This 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
In June of 2009, protests broke out in Iran after Presidential elections that many Iranians believe were marred by fraud [1]. Obama called on the Iranian Government to stop "violent and unjust" action against the protesters [2], but resisted calls to do more than that. He was criticized for not being more forceful [3], but responded that "the last thing I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for — those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States." [4]. Protests broke out again in Iran in February of 2011 and were again met with force [5].
After a sudden revolution in Tunisia, [6] Arab discontent began to spread. Demonstrations broke out Egypt in January and February of 2011. Press reports indicated that Obama followed a strategy of pressing for dramatic change, and leaving little doubt that he felt Mubarak's resignation would be desirable, without actually saying so [7] [8]. After three weeks of unrest, Mubarak resigned [8]. Anti-Government protests broke out in Benghazi, Libya, in February, 2011, [9] and the Gadaffi government responded with military force [10]. The Obama Administration initially resisted calls to take strong action [11] but relented after the Arab League requested Western intervention in Libya [12]. The US provided air support, especially at the beginning of the operation, and helped in areas in which it has unique capabilities, such as electronic warfare and aerial surveillance [13]. The Obama administration demanded and got participation from several Arab and European nations and Obama stated that the US would not send any ground troops [14]. With Coalition support, the rebels took Tripoli the following August [15]. By the second half of March, 2011, anti-government protests were being held in Syria, and police killed protesters in several cities [16]. In March, 2012, Obama argued that unilateral military action would be a mistake [17]. As of June, 2012, several experts characterized the situation as a civil war [18].
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help); Unknown parameter |Title=
ignored (|title=
suggested) (
help)
William Jockusch ( talk) 18:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/06/12/it-s-a-coup-d-etat.html|title=It’s a Coup d’Etat’|first=Maziar|last=Bahari}}</ref>
but under normal circumstances, just link it like this
[1] --
Scjessey (
talk)
21:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)"The Iranian regime survived the protests and remains in power." should not be there. It has nothing to do with Obama's presidency. Other than that, it mostly looks okay until you get into the second half of the second paragraph. Then you run headlong into a recentism problem by talking about Syria. -- Scjessey ( talk) 21:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
adding information widely reported on Obama's health: Reliable: [2] [3] Reliability is not clear: [4] [5] [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.35.69 ( talk) 04:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I propose that the fourth section approval ratings and opinion could be substantially reduced in length if a graph of the approval ratings versus time were included. Visual data is always preferred over sentence after sentence of data. I have removed the need for expansion tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.142.15 ( talk) 14:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC) To make the other graphs in the article, how was data completed? Did you only use data from the same source? For example, in this section, there is a sentence that hints at fox's polling numbers being less accurate. Should I only pick polling from the same group like only from gallup? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.142.15 ( talk) 19:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
The following was recently restored to the article:
As of July 2010, Obama's nominees to the district and circuit courts had been confirmed at a rate of only 43.5 percent, compared to 87.2 percent during Bill Clinton's administration and 91.3 percent for George W. Bush. The Center for American Progress, which compiled the data, commented:
Judicial confirmations slowed to a trickle on the day President Barack Obama took office. Filibusters, anonymous holds, and other obstructionary tactics have become the rule. Uncontroversial nominees wait months for a floor vote, and even district court nominees—low-ranking judges whose confirmations have never been controversial in the past—are routinely filibustered into oblivion. Nominations grind to a halt in many cases even after the Senate Judiciary Committee has unanimously endorsed a nominee.
This is a misleading use of statistics which should not be included. They are comparing apples and oranges. A proper comparison would compare the first 18 months of Obama's term with the first 18 months of Bush or Clinton. Instead, they compare the first 18 months of Obama with the entire Bush or Clinton term. William Jockusch ( talk) 00:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
At the end of the article's second paragraph this should be added: The Nobel Committee attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons. LeahBethM ( talk) 06:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
In October 2010 I wrote that Impeachment of Barack Obama is close to being a viable article. In August 2011 I wrote that the article is even closer to viability with a Member of Congress & a major candidate calling for Obama's impeachment. Today, a Senator joined the frey. All I can say is one or two more high profile elected officials calling for Obama's impeachment, and Impeachment of Barack Obama becomes as viable of an article as Impeachment of George W. Bush. Victor Victoria ( talk) 00:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I had recently added content regarding the death of one Cpl Baune , who was that 2000th death in Afghanistan. The content had two reliable sources to provide verification. Another editor removed the content claiming that the content falls under WP:UNDUE & WP:RECENT. However, I am of the opinion that as there is content in the article that relates to the Obama Administration enacting the surge, that content relating to a milestone death does not fall under UNDUE, as such I have reverted the reversion and invited interested editors to discuss inclusion, or re-removal of the content. I am hoping some type of compromise can be reached.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 23:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Additionally the content was written in a neutral manor, and did not attempt to criticize the subject of the article.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 00:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
In or out? [7] A procedural note. The sentences have been in the article for a while, so they presumably have consensus (although in hindsight, a proposal that didn't go anywhere may not be significant enough to include). The IP editor who was edit warring past 3RR to remove it has been making a ruckus on many articles, so I would not give any weight to their decision to remove it today and might just defer this per WP:DENY. Nonetheless, now that we have regular editors on both sides of this, what's best for the article? - Wikidemon ( talk) 20:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Really we can't wait until his first term is actual finished before heaping on praise. This is also the term that the Oceans would start to recede and th earth would heal. He may have done all those things, and great he ordered the killing of OBL, but let us wait until at least his first term is over before compairing him the FDR. Viewmont Viking ( talk) 22:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
proposal has not gained consensus, proposer indefinitely blocked |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Irrespective of whether it is right or wrong to have the section in the article, please don't edit war over it. Please discuss it here. It's a contentious section, so editors wishing to include it in the article will need to win consensus to do so. -- Scjessey ( talk) 16:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
