Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama/Archive 4

Notable non-Cabinet positions

I propose the following addition to the Notable non-Cabinet positions section:

Kevin Jennings is the Assistant Deputy heading the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools at the U.S. Department of Education. On page 103 of Jennings' 2007 autobiography, Mama's Boy, Preacher's Son: A Memoir, Jennings wrote "I got stoned more often and went out to the beach at Bellows, overlooking Honolulu Harbor and the lights of the city, to drink with my buddies on Friday and Saturday nights, spending hours watching the planes take off and land at the airport, which is actually quite fascinating when you are drunk and stoned."

This should be in the article, because it's just as notable as having tax cheater Timothy Geithner heading the agency that collects taxes.

Grundle2600 (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you even trying to be neutral anymore? Has it even be three hours? Grsz¹¹ 18:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to make the encyclopedia better! Grundle2600 (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC) (Note from Grundle2600: I forgot to sign this when I originally posted it. Sorry! Grundle2600 (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC))

How about a new approach. Let's just accept that Grundle2600 is a skeptic and a source of information critical of Obama. There's no rule on Wikipedia against having an opinion. Can we judge the proposals on their own merits, rather than holding our breath for him to start thinking good thoughts about the President? Some of the proposals are indeed noteworthy stuff that should be included. Others are, in my opinion, not. He's being friendly. Everyone should be so good-natured. Our policies and guidelines for NPOV, weight, sourcing, etc., are rules about how an article should turn out in the end, not a requirement that each editor be perfect all the time. They're Adam Smith's invisible hand in operation, a marketplace of ideas. It's through the interplay and sometimes debate and critique of lots of editors, each with their own background, that we can write good articles, not any single editor's perfection. Wikidemon (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I do agree with Obama's original promise to stop the DEA raids - too bad he broke it! Grundle2600 (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Grundle's Return

Well, after all this stürm und drang, the article is unchanged.

On Grundle's talk page, I suggested that he make one change at a time, and wait for the inevitable reverts to be discussed before making a second one. If he chooses to do so, perhaps we can be spared the trauma of untangling the mess above. PhGustaf (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. One thing at a time.

The article already had this information about Obama's actions against offshore oil drilling:

"On February 10, 2009, Obama overturned a Bush administration policy that had opened up a five-year period of offshore drilling for oil and gas near both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has been quoted as saying, "To establish an orderly process that allows us to make wise decisions based on sound information, we need to set aside" the plan "and create our own timeline".[171]"

NPOV requires that all points of view be included, so I added this information about his actions in favor of offshore oil drilling:

"In August 2009, Obama supported $2 billion in loan guarantees to fund offshore drilling."

But my addition was removed by one editor, and then later by a different editor.

Why is it OK for the article to mention one side of this issue, without also mentioning the other side?

Doesn't NPOV clearly state, "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 all editors."?

Grundle2600 (talk) 14:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Social policy

The person who made this edit, which erased the entry on medical marijuana, commented, "A 'very popular topic'? For whom? Any source that says so or is it just a popular topic for you? rm. 'news section' w/o connection."

OK. That's a legitimate point.

On March 26, 2009, the New York Times reported, "... the first live Internet video chat by an American president... after 3.6 million votes were cast, one of the top questions turned out to be a query on whether legalizing marijuana..."

Grundle2600 (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You already have an answer at my talk page. Would you kindly stop spreading your comments throughout WP and keep it in one spot? Thanks.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Updated information regarding recovery.org

The Denver Post just reported, "... despite federal lawmakers' pledge of transparency, the final stages of most money trails, along with key information about job impacts, will remain invisible to users of the Recovery.org website when it debuts next month."

I propose that this information be added to the relevant paragrpah in the Transparency section, in order to update the article, and make it more accurate.

I will give 72 hours to see if there is any consensus against such an addition before I make it. If the consensus is to not add it, I won't.

