It does seem to make Obama look bad. That is, until you realize it distorts the AP source, [19] which points out that according to the Justice Department this budget proposal does not in fact cut anybody's benefit, but is rather an adjustment to reflect lower payouts due to fewer officers killed in the line of duty. The source also mentions that in past years when the program exceeded its budget the money was always found. So... it's a non story too. Wikidemon ( talk) 05:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Lots of times appear in the main article the word "health", but 0 times the "flu". Could you tell me why? Just to remind you some facts, WHO raised the pandemic alert level to five, the second-highest level. More than half of the confirmed cases are currently in US (today 4714 from total=8310). Dinprog ( talk) 22:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
See: Anger at Obama Guantanamo ruling
It's quite interesting that this is not in the article: "Civil liberties groups have reacted angrily to US President Barack Obama's decision to revive military trials for some Guantanamo Bay detainees."
, only closing Guantanamo. Dinprog ( talk) 22:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to add this info to the article, but I guess it's better to ask other people here what they think of it first.
CAFE Obama -- Proposed Mileage Standards Would Kill More Americans than Iraq War
Grundle2600 ( talk) 21:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
discussion has degenerated. Please re-start if there is a viable proposal here |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I added info from USA Today, citing several different, independent studies, each of which showed that CAFE laws killed thousands of people every year. Scjessey erased the info on the studies, and commented, "rewrite a horribly one-sided paragraph with more neutral language." He then added false info to the article by saying "Critics have pointed out that CAFE laws may have forced tradeoffs between fuel economy and auto safety." That info added by Scjessey is false, because the article does not say "may have." The article is very definite that these deaths did indeed happen. This is proof that Scjessey is biased. If you people don't criticize Scjessey for doing this, and defend me for citing those studies in the article, then that will be proof that you people are being biased too. And if you ban me for this, it will be especially strong proof that you are biased. Grundle2600 ( talk) 14:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Bigtimepeace You threatened to ban me for adding true, well sourced info about CAFE. But you didn't criticize Scjessey for removing my true, well sourced info, and replacing it with false, unsourced info. Bigtimepeace, this is proof that you are being biased and unfair. Grundle2600 ( talk) 14:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The source states, "The National Academy of Sciences, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Congressional Budget Office and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have separately concluded in multiple studies dating back about 20 years that fuel-economy standards force automakers to build more small cars, which has led to thousands more deaths in crashes annually." That is a definite thing - there is no "may have" about it. For you to remove the sourced fact that I wrote, and replace it with an unsourced "may have," goes against the wikipedia policy of Wikipedia:Verifiability. In the name of verifiability, NPOV, and accuracy, I would like the article to quote that part of the source word for word, so there will be no doubt as to its accuracy. Grundle2600 ( talk) 19:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd much prefer to see the studies cited explicitly -- nothing guarantees the writer of the article actually got them right. If the studies aren't verifiable, we shouldn't cite them.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 19:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
|