[edit conflict with above thread] I've reverted this one [8] again, which is the remnant of some content that a currently-blocked editor has been persistently trying to shoehorn into the Obama biography. The content is POV - "admission" implies secrecy and guilt, and "first president" is an argument, not a neutral statement of facts. Obama didn't admit to anything, it was all in the open. The sources are poor - one Mother Jones analysis plus one opinion piece. The second sentence, properly sourced, might be okay but it is undue weight and out of context to put it in a standalone section that describes the criticism of extrajudicial killings and introduces Obama's supposed admission as the main subject, rather than the drone attack itself. The legal and political question of extrajudicial killings, and whether a US citizen has special status, are noteworthy subjects in their own, but linking that to Obama's presidency would require good sources, relevance, and concern for weight. If anyone wants to work the underlying event into the narrative about killing Bin Laden and drone attacks on other militants / terrorists, or argue here how and why we should cover any controversy over use of drone attacks that would be better. - Wikidemon ( talk) 17:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Take 2Lest we become a government mouthpiece, I encourage us all to use plain language whenever possible, i.e., words and terms that have been around a good hundred years or more for very old ideas, like political killings. Thank you. Settdigger ( talk) 02:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I've reverted this change, which inserted the term assassination as a synonym for targeted killing, giving "Overseas Contingency Operation: Plain language, please." as an edit summary. The terms are not synonyms. This would introduce an inconsistency between this article and the Targeted killing article. That other article quotes an outside source which says,
I've also seen this, in which Attorney General Eric Holder explains his view of the legal issues involved in the targeted killing by the U.S. government of a U.S. citizen as follows:
Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
It defines "assassinate" as "1) To kill by treacherous violence 2)To endeavour to kill by treacherous violence; to attack by an assassin. Obs. 3)o destroy or wound by treachery; to ‘stab’ reputation, etc" Relevant too then here is how the OED defines "treacherous": "1)Of persons, their attributes or actions: Characterized by treachery; deceiving, perfidious, false; disloyal, traitorous.2)Of things: Deceptive, untrustworthy, unreliable; of ground, ice, etc., unstable, insecure." God bless the OED for assisting in getting down to brass tacks. As to Wtmitchell's assertion that assassination is "widely defined" (whatever that means) as murder, he is doubtless thinking of this little OED nugget: (and here I am using the 2nd edition) where the word assassinate is actually a noun: "1.1 Murder, or an assault with intent to murder, by treacherous violence; assassination. " Note here that this use is obsolete: the last time the word assassinate was used as a synonym for a murder was 1755. So: I think what we come down to here is how we view this word "treacherous." Was Obama's killing of Al-Awlawki "treacherous"? I argue that it is. "Treachery" in this sense basically means secretive: more castles were taken in the middle ages by treachery than frontal assault, meaning they were usually inside jobs. To drone a dude, you obviously need good intel. Someone in Yemen had to call up the CIA, say: "Al-Awlawki is drinking coffee outside over there", and then, just like a hood Medieval assassin after the big tip-off, our loyal American drone drones the dude. Then he dead. Using the term "treacherous" to mean "disloyal" or "traitorous" is generally meaningless in this context: it's almost impossible to say that a sitting president can be either of those things. (By the way, anyone who tries to trump an OED definition with a definition from another source, please don't. You don't know what you're doing. Thanks). So: let's review. Assassination is "killing by treacherous violence." If you agree that drones are treacherous, i.e. secretive, you must agree that Obama assassinated Al-awlawki. Settdigger ( talk) 04:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Wtmitchell, as to your second quote: please leave legality out of this discussion. This is about nomenclature. Neither term, either "assassination" or "targeted killing" is either legal or illegal on the face of it. The question is: which term better describes Obama's killing of Al-awlawki. Keep in mind: "targeted killing" is, as you are well aware, in essence a government neologism to try to fancy their way out of violations of international law. In terms of plain language: because assassination basically means 'treacherous' targeted killing, it all comes down to that magic word: treachery. Let's discuss it. As to this "self defense" argument: again, it is not really pertinent. Either a "targeted killing" or an "assassination" might well be "in self defense" or "not in self defense." It all comes back to: was it a "treacherous" killing? Or not? Thanks-- Settdigger ( talk) 04:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
|
I wish to add the following to the article on Presidency of Barack Obama.
In September 7, 2012, the United States Bureau of Labor Statistic reported that at the end of August 2012, there were 133,300,000 employed people in the civilian labor force (nonfarm - seasonally adjusted), 261,000 less than when Obama became president in January 2009. [1]
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES000000000
Do you agree/disagree?
--cgersten 20:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001. --cgersten 03:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten ( talk • contribs)
Scjessey, regarding the use of the word "attacking." Even if it's in the original source, does that justify its use in an encyclopedia? Also, I notice that the original source is available online for $11.00. Gary C. Jacobson, "The Republican Resurgence in 2010," Political Science Quarterly (2011) 126#1 pp. 27-52. Did you spend the $11.00 and if so, can I have a copy? If not, how did you know that the source used the term "attacking"? And regarding the proposed edit about, here are a few reliable secondary sources. The Senate Republican Policy Committee [11]. The House Republican Conference [12]. Congressman John Kline of Minnesota [13]. Clearly WP:RECENT is not an issue and neither is WP:NPOV. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 18:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
"30 consecutive months of job growth is not 'dismal'. You'd prefer the job losses of the previous administration?" As a matter of fact, I would. Under Bush, the cumulative total of job creation (including the losses of the 2007-2008 recession) was +1.1 million. Obama is barely out of negative territory with this new jobs report. Also, there's a lot of contradictory data in this jobs report, calling its accuracy into question. CNBC — note this is not World Net Daily or Newsmax, but part of the same media conglomerate that brings you Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell — has cited a "slew of contradictory data." [15] For example, there are only 114,000 new jobs. (Simple growth in population demands about 160,000 new jobs per month just to break even on the unemployment rate, and when job growth consistently fails to satisfy that threshold, it's dismal.) A total of 873,000 unemployed workers were reported as finding new jobs. How does that work exactly. Do seven or eight workers share each new job nowadays? Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 20:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I am not going to be egged by an uncivil edit summary into an editing war, but I would like to point out that verified content that has been properly attributed to a reliable source has been removed by another editor. If one were to look at the source, the source links to the sources which indicate the 19 bankruptcy statement.