Grundle2600 (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

So the "voluntary break from editing all political articles for the next 96 hours" you pledged on your talk page doesn't extend to political article edit proposals with ultimatums that expire precisely as that 96 hours does? In other words, you aren't actually taking a break from "researching" and suggesting political edits, and we don't actually get a break from you. So this "break" is about what, then, exactly? Carpal tunnel? Family in town? Do you not see the irony that you keep trying to allege Obama has broken his pledges from the campaign trail many months ago, yet you don't honor your own of the previous day? Is there some Grundle congress getting in your way? You couldn't bear to sit on this story for three more days and then give us your ultimatum? What kind of good faith or self control does this represent? Abrazame (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, Grundle, remember that you need consensus to add something. Not consensus to not add it. Don't edit without consensus. You know where that will lead you. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Abrazame, I said, "Starting right now, I am taking a voluntary break from editing all political articles for the next 96 hours. I am doing this as a gesture of good will. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)." I never said anything about the talk pages. The purpose of this is so I can concentrate 100% on discussion and establishing consenses, instead of just haphazardly editing articles. Also, I never "allege" that Obama has broken his campaign promises - I prove that Obama has broken his campaign promises. I don't "research" in the sense of looking for this kind of stuff - I just happen to run across it when I'm surfing the internet. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Loonymonkey, thanks for the advice to help me stay out of trouble. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This edit and its comment are inexcusable.

Closing as moot
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In this edit, the editor (Splette) removed a large amount of content, and commented, "Please discuss changes on the talk page first." That edit, and its comment, are inexcusable, because I had already discussed my additions on the talk page first. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC) It's been more than two weeks since I posted that comment.Grundle2600 (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC) This other edit, with no explanation for removing content, is inexcusable. This edit, where the editor (The Magnificent Clean-keeper) erased a lot of relevant, well sourced information, does not contain any explantion for why the content was removed. Erasing that info, without explaining why, is inexcusable. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC) As a suggestion, let's try to stay focused here, interpret edit summaries in the best possible light, and take baby steps. I think people are jumpy about your trying to add to the article a bunch of stuff that you've been proposing for a long while and that did not gain full acceptance. Okay, so there. But please don't react with alarm because that will just make them more jumpy. Of course it's excusable, whether it's right or not. Here's the excuse - the longer version of the edit summary is that you should finish the conversation on the talk page before instituting a disputed edit. If you look at WP:BRD it's okay to reverse a change and say it does not yet have consensus, so take it balk to the talk page. Why not concentrate on a single one of these, perhaps the least controversial, and we'll keep talking about it until we agree on a wording? I think we all agree that Van Jones is worth one sentence in the article, no? Let's start there. Who agrees or disagrees that we should add a sentence about Van Jones to the section on non-cabinet level positions? Wikidemon (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC) You sure are good at being calm. I will try more to be like that too. Thank you for your comments. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC) I "agree that Van Jones is worth one sentence in the article". --4wajzkd02 (talk) Van Jones does still not have even one sentence in the article. Does anyone here have a reasonable objection to including one sentence about him being a self described "communist"? Grundle2600 (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC) OK. So the consensus is for one sentence on Van Jones. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Jennings

Closing as moot per WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#Grundle2600:_continued_problems
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Kevin Jennings is Obama's choice to head the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. This article does not mention him, but it should. Given his job title, there are two things about him that should be mentioned in this article. First, in his 2007 autobiography, he wrote about his past frequent illegal drug use. Given his job title in Obama's administration, this is especially noteworthy. Second, when he was a high school teacher, he broke the law by refusing to report that a 15 year old student of his had been a victim of statutory rape, and he also encouraged the student to have more sex with the adult. Again, given his job title in Obama's administration, this is especially noteworthy. Does anyone have any reasonable objection to a brief mention of these two things in this article? Grundle2600 (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Grundle, you're cherry picking two points that you want to include in an article that covers Obama's entire presidency. He never refused to do anything, and the article never mentions him breaking the law. And you are using blogs, again. Grsz11 23:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC) OK. You're right that it doesn't say that he broke the law. And I should find better sources. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Guantánamo Bay detention camp subsection