It lists, as having filed for bankruptcy:
This is just seven of the companies listed by the source removed, so this "b***s*** claim" statement about the source is IMHO uncalled for, and its removal is a diservice to the article's improvement.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 22:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
The removed material is sourced, germane, significant and credible. The remover made a vague/general claim that it was "bull-shit". The claim lacks credibility, they never even said what of all of that credible material they felt was incorrect. That would be the bare minimum to even think of removal. North8000 ( talk) 01:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Only a one percent failure during the Bush Crash? That's a notable miracle. Hcobb ( talk) 13:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Removal of content supported by a Heritage Foundation source because a WP editor sees it as disagreeing with content supported by a CNN source would appear to be a violation of WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Nothing provided by Heritage can be considered a reliable source. Please let this agenda-driven crusade go and stop disrupting Wikipedia. -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
So the text should be something like: "In the midst of the Bush Crash, with America's future depending on all forms of energy. Careful allocation of federal funds kept ninety nine percent of selected future energy companies afloat." Right? Hcobb ( talk) 00:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Greater than 27 thousand energy and environmentally related projects have received loans, grants, or other incentives.( source) A few companies connected to these projects have declared bankruptcy, including Solyndra,( source) Ener1,( source) Abound Solar,( source) and A123 Systems.( source)( source)
Greater than 27 thousand energy and environmentally related projects have received loans, grants, or other incentives.( source) Solyndra, which received $528 million in loans, later declared bankruptcy.( source) Ener1, which received a $118 million grant, later declared bankruptcy.( source). Abound Solar, which received $68 million in loans, later declared bankruptcy. A123 Systems, which received a $249 million grant, later declared bankruptcy.( source)
NPOV requires the usual, rather than the unusual to be noted. So a simple note that Obama's energy polices have be 99% successful would suffice, without noting any of the many many successes or few failures by name in this article. Hcobb ( talk) 21:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Above is in violation of WP:CIVIL, and supports not following WP:NEU. I kindly ask the above user to maintain civility.
Furthermore, the above statement is supporting exclusion of verified to reliable source(s) content that can be neutrally worded. It claims that I am attempting to add something synthesized when it is clearly stated in the reliable sources. Because an editor may not agree with what a reliable sources says is not a reason for exclusion.
The reliable sources (as has been provided numerous times above) state that the Obama Administration, through its green energy initiatives (as currently included in the article, which was been proposed by another editor for deletion), have funded companies that have declared bankruptcies. These bankruptcies were highly notable, notable enough, that some of those companies have their own articles. This is factual, verifiable to reliable sources, and can be worded neutrally in this article.
I would support either inclusion of additional content, neutrally worded of course, that I have already should to be clearly verifiable; or, the deletion of the content as suggested by Wikidemon.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 23:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
See the following references:
-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 23:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I have read WP:SNOW, I have read WP:NEU, I have read WP:WEIGHT, I have read WP:RS, and I have read WP:VER. The content that was removed, all but the first. Yet, even in the first (which is an essay) it says:
The snowball clause is not policy, and there are sometimes good reasons for pushing ahead against the flames anyway; well-aimed snowballs have, on rare occasions, made it through the inferno to reach their marks.
If there are a large number, even a consensus of editors, that seek to supress neutrally worded, balanced in weight, verified by reliable source(s) content because they do not agree with it, that does not make the censorship right.
Moreover, the above statement by Scjessey, IMHO, is clearly uncivil.
This article should not become not be a promotional page for the subject; nor should it be an attack page either. Therefore, to exclude content that may be observed by some as not positively reflecting upon the subject would create an article that on balance becomes a promotion or propaganda page. Such a page would be against policy, as would such a page that is purely a criticism page (oh wait, those exist, or did exist against conservative notable individuals). So since criticism pages exist, that must mean that promotoion pages exist as well, even though both are against policy. So if against policy, there is a consensus to make this a promotion page, I will continue to advocate for policy.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 20:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't see that the sub-issue of funding for alternative energy programs and the recipients' respective successes and failures, as terribly significant or relevant to the presidency of Obama, the subject at hand here. We don't go into that detail on an industry-by-industry basis.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided $54 billion in funds to double domestic renewable energy production, renovate federal buildings making them more energy-efficient, improve the nation's electricity grid, repair public housing, and weatherize modest-income homes.[265]
In listing the intents, it thus states expected positive outcomes. I have shown that there are non-"right wing" sources that give significant coverage to non-positive outcomes; others are trying to censor that data. I have not argued against inclusion of the "1% statement" regarding the funding, as it is verifiable to a reliable source; however, there have been several editors who are against inclusion of other verifiable content.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 18:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
The sentence which is being defended by Scjessey, which the editor has advocating nothing follow (even if neutrally worded and verified to reliable source(s)), is:
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided $54 billion in funds to encourage domestic renewable energy production, make federal buildings more energy-efficient, improve the electricity grid, repair public housing, and weatherize modest-income homes.[263]
I am stating that if Scjessey is making the arguement that nothing else should follow the sentence quoted above due to WP:WEIGHT, I can therefore argue that singling out $54 billion out of 787-831 billion dollars of authorized sepending itself would should be removed per the arguement put forward by Scjessey. However, if Scjessey views the sentence as being proper in the article due to it being neutrally worded and verified, and having sufficient weight to be in the article, then outcomes (including non-positive outcomes) should also have sufficient weight for inclusion. Additionally, let us look at the weight of "green energy funding obama stimulus", it does appear to be notable; yet look at what are the highest search results:
So, there is sufficient weight to include the sentence (3,260 thousand hits), yet within the weight of the subject, the bankruptices and non-positive outcomes of that subject are the heaviest weighted parts of that subject. Therefore, to exclude non-positive outcomes of the 54 billion dollars would be 'censorship of content that has sufficient weight for inclusion into the subject which Scjessey is defending should be within the article.
As for the two paragraphs prior to the sentence which Scjessey is advocating stand alone, with no outcomes (positive or negative) following it are as follows:
The New York Times reported in 2009, that the NSA is intercepting communications of American citizens including a Congressman, although the Justice Department believed that the NSA had corrected its errors.[260] United States Attorney General Eric Holder resumed the wiretapping according to his understanding of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008 that Congress passed in July 2008, but without explaining what had occurred.[261]
[edit] Environment
On January 27, 2009, Obama issued two presidential memoranda concerning energy policy. One directed the Department of Transportation to raise fuel efficiency standards incrementally to 35 miles per US gallon (15 km/L) by 2020, and the other directed the Environmental Protection Agency to allow individual states to set stricter tailpipe emissions regulations than the federal standard.[42][262]
Both these paragraphs have nothing to do with the ARRA, more commonly refered to as Obama Stimulus.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 18:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
The previous two paragraphs discuss the other parts of ARRA.
Should content verified by reliable source(s) regarding outcomes of "$54 billion in funds to encourage domestic renewable energy production," both positive and negative, be included within the article, following this sentence
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided $54 billion in funds to encourage domestic renewable energy production, make federal buildings more energy-efficient, improve the electricity grid, repair public housing, and weatherize modest-income homes.[263]
?-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 18:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Disposition Matrix should be added to the article. 72.53.146.220 ( talk) 16:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I have placed a neutrality tag on the Wall Street Reform Section that describes the Dodd-Frank Act. The sentence "The law recognizes complex financial derivatives and makes rules to protect consumers from unfair practices in loans and credit cards by establishing a new consumer protection agency" seems to lend positive interpretation of the act to the reader instead of an objective, unbiased viewpoint. Specifically, the phrase "...makes rules to protect consumers from unfair practices in loans and credit cards" seems to be somewhat biased. Perhaps the phrase could be revised?
Also-not sure if this is appropriate or not for this brief summary of the act-but shouldn't there be some mention of the controversy surrounding the bill?
-Labranewf ( talk) 03:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I think the source itself is fine. Perhaps we could simply replace the term "unfair" to establish a more generally neutral tone for the section. "Controversial", maybe? Do you have any other suggestions?
-Labranewf ( talk) 03:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Then I think we should call the source into question. I've found another source herethat I think provides a more objective analysis. It's from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
The document states: "The stated goals of the act were to provide for financial regulatory reform, to protect consumers and investors, to put an end to too-big-to-fail, to regulate the over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives markets, to prevent another financial crisis, and for other purposes."
Would you agree that this would serve as a better overview than the current source? I think this minimizes any potential bias and would be be better over all-it's the actual official description of the bill and the Chicago Fed is a better source than CNN (IMO). -Labranewf ( talk) 23:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I really like the new wording. I think it removes any possible value judgment. Thanks. -Labranewf ( talk) 22:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
The expansion of use of drones to make war on non-state entities in various countries is an important part of the Obama administration's foreign policy. I brought this up on Barack Obama's page, and while the general consensus seems to be in favor of adding it, Scjessey suggests that we include it in more detail in this article as well. I suggest a subsection in the "Foreign Policy" section of the article. Some argue that the term "Drone War" is politicized. Personally, I find it fairly objective, but if that's an unacceptable title, "Expansion of Drone Program" would probably suffice. The subsection should include a couple paragraphs describing the use of drones, including their use in Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia, and their recently announced expansion to North Africa (from a base in Niger). I would suggest including the opposing viewpoints on drones- maybe a brief description of the White House's position followed by a brief description of the anti-drone opinion as espoused by some noteworthy governmental or journalistic source (al-Jazeera comes to mind immediately, but there are others). Thoughts? Kaputa12 ( talk) 00:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I recently came across [21] and I think it should be added to the Ethics section of this article: "Giving or raising $500,000 or more puts donors on a national advisory board for Mr. Obama’s group and the privilege of attending quarterly meetings with the president, along with other meetings at the White House." ( the original report, the press conference response.) Whatever the details, the plain facts seem to be that half a million dollars buys regular meetings with the president. EllenCT ( talk) 07:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
If this topic can't be included in the article, then what's even the point of having a section called "Transparency" or a section called "Ethics" or a section called "Wall St. Reform" or a section called "Lobbying Reform"? This external criticism of this wikipedia article addresses these sections of the article in great detail. The writer claims that all of these sections have repeatedly removed huge amounts of reliably sourced material from all of these sections, but only when the material shows bad things about the subject. Anything that makes the subject look good is allowed to remain. As a result, this article has a huge number of violates of wikipedia's Wikipedia:NPOV policy. Thirsty and purple ( talk) 21:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
This is still generating stories, with Republicans trying to use it politically, so I sincerely doubt it will be going away any time soon. [27] [28] [29] Since Obama went ahead and met with the group on Wednesday, I'm going to add a short blurb in the Ethics section. EllenCT ( talk) 00:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
This is continuing to generate a steady quantity of negative press for OFA and Obama, in both factual and op-ed pieces, but now there is no question that the criticism is coming from every part of the political spectrum, it is now broadly international, and it seems to be growing more cutting and angrier in tone, and with more extreme headlines, as the days go by. Here is an example selection of articles since Wednesday's OFA convention, most recent first: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]. While I think some of those factual pieces have important things to include (e.g., the Sunlight Foundation complaint that the list of $500,000+ donors who will meet quarterly with Obama -- somewhere other than the White House -- has not been released) I am not going to be proposing another edit for at least another week, in part because I told my lab advisor that I would wait for reactions to my initial article edits, and also because I think it's likely that there will be further important developments. EllenCT ( talk) 05:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The net effect appears to be that even smaller items go in if they look favorable for Barack Obama and that, (by one means or another) larger items that aren't so favorable-looking get left out. For example, the Solyndra topic, where half a billion dollars were lost, and which had immense coverage which related it to him, is not here, but we have an entire >200 words section (plus an image) where he took the popular stance when a person was mistreated when they got locked out of their house and settled it between the two people. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 12:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Commenting since I participated earlier in this section/discussion. One editor suggested that "[another editor] should make specific suggestions (perhaps with proposed text) about what should be added/cut"
I will just point out that I did that, two sections above. In the section entitled "Inclusion of the Drone War" I offered three specific aspects of the drone controversy—matters of public policy for this administration, quite notable, a bit controversial in various circles, and definitely of both worldwide and domestic interest—that ought to be added to the article. Recommend that specific discussion stay in that section. But I mention it here as it, too, is a way by which the article can become better, as well as more neutral. It should not be left out simply because it is an area in which the administration has been criticised. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 05:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
While I wish that Wikipedia had a relevancy criteria for content; sadly it does not. The standard described above for inclusion of material about a negative development "impeccable, neutral sources will be needed to demonstrate why Solyndra is so important." is many levels higher the norm in Wikipedia. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 19:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
What is the story behind [39]? Is there a long-running dispute on all those items here? Or a specific thread in the talk page archives about them? EllenCT ( talk) 01:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
This 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. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
In June of 2009, protests broke out in Iran after Presidential elections that many Iranians believe were marred by fraud [1]. Obama called on the Iranian Government to stop "violent and unjust" action against the protesters [2], but resisted calls to do more than that. He was criticized for not being more forceful [3], but responded that "the last thing I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for — those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States." [4]. Protests broke out again in Iran in February of 2011 and were again met with force [5].