1. In this edit, I added, I added info to the section saying "As of September, 2009, the detention camp had not yet been closed, with senior administration officials acknowledging that difficulties in completing the lengthy review of detainee files and resolving other thorny questions mean the president's promised January deadline may slip.", citing this NY Times article headed "AP Sources: Gitmo Closing Goal of Jan. May Slip" as a supporting source.
2. Subsequently, this edit twiddled the wording to read, "As of September 2009[update], the detention camp remained, with senior administration officials saying that difficulties in completing a lengthy review of detainee files and resolving other difficult questions might cause the president's January deadline to slip" and going on to explain with info supported by the cited supporting article that It's President Bush's fault and that it's complicated to do, with an edit summary saying, " looks okay but reword to be more formal ('acknowledging' looks close to 'admitting', 'thorny' is an unencyclopedic description even if used for color by paper, etc", though the cited supporting source said, "Senior administration officials acknowledged for the first time Friday that difficulties in completing the lengthy review of detainee files and resolving other thorny questions mean the president's promised January deadline may slip.". I missed that edit at the time, but my reaction on seeing it now is that we have left the no spin zone.
3. Next, this edit changed it to read, "As of September 2009[update], a lengthy review of each detainee's files by administration officials and prosecutors was made more difficult than expected as the Bush administration had failed to establish a coherent repository of the evidence and intelligence on each prisoner. ..." and going on to supply more details from the cited NY Times article, with an edit summary saying, "More of a substantively informative update than 'Obama may slip his deadline'".
4. In this edit, I reinserted an introductory sentence saying, "As of September 2009[update], senior administration officials were saying that difficulties in completing a lengthy review of detainee files and resolving other difficult questions might cause the president's January deadline to slip.", with an edit summary saying, " Restore removed introductory summary info stating the main point ('may slip')"
5. This edit removed my restored introductory sentence with an edit summary saying, "Revert per WP:CRYSTAL. Mention any imagined slippage if/when happens."
6. WP:Crystal says, "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable. ..."
7. As previously mentioned, the cited supporting source is a NY Times article headed, "AP Sources: Gitmo Closing Goal of Jan. May Slip".
8. My take on this is that it is notable because (a) within a few days of taking office, Obama issued an EO requiring that the Guantanamo Bay detention facility be closed within a year. (b) he has made a big deal about that, both prior and subsequent to taking office, (c) acknowledgement by senior administration officials that the president's promised January deadline may slip (using here the description given in the second paragraph of the NY Times article cited as a supporting source) is a notable and verifiable occurrence which is relevant to the topic of this article.
9. The word "slip", used in the headline of the article cited as a supporting source is important here. It indicates that senior administration officials have acknowledged that the deadline set by the president for the closing of the detention center may be missed.
10. Accordingly, I have reverted the removal of the introductory sentence using the word "slip" which I had earlier re-inserted.

Additionally, on looking at this yet again, I have concluded that this subsection does not belong under Policies->Ethics. I have moved it up one level, making it a subsection of the Policies section. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You're confusing the verifiability of the source of the quote with the verifiability of what is actually stated in the quote. If a person makes unverified speculation, it does not become verified if they are quoted in a reliable source. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? Wtmitchell has obviously reviewed the news bulletin extensively. You ought to use proper English when disagreeing with him. By "verifiability of the source of the quote" you do mean "credibility of the witness"? Ottre 20:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said at all. Trying reading it a little more carefully. I would give a lengthier explanation, but your insulting and combative comment doesn't really warrant wasting the time. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

In this edit, Loonymonkey reverted my previous edit described above, with an edit summary saying, "Undid revision 317368497 by Wtmitchell (talk) WP:CRYSTAL issues, as explained earlier. We don't state speculation as fact." As explained above, I disagree for several reasons.

1. WP:CRYSTAL does not apply here. Rather than discussing an anticipated event, the disputed introductory sentence ("As of September, 2009, senior administration officials were saying that difficulties in completing a lengthy review of detainee files and resolving other difficult questions might cause the president's January deadline to slip." would report the acknowledgement by senior administration officials that, due to the factors noted, the president's January deadline to slip. That fact is supported by this NY Times article headlined "AP Sources: Gitmo Closing Goal of Jan. May Slip", cited in the article. This acknowledgement by senior administration officials is a fact which is worthy of notice.
2. The word "slip", used in the headline of the article cited as a supporting source, is important here. It indicates that senior administration officials have acknowledged that the deadline set by the president for the closing of the detention center may be missed.
3. The subsection headed Guantánamo Bay detention camp is badly located under the Ethics header where Looneymonkey's revert re-located it. I think, rather, it belongs under the Policies header where I had moved it.
4. Re Looneymonkey's point above regarding verifiability, the assertion to be verified is the assertion that senior administration officials have acknowledged that the deadline set by the president for the closing of the detention center may be missed. That assertion is verified by the cited NY Times article, which says, "Senior administration officials acknowledged for the first time Friday that difficulties in completing the lengthy review of detainee files and resolving other thorny questions mean the president's promised January deadline may slip."