After a sudden revolution in Tunisia, [6] Arab discontent began to spread. Demonstrations broke out Egypt in January and February of 2011. Press reports indicated that Obama followed a strategy of pressing for dramatic change, and leaving little doubt that he felt Mubarak's resignation would be desirable, without actually saying so [7] [8]. After three weeks of unrest, Mubarak resigned [8]. Anti-Government protests broke out in Benghazi, Libya, in February, 2011, [9] and the Gadaffi government responded with military force [10]. The Obama Administration initially resisted calls to take strong action [11] but relented after the Arab League requested Western intervention in Libya [12]. The US provided air support, especially at the beginning of the operation, and helped in areas in which it has unique capabilities, such as electronic warfare and aerial surveillance [13]. The Obama administration demanded and got participation from several Arab and European nations and Obama stated that the US would not send any ground troops [14]. With Coalition support, the rebels took Tripoli the following August [15]. By the second half of March, 2011, anti-government protests were being held in Syria, and police killed protesters in several cities [16]. In March, 2012, Obama argued that unilateral military action would be a mistake [17]. As of June, 2012, several experts characterized the situation as a civil war [18].
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help); Unknown parameter |Title=
ignored (|title=
suggested) (
help)
William Jockusch ( talk) 18:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/06/12/it-s-a-coup-d-etat.html|title=It’s a Coup d’Etat’|first=Maziar|last=Bahari}}</ref>
but under normal circumstances, just link it like this
[1] --
Scjessey (
talk)
21:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)"The Iranian regime survived the protests and remains in power." should not be there. It has nothing to do with Obama's presidency. Other than that, it mostly looks okay until you get into the second half of the second paragraph. Then you run headlong into a recentism problem by talking about Syria. -- Scjessey ( talk) 21:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
adding information widely reported on Obama's health: Reliable: [2] [3] Reliability is not clear: [4] [5] [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.35.69 ( talk) 04:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I propose that the fourth section approval ratings and opinion could be substantially reduced in length if a graph of the approval ratings versus time were included. Visual data is always preferred over sentence after sentence of data. I have removed the need for expansion tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.142.15 ( talk) 14:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC) To make the other graphs in the article, how was data completed? Did you only use data from the same source? For example, in this section, there is a sentence that hints at fox's polling numbers being less accurate. Should I only pick polling from the same group like only from gallup? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.142.15 ( talk) 19:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
The following was recently restored to the article:
As of July 2010, Obama's nominees to the district and circuit courts had been confirmed at a rate of only 43.5 percent, compared to 87.2 percent during Bill Clinton's administration and 91.3 percent for George W. Bush. The Center for American Progress, which compiled the data, commented:
Judicial confirmations slowed to a trickle on the day President Barack Obama took office. Filibusters, anonymous holds, and other obstructionary tactics have become the rule. Uncontroversial nominees wait months for a floor vote, and even district court nominees—low-ranking judges whose confirmations have never been controversial in the past—are routinely filibustered into oblivion. Nominations grind to a halt in many cases even after the Senate Judiciary Committee has unanimously endorsed a nominee.
This is a misleading use of statistics which should not be included. They are comparing apples and oranges. A proper comparison would compare the first 18 months of Obama's term with the first 18 months of Bush or Clinton. Instead, they compare the first 18 months of Obama with the entire Bush or Clinton term. William Jockusch ( talk) 00:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
At the end of the article's second paragraph this should be added: The Nobel Committee attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons. LeahBethM ( talk) 06:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
In October 2010 I wrote that Impeachment of Barack Obama is close to being a viable article. In August 2011 I wrote that the article is even closer to viability with a Member of Congress & a major candidate calling for Obama's impeachment. Today, a Senator joined the frey. All I can say is one or two more high profile elected officials calling for Obama's impeachment, and Impeachment of Barack Obama becomes as viable of an article as Impeachment of George W. Bush. Victor Victoria ( talk) 00:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I had recently added content regarding the death of one Cpl Baune , who was that 2000th death in Afghanistan. The content had two reliable sources to provide verification. Another editor removed the content claiming that the content falls under WP:UNDUE & WP:RECENT. However, I am of the opinion that as there is content in the article that relates to the Obama Administration enacting the surge, that content relating to a milestone death does not fall under UNDUE, as such I have reverted the reversion and invited interested editors to discuss inclusion, or re-removal of the content. I am hoping some type of compromise can be reached.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 23:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Additionally the content was written in a neutral manor, and did not attempt to criticize the subject of the article.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 00:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
In or out? [7] A procedural note. The sentences have been in the article for a while, so they presumably have consensus (although in hindsight, a proposal that didn't go anywhere may not be significant enough to include). The IP editor who was edit warring past 3RR to remove it has been making a ruckus on many articles, so I would not give any weight to their decision to remove it today and might just defer this per WP:DENY. Nonetheless, now that we have regular editors on both sides of this, what's best for the article? - Wikidemon ( talk) 20:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Really we can't wait until his first term is actual finished before heaping on praise. This is also the term that the Oceans would start to recede and th earth would heal. He may have done all those things, and great he ordered the killing of OBL, but let us wait until at least his first term is over before compairing him the FDR. Viewmont Viking ( talk) 22:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
proposal has not gained consensus, proposer indefinitely blocked |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Irrespective of whether it is right or wrong to have the section in the article, please don't edit war over it. Please discuss it here. It's a contentious section, so editors wishing to include it in the article will need to win consensus to do so. -- Scjessey ( talk) 16:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