I don't want to become involved in an edit war over this. I ask Looneymonkey self-revert and/or (seeking consensus), that other editors of this article express their opinions about this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wtmitchell:

1. You cite the same AP article twice; it has the effect of suggesting that we are discussing more than one article.
2. You also wikilink to a disambiguation page; what you meant to link to was project slippage.
3. As one does not necessarily judge a book by its cover, the title of an AP report is not necessarily where its encyclopedic value lies. (Much like this and my points below illuminate this issue though my first two did not.)
4. Although you have used the phrase "senior administration officials" (five times in the four sections immediately above), the people who used the term—the concept—in question are anonymous. While I can allow for the possibility that there is a situation where an encyclopedia would quote anonymous officials, this doesn't seem to be that instance.
5. Contrary to the anonymous officials' prognostications, indeed contrary to the article's title, the article notes: "Obama's aides have stepped up their work toward closure and the president remains as committed to closing the facility as he was when, as one of his first acts in office, he pledged to shut it down, said the officials, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity in order to more freely discuss the sensitive issue. They said the White House still was hoping to meet the deadline through a stepped-up effort." Presumably these anonymous officials are different from the unnamed aides and "the White House"? So some anonymous officials predict one thing, while others suggest a different thing. You, like the AP title (though not the AP article) presented only one side of the anonymous officials' prognostications. Even with my more nuanced presentation of the salient details, this difference of opinion, despite the AP spinning it into an article headline and lead, is not the stuff of an encyclopedia.
6. The word "slip" is not important here; the degree of progress has been noted, as has the "major complaint" noted in the article for why the segment of the project only recently completed took longer than expected—both elements of the story you omitted or contraindicated. (Your "...difficulties in completing the lengthy review of detainee files...mean the president's promised January deadline may slip" left the reader uncertain as to whether those reviews have been completed; your ref states that they have.)
7. January 22, 2010, is four months away. There is an abundance of time before that date for further progress reports, informative details about recalcitrant NIMBY Congresspeople, or some official announcement on a scheduling/rescheduling, actual encyclopedic information we might consider a major point worth updating this broad overview of the topic with.
8. Those anonymous sources were projecting, imagining an eventual "slip" of a date four months in the future. Your own sentence above, "...due to the factors noted, the president's January deadline to slip" omits an important word, which (overlooking the grammar) is "may". With the word, it is weak, weaselly, unspecific.
9. This anonymously imagined "slip" is not one of major significance, or something it is in the public interest to know about or prevent. It is not a suggestion that it won't happen, it's merely an imagined delay in the timeframe. The imagined delay isn't a specific one, and it isn't an official change of the timeline. The one-year comment was not tied to any other issue. For example, does some statute of limitations expire on that date? Does some arcane law require a different course at that time? Do they all get set free, or put to death, if we don't move them by that date? No, it's just a date. When the date comes, it may be relevant to the article to note that it has been pushed back, but without something specific or official, it's not yet relevant.
10. If the president had signed an executive order for something to happen, yet no honest effort had been made in eight months or a different direction was intended or soon after taken altogether, I'd say that might be reasonable to point out. Unlike a few hundred times in the previous administration, this is not such an example.
11. WP:CRYSTAL—which is only one of many reasons why this minor point is inappropriate—reads:"Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions." "May slip" is vague extrapolation by an anonymous source or sources about a non-essential data point, one contradicted by the same AP story. I'm not saying some didn't make that prognostication, I'm not saying it wasn't reported by the AP, and I'm not rendering a personal opinion of whether or not it is likely to be borne out, I'm saying that prognostication does not meet this and these various other thresholds of article inclusion. Anticipating a delay is not the same as rescheduling a delay which is not the same as a delay transpiring, and none of it is inherently encyclopedically notable to the broad overview of the Guantanamo closing at the Presidency of Barack Obama article just because it's printed in a reliable source even if it did pass Wiki guidelines for a more in-depth examination of the process of closing the camp. I would argue that some harm is done by suggesting the date "may slip" without venturing to suggest how far. Weeks? Months? Years? Decades? It doesn't add value as it creates more uncertainty than it responsibly or justifiably represents. At the moment, it is not an open question. The task of an encyclopedia editor is to responsibly present pertinent information about things that have actually happened, not to earn this week's paycheck or to sell next week's paper by writing cliffhangers on shreds of anonymous speculation.
12. The president's executive order reads: "Sec. 3. Closure of Detention Facilities at Guantánamo. The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from the date of this order. If any individuals covered by this order remain in detention at Guantánamo at the time of closure of those detention facilities, they shall be returned to their home country, released, transferred to a third country, or transferred to another United States detention facility in a manner consistent with law and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States." As many as 800 detainees have been held in Guantanamo. That number is currently less than 225. The process is moving. Again, if this date approaches with no official statement, I don't doubt the media will examine notable statements from various named sources, and we will determine if any details are informative and fit for this article's broad overview at that time. In any event, the fact that someone augured it four months earlier would not be relevant.