[edit conflict with above thread] I've reverted this one [8] again, which is the remnant of some content that a currently-blocked editor has been persistently trying to shoehorn into the Obama biography. The content is POV - "admission" implies secrecy and guilt, and "first president" is an argument, not a neutral statement of facts. Obama didn't admit to anything, it was all in the open. The sources are poor - one Mother Jones analysis plus one opinion piece. The second sentence, properly sourced, might be okay but it is undue weight and out of context to put it in a standalone section that describes the criticism of extrajudicial killings and introduces Obama's supposed admission as the main subject, rather than the drone attack itself. The legal and political question of extrajudicial killings, and whether a US citizen has special status, are noteworthy subjects in their own, but linking that to Obama's presidency would require good sources, relevance, and concern for weight. If anyone wants to work the underlying event into the narrative about killing Bin Laden and drone attacks on other militants / terrorists, or argue here how and why we should cover any controversy over use of drone attacks that would be better. - Wikidemon ( talk) 17:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Take 2Lest we become a government mouthpiece, I encourage us all to use plain language whenever possible, i.e., words and terms that have been around a good hundred years or more for very old ideas, like political killings. Thank you. Settdigger ( talk) 02:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I've reverted this change, which inserted the term assassination as a synonym for targeted killing, giving "Overseas Contingency Operation: Plain language, please." as an edit summary. The terms are not synonyms. This would introduce an inconsistency between this article and the Targeted killing article. That other article quotes an outside source which says,
I've also seen this, in which Attorney General Eric Holder explains his view of the legal issues involved in the targeted killing by the U.S. government of a U.S. citizen as follows:
Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
It defines "assassinate" as "1) To kill by treacherous violence 2)To endeavour to kill by treacherous violence; to attack by an assassin. Obs. 3)o destroy or wound by treachery; to ‘stab’ reputation, etc" Relevant too then here is how the OED defines "treacherous": "1)Of persons, their attributes or actions: Characterized by treachery; deceiving, perfidious, false; disloyal, traitorous.2)Of things: Deceptive, untrustworthy, unreliable; of ground, ice, etc., unstable, insecure." God bless the OED for assisting in getting down to brass tacks. As to Wtmitchell's assertion that assassination is "widely defined" (whatever that means) as murder, he is doubtless thinking of this little OED nugget: (and here I am using the 2nd edition) where the word assassinate is actually a noun: "1.1 Murder, or an assault with intent to murder, by treacherous violence; assassination. " Note here that this use is obsolete: the last time the word assassinate was used as a synonym for a murder was 1755. So: I think what we come down to here is how we view this word "treacherous." Was Obama's killing of Al-Awlawki "treacherous"? I argue that it is. "Treachery" in this sense basically means secretive: more castles were taken in the middle ages by treachery than frontal assault, meaning they were usually inside jobs. To drone a dude, you obviously need good intel. Someone in Yemen had to call up the CIA, say: "Al-Awlawki is drinking coffee outside over there", and then, just like a hood Medieval assassin after the big tip-off, our loyal American drone drones the dude. Then he dead. Using the term "treacherous" to mean "disloyal" or "traitorous" is generally meaningless in this context: it's almost impossible to say that a sitting president can be either of those things. (By the way, anyone who tries to trump an OED definition with a definition from another source, please don't. You don't know what you're doing. Thanks). So: let's review. Assassination is "killing by treacherous violence." If you agree that drones are treacherous, i.e. secretive, you must agree that Obama assassinated Al-awlawki. Settdigger ( talk) 04:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Wtmitchell, as to your second quote: please leave legality out of this discussion. This is about nomenclature. Neither term, either "assassination" or "targeted killing" is either legal or illegal on the face of it. The question is: which term better describes Obama's killing of Al-awlawki. Keep in mind: "targeted killing" is, as you are well aware, in essence a government neologism to try to fancy their way out of violations of international law. In terms of plain language: because assassination basically means 'treacherous' targeted killing, it all comes down to that magic word: treachery. Let's discuss it. As to this "self defense" argument: again, it is not really pertinent. Either a "targeted killing" or an "assassination" might well be "in self defense" or "not in self defense." It all comes back to: was it a "treacherous" killing? Or not? Thanks-- Settdigger ( talk) 04:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
|
I wish to add the following to the article on Presidency of Barack Obama.
In September 7, 2012, the United States Bureau of Labor Statistic reported that at the end of August 2012, there were 133,300,000 employed people in the civilian labor force (nonfarm - seasonally adjusted), 261,000 less than when Obama became president in January 2009. [1]
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES000000000
Do you agree/disagree?
--cgersten 20:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001. --cgersten 03:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten ( talk • contribs)
Scjessey, regarding the use of the word "attacking." Even if it's in the original source, does that justify its use in an encyclopedia? Also, I notice that the original source is available online for $11.00. Gary C. Jacobson, "The Republican Resurgence in 2010," Political Science Quarterly (2011) 126#1 pp. 27-52. Did you spend the $11.00 and if so, can I have a copy? If not, how did you know that the source used the term "attacking"? And regarding the proposed edit about, here are a few reliable secondary sources. The Senate Republican Policy Committee [11]. The House Republican Conference [12]. Congressman John Kline of Minnesota [13]. Clearly WP:RECENT is not an issue and neither is WP:NPOV. Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 18:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
"30 consecutive months of job growth is not 'dismal'. You'd prefer the job losses of the previous administration?" As a matter of fact, I would. Under Bush, the cumulative total of job creation (including the losses of the 2007-2008 recession) was +1.1 million. Obama is barely out of negative territory with this new jobs report. Also, there's a lot of contradictory data in this jobs report, calling its accuracy into question. CNBC — note this is not World Net Daily or Newsmax, but part of the same media conglomerate that brings you Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell — has cited a "slew of contradictory data." [15] For example, there are only 114,000 new jobs. (Simple growth in population demands about 160,000 new jobs per month just to break even on the unemployment rate, and when job growth consistently fails to satisfy that threshold, it's dismal.) A total of 873,000 unemployed workers were reported as finding new jobs. How does that work exactly. Do seven or eight workers share each new job nowadays? Phoenix and Winslow ( talk) 20:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I am not going to be egged by an uncivil edit summary into an editing war, but I would like to point out that verified content that has been properly attributed to a reliable source has been removed by another editor. If one were to look at the source, the source links to the sources which indicate the 19 bankruptcy statement.
It lists, as having filed for bankruptcy:
This is just seven of the companies listed by the source removed, so this "b***s*** claim" statement about the source is IMHO uncalled for, and its removal is a diservice to the article's improvement.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 22:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
The removed material is sourced, germane, significant and credible. The remover made a vague/general claim that it was "bull-shit". The claim lacks credibility, they never even said what of all of that credible material they felt was incorrect. That would be the bare minimum to even think of removal. North8000 ( talk) 01:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Only a one percent failure during the Bush Crash? That's a notable miracle. Hcobb ( talk) 13:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Removal of content supported by a Heritage Foundation source because a WP editor sees it as disagreeing with content supported by a CNN source would appear to be a violation of WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Nothing provided by Heritage can be considered a reliable source. Please let this agenda-driven crusade go and stop disrupting Wikipedia. -- Scjessey ( talk) 13:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
So the text should be something like: "In the midst of the Bush Crash, with America's future depending on all forms of energy. Careful allocation of federal funds kept ninety nine percent of selected future energy companies afloat." Right? Hcobb ( talk) 00:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Greater than 27 thousand energy and environmentally related projects have received loans, grants, or other incentives.( source) A few companies connected to these projects have declared bankruptcy, including Solyndra,( source) Ener1,( source) Abound Solar,( source) and A123 Systems.( source)( source)
Greater than 27 thousand energy and environmentally related projects have received loans, grants, or other incentives.( source) Solyndra, which received $528 million in loans, later declared bankruptcy.( source) Ener1, which received a $118 million grant, later declared bankruptcy.( source). Abound Solar, which received $68 million in loans, later declared bankruptcy. A123 Systems, which received a $249 million grant, later declared bankruptcy.( source)
NPOV requires the usual, rather than the unusual to be noted. So a simple note that Obama's energy polices have be 99% successful would suffice, without noting any of the many many successes or few failures by name in this article. Hcobb ( talk) 21:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Above is in violation of WP:CIVIL, and supports not following WP:NEU. I kindly ask the above user to maintain civility.
Furthermore, the above statement is supporting exclusion of verified to reliable source(s) content that can be neutrally worded. It claims that I am attempting to add something synthesized when it is clearly stated in the reliable sources. Because an editor may not agree with what a reliable sources says is not a reason for exclusion.
The reliable sources (as has been provided numerous times above) state that the Obama Administration, through its green energy initiatives (as currently included in the article, which was been proposed by another editor for deletion), have funded companies that have declared bankruptcies. These bankruptcies were highly notable, notable enough, that some of those companies have their own articles. This is factual, verifiable to reliable sources, and can be worded neutrally in this article.
I would support either inclusion of additional content, neutrally worded of course, that I have already should to be clearly verifiable; or, the deletion of the content as suggested by Wikidemon.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 23:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
See the following references:
-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 23:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I have read WP:SNOW, I have read WP:NEU, I have read WP:WEIGHT, I have read WP:RS, and I have read WP:VER. The content that was removed, all but the first. Yet, even in the first (which is an essay) it says:
The snowball clause is not policy, and there are sometimes good reasons for pushing ahead against the flames anyway; well-aimed snowballs have, on rare occasions, made it through the inferno to reach their marks.
If there are a large number, even a consensus of editors, that seek to supress neutrally worded, balanced in weight, verified by reliable source(s) content because they do not agree with it, that does not make the censorship right.
Moreover, the above statement by Scjessey, IMHO, is clearly uncivil.
This article should not become not be a promotional page for the subject; nor should it be an attack page either. Therefore, to exclude content that may be observed by some as not positively reflecting upon the subject would create an article that on balance becomes a promotion or propaganda page. Such a page would be against policy, as would such a page that is purely a criticism page (oh wait, those exist, or did exist against conservative notable individuals). So since criticism pages exist, that must mean that promotoion pages exist as well, even though both are against policy. So if against policy, there is a consensus to make this a promotion page, I will continue to advocate for policy.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 20:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't see that the sub-issue of funding for alternative energy programs and the recipients' respective successes and failures, as terribly significant or relevant to the presidency of Obama, the subject at hand here. We don't go into that detail on an industry-by-industry basis.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided $54 billion in funds to double domestic renewable energy production, renovate federal buildings making them more energy-efficient, improve the nation's electricity grid, repair public housing, and weatherize modest-income homes.[265]
In listing the intents, it thus states expected positive outcomes. I have shown that there are non-"right wing" sources that give significant coverage to non-positive outcomes; others are trying to censor that data. I have not argued against inclusion of the "1% statement" regarding the funding, as it is verifiable to a reliable source; however, there have been several editors who are against inclusion of other verifiable content.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 18:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
The sentence which is being defended by Scjessey, which the editor has advocating nothing follow (even if neutrally worded and verified to reliable source(s)), is:
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided $54 billion in funds to encourage domestic renewable energy production, make federal buildings more energy-efficient, improve the electricity grid, repair public housing, and weatherize modest-income homes.[263]
I am stating that if Scjessey is making the arguement that nothing else should follow the sentence quoted above due to WP:WEIGHT, I can therefore argue that singling out $54 billion out of 787-831 billion dollars of authorized sepending itself would should be removed per the arguement put forward by Scjessey. However, if Scjessey views the sentence as being proper in the article due to it being neutrally worded and verified, and having sufficient weight to be in the article, then outcomes (including non-positive outcomes) should also have sufficient weight for inclusion. Additionally, let us look at the weight of "green energy funding obama stimulus", it does appear to be notable; yet look at what are the highest search results:
So, there is sufficient weight to include the sentence (3,260 thousand hits), yet within the weight of the subject, the bankruptices and non-positive outcomes of that subject are the heaviest weighted parts of that subject. Therefore, to exclude non-positive outcomes of the 54 billion dollars would be 'censorship of content that has sufficient weight for inclusion into the subject which Scjessey is defending should be within the article.
As for the two paragraphs prior to the sentence which Scjessey is advocating stand alone, with no outcomes (positive or negative) following it are as follows:
The New York Times reported in 2009, that the NSA is intercepting communications of American citizens including a Congressman, although the Justice Department believed that the NSA had corrected its errors.[260] United States Attorney General Eric Holder resumed the wiretapping according to his understanding of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008 that Congress passed in July 2008, but without explaining what had occurred.[261]
[edit] Environment
On January 27, 2009, Obama issued two presidential memoranda concerning energy policy. One directed the Department of Transportation to raise fuel efficiency standards incrementally to 35 miles per US gallon (15 km/L) by 2020, and the other directed the Environmental Protection Agency to allow individual states to set stricter tailpipe emissions regulations than the federal standard.[42][262]
Both these paragraphs have nothing to do with the ARRA, more commonly refered to as Obama Stimulus.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 18:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
The previous two paragraphs discuss the other parts of ARRA.