While the AP seeks to break (and thus make) news, and crafts headlines and perhaps even stories to catch a reader's eye, at an encyclopedia we have no need to sensationalize, pander, or get out ahead of a story, and can take the time and editorial care to present facts as they are deemed relevant to an issue, and then determine what degree of examination is appropriate to related articles. To report, as you did with your first edit, that his goal may slip, without explaining why, has the effect to a certain type of reader of feeding a partisan stereotype, not unlike "gotcha journalism", when in fact the responsible handling of the actual data points in the same article serves the encyclopedic reader with the information to support or challenge (or simply not apply to) a stereotype. The anonymous edit prior to yours read "Guantanmo Bay has yet to close, and the prisoner abuse has worsened. Obama may never close it." The tenor of your edit, particularly given the information in the article you referenced, would have had the effect of servicing that POV rather than representing the facts of the progress made. We need to filter the "new" from the "news" and focus on the substance of the reference as it is relevant to the handling of the subject in the article, particularly an article about a much broader topic. The relevant thing about this story to Obama's presidency is not fundamentally about when they close Guantanamo, and it is only superficially about whether they close Guantanamo or not, as of course the closing of Guantanamo is symbolic and not substantive. The substance is how they handle the prisoners' reviews, transfers, prosecutions and future detention, where relevant; whether laws were broken in the way it has been handled to this point, and whether that gets pursued civilly or criminally; and how we handle these situations going forward. Greater detail of the inherent challenges of all that is hopefully being responsibly examined at another article, however, as it is necessarily limited at this one by the length limitations here at Wikipedia. That the president did not wait some length of time to start is worth noting, something we do only implicitly. That some have said the process may take some greater length of time to "end" is not worth noting explicitly. This isn't a race, it isn't a then-or-never proposition, and it isn't a dropped ball or a broken promise. We needn't even explicitly state the date has gone by if that should happen, as retaining the date he announced the policy of pursuing the camp's closing, and noting the date when the last detainee has been processed out of there, in a mere two- or three-paragraph overview with the major delays noted contextually, might make the point to the degree it was relevant from a weight standpoint. Abrazame (talk) 10:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Point by point comments follow.

1. The article is cited only once in the article. I cited it multiple times here in the talk page. I thought that it was clear from my remarks that I was speaking of only the one NY Times article. If I confused you, I apologize.

2. You're right. I had followed the disamb links to that article, but apparently screwed up the wikilink here on the talk page.

3. I have to go to WP:V on this, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." I don't think there is any dispute at this point that my assertion in the disputed introductory sentence has been published by a reliable source. The dispute from your viewpoint seems to revolve around whether or not the lead sentence is encyclopedic. I am not a professional editor, but I note that WP:BETTER says, in part, "Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. People who read Wikipedia have different backgrounds, education and worldviews. Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject: the article needs to explain the subject fully." I believe that the disputed introductory sentence establishes context for the material which follows, and makes the import of that material more understandable for readers not thoroughly familiar with the topic.

4. The disputed introductory sentence does not quote anonymous "senior administration officials". It asserts that a reliable source (the New York Times) has reported statements by such officials.

5. Ah... You're speaking of the NY Times article there. Good point. Perhaps the WP article should mention that. Senior administration officialss acknowledge that the deadline may slip, but presidential aides have stepped up their work toward closure and the president remains as committed to closing the facility as he was when, as one of his first acts in office, he pledged to shut it down. I am not prepared to speculate about which officials and aids anonymously told what to the NY Times, but in this instance I think that it is appropriate for WP to include here information about what the NY Times reported. If you think that I have cherrypicked the info reported in NY Times article, feel free to include balancing information.

6. I overspoke about the word "slip". What I had in mind was the meaning of the word rather than the word itself. I would be just as happy with "may miss the deadline" as with "may slip" words in the headline of the cited supporting source. The point is that a reliable source has reported that senior administration officials have acknowledged recently (3 or 4 months prior to the deadline) that the deadline may be missed.

7. Wikipedia is neither a paper encyclopedia nor a reporter of current-event news. Regarding the first, unlike paper encyclopedias, WP has the capability to modify articles so that they report notable events as they happen, and to place those events in context as the surrounding context develops. Regarding the second, it is probably not appropriate for WP to report events which develop in a timescale of minutes, but it is (I think) appropriate for WP to report events which develop on a timescal of months, and to refine such reports as the events develop.

8. "weak, weaselly, unspecific"? A source considered by WP to be reliable in its editorial judgement reported that some senior administration officials, apparently speaking on background (a common practice in Washington circles), reported that a very notable deadline set by the president in nearly his first offical act may be missed.

9. Regarding Obama's policies (where I think this section belongs, rather than his Ethics, where your revert placed the section), the executive order to close the detention camp within a year was one of his first official acts after assuming the presidency. If only because of that, I think the NY Times report about acknowledgement that the deadline may slip is worthy of notice.

10. I agree.

11. See #7.

12. Re your quote from the Executive Order, good point. Tat info should be included in this article, possibly in a footnote to the text in the section being discussed here.

XX (your closing remarks)

• "present facts as they are deemed relevant to an issue", you say? The paragraph in question now reads:

As of September, 2009, a lengthy review of each detainee's files by administration officials and prosecutors was made more difficult than expected as the Bush administration had failed to establish a coherent repository of the evidence and intelligence on each prisoner. Prosecutors have recommended to the Justice Department which detainees are eligible to be tried, and the Justice Department and the Pentagon will work together to determine which trials go forward in military and which in civilian courts. While 216 international terrorists are currently held in maximum security prisons in the U.S., yet to be decided is where to house potential convicts from Guantánamo. Congress was denying the administration funds to shut down the camp and adapt existing facilities elsewhere, arguing that the decision is "too dangerous to rush".

Citing AP Sources: Gitmo Closing Goal of Jan. May Slip, September 26, 2009

The disputed edit would add "As of September, 2009, the detention camp had not yet been closed, with senior administration officials acknowledging that difficulties in completing the lengthy review of detainee files and resolving other thorny questions mean the president's promised January deadline may slip" as an introductory sentence, supported by the same cited source.

• "The relevant thing ..." The point at issue here was relevant to me, if not to you. I suspect that it may be relevant to others besides me.
• "The substance is ..." This subsection is in Policies->Ethics (where you have moved it or, if moved to where I think I should be located, in Policies). Its relevance is to Obama's policies or to his ethics, depending on where the subsection is placed.