Should content verified by reliable source(s) regarding outcomes of "$54 billion in funds to encourage domestic renewable energy production," both positive and negative, be included within the article, following this sentence
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided $54 billion in funds to encourage domestic renewable energy production, make federal buildings more energy-efficient, improve the electricity grid, repair public housing, and weatherize modest-income homes.[263]
?-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 18:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Disposition Matrix should be added to the article. 72.53.146.220 ( talk) 16:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I have placed a neutrality tag on the Wall Street Reform Section that describes the Dodd-Frank Act. The sentence "The law recognizes complex financial derivatives and makes rules to protect consumers from unfair practices in loans and credit cards by establishing a new consumer protection agency" seems to lend positive interpretation of the act to the reader instead of an objective, unbiased viewpoint. Specifically, the phrase "...makes rules to protect consumers from unfair practices in loans and credit cards" seems to be somewhat biased. Perhaps the phrase could be revised?
Also-not sure if this is appropriate or not for this brief summary of the act-but shouldn't there be some mention of the controversy surrounding the bill?
-Labranewf ( talk) 03:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I think the source itself is fine. Perhaps we could simply replace the term "unfair" to establish a more generally neutral tone for the section. "Controversial", maybe? Do you have any other suggestions?
-Labranewf ( talk) 03:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Then I think we should call the source into question. I've found another source herethat I think provides a more objective analysis. It's from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
The document states: "The stated goals of the act were to provide for financial regulatory reform, to protect consumers and investors, to put an end to too-big-to-fail, to regulate the over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives markets, to prevent another financial crisis, and for other purposes."
Would you agree that this would serve as a better overview than the current source? I think this minimizes any potential bias and would be be better over all-it's the actual official description of the bill and the Chicago Fed is a better source than CNN (IMO). -Labranewf ( talk) 23:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I really like the new wording. I think it removes any possible value judgment. Thanks. -Labranewf ( talk) 22:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
The expansion of use of drones to make war on non-state entities in various countries is an important part of the Obama administration's foreign policy. I brought this up on Barack Obama's page, and while the general consensus seems to be in favor of adding it, Scjessey suggests that we include it in more detail in this article as well. I suggest a subsection in the "Foreign Policy" section of the article. Some argue that the term "Drone War" is politicized. Personally, I find it fairly objective, but if that's an unacceptable title, "Expansion of Drone Program" would probably suffice. The subsection should include a couple paragraphs describing the use of drones, including their use in Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia, and their recently announced expansion to North Africa (from a base in Niger). I would suggest including the opposing viewpoints on drones- maybe a brief description of the White House's position followed by a brief description of the anti-drone opinion as espoused by some noteworthy governmental or journalistic source (al-Jazeera comes to mind immediately, but there are others). Thoughts? Kaputa12 ( talk) 00:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I recently came across [21] and I think it should be added to the Ethics section of this article: "Giving or raising $500,000 or more puts donors on a national advisory board for Mr. Obama’s group and the privilege of attending quarterly meetings with the president, along with other meetings at the White House." ( the original report, the press conference response.) Whatever the details, the plain facts seem to be that half a million dollars buys regular meetings with the president. EllenCT ( talk) 07:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
If this topic can't be included in the article, then what's even the point of having a section called "Transparency" or a section called "Ethics" or a section called "Wall St. Reform" or a section called "Lobbying Reform"? This external criticism of this wikipedia article addresses these sections of the article in great detail. The writer claims that all of these sections have repeatedly removed huge amounts of reliably sourced material from all of these sections, but only when the material shows bad things about the subject. Anything that makes the subject look good is allowed to remain. As a result, this article has a huge number of violates of wikipedia's Wikipedia:NPOV policy. Thirsty and purple ( talk) 21:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
This is still generating stories, with Republicans trying to use it politically, so I sincerely doubt it will be going away any time soon. [27] [28] [29] Since Obama went ahead and met with the group on Wednesday, I'm going to add a short blurb in the Ethics section. EllenCT ( talk) 00:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
This is continuing to generate a steady quantity of negative press for OFA and Obama, in both factual and op-ed pieces, but now there is no question that the criticism is coming from every part of the political spectrum, it is now broadly international, and it seems to be growing more cutting and angrier in tone, and with more extreme headlines, as the days go by. Here is an example selection of articles since Wednesday's OFA convention, most recent first: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]. While I think some of those factual pieces have important things to include (e.g., the Sunlight Foundation complaint that the list of $500,000+ donors who will meet quarterly with Obama -- somewhere other than the White House -- has not been released) I am not going to be proposing another edit for at least another week, in part because I told my lab advisor that I would wait for reactions to my initial article edits, and also because I think it's likely that there will be further important developments. EllenCT ( talk) 05:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The net effect appears to be that even smaller items go in if they look favorable for Barack Obama and that, (by one means or another) larger items that aren't so favorable-looking get left out. For example, the Solyndra topic, where half a billion dollars were lost, and which had immense coverage which related it to him, is not here, but we have an entire >200 words section (plus an image) where he took the popular stance when a person was mistreated when they got locked out of their house and settled it between the two people. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 12:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Commenting since I participated earlier in this section/discussion. One editor suggested that "[another editor] should make specific suggestions (perhaps with proposed text) about what should be added/cut"
I will just point out that I did that, two sections above. In the section entitled "Inclusion of the Drone War" I offered three specific aspects of the drone controversy—matters of public policy for this administration, quite notable, a bit controversial in various circles, and definitely of both worldwide and domestic interest—that ought to be added to the article. Recommend that specific discussion stay in that section. But I mention it here as it, too, is a way by which the article can become better, as well as more neutral. It should not be left out simply because it is an area in which the administration has been criticised. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 05:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
While I wish that Wikipedia had a relevancy criteria for content; sadly it does not. The standard described above for inclusion of material about a negative development "impeccable, neutral sources will be needed to demonstrate why Solyndra is so important." is many levels higher the norm in Wikipedia. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 19:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
What is the story behind [39]? Is there a long-running dispute on all those items here? Or a specific thread in the talk page archives about them? EllenCT ( talk) 01:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)