It has only been a short amount of time since I asked for opinions from other editors, but I note that no others have weighed in. Wikipedia:Third opinion says, "If, after discussion, only two editors are involved, you may list the dispute below in the Active disagreements section." As it seems that you and I are at an impasse, I suggest that we take this dispute there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Having noticed that you have edited this talk page elsewhere since my last comment here, I have listed this dispute at Wikipedia:Third opinion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Truly? Surely you can tell the difference between the red signature Abrazame (talk), which is my own, and the blue signature Loonymonkey (talk) — or perhaps you're suggesting we are each other's sock? There already are three opinions here, you argued that you disagreed with Loonymonkey and requested another editor to weigh in and you got me. The person who you "noticed" editing the talk page elsewhere was not me but Loonymonkey. The person you keep referring to as having reverted this to the Ethics section is not me, but Loonymonkey. I strongly support that individual's edits and comments in this matter, including the placement of the Guantanamo section in the article, but I assure you we are not the same person. By requesting a Wikipedia:Third opinion you are not only exhibiting a failure to understand who and how many people are involved here, but you're jumping the gun seeing as how you and I have been discussing this for barely a single day. I can't imagine why you see an anonymous hint about an arcane issue as so earth-shatteringly important that it requires arbitration in less than a day. Abrazame (talk) 07:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The article should say that the detention camp is still open, and that he had campaigned to close it down. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is it OK for the article to cite Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling?

Closing as moot per WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive572#Grundle2600:_continued_problems
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
NPOV states, "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 all editors." Presidency of Barack Obama stated: "On February 10, 2009, Obama overturned a Bush administration policy that had opened up a five-year period of offshore drilling for oil and gas near both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has been quoted as saying, "To establish an orderly process that allows us to make wise decisions based on sound information, we need to set aside" the plan "and create our own timeline"." I later added: "In August 2009, Obama supported $2 billion in loan guarantees to fund offshore drilling." Someone removed my addition, but did not remove the other part. Why is it OK for the article to cite Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling? How does letting the article state one side but not other, not violate NPOV? Grundle2600 (talk) 02:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC) References for above The removal was in this edit with an edit summary claiming saying "... per WP:NEWS, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE and so on. Please discuss changes on the talk page first". WP:NEWS is neither a content policy nor a content guideline, and doesn't seem to apply here; the Fox News article which you cited as a supporting source appears to come from a reliable source; it doesn't look to me as if your addition was out of proportion to the prominence of the info you added; your comment re WP:NPOV seems to me to be relevant sufficiantly notable for inclusion—but then I don't have much background making such judgements in dispute situations. I might question the placement of the info in the Ethics section without explicitly raising issues related to ethics, but then I raised such questions above about the placement of the Guantánamo Bay detention camp subsection in that sections without achieving an understanding of why that subsection had been placed there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Wtmitchell, thanks. Grundle2600 (talk) 10:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Grundle, why don't you answer your own questions? You've been asking questions here long enough to have picked up how it goes. You simply aren't interested in learning about the issue yourself, so you come here with your stubbornly ignorant misconception and we have to read your articles to explain them to you. We're enabling you here by giving you any response at all, so to wean you off this dependency, I'll ask you some questions to lead you to the answer you're asking us for. Where were the drilling locations that the Bush administration opened up? Which government oversees this region and had previously prevented drilling there? Where are the drilling locations that the U.S. Export-Import Bank lines of credit to U.S. firms would send U.S. workers in newly created jobs working on the Petrobras site(s)? Which government oversees this region, and what is their position on offshore drilling? Abrazame (talk) 06:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Abrazame, Obama said he opposed drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. But later, Obama supported a loan guarantee for $2 billion to fund drilling off the Atlantic coast. Grundle2600 (talk) 10:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC) That's not an answer to any of these four questions, it's a vague restatement of your original confused conception. This is what I mean by your stubborn ignorance. You don't know and you don't care to know, yet you persist in pushing your misinformed, smeary point of view at political articles. When called on it, you aren't even interested enough in researching further about the issue. Do you want to prove yourself responsible to be allowed to continue posting "suggestions" like this one at the talk page of political articles? Then answer those four questions and learn how to think critically about an issue. This isn't rocket science, Grundle, it's the internet. Abrazame (talk) 02:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Abrazame, I have to remind you to be civil. Calling someone stubborn, ignorant, and misinformed is not helpful.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Actually, a big problem is the wording of the addition is not supported by the text of the source. The Export-Import Bank of the United States, not President Obama, made the loan. The news article makes no mention of President Obama having any involvement in the loan. So there is a serious WP:SYNTHESIS problem in that we don't have a source that says that Obama himself caused a loan to Brazil to do offshore drilling. The fact that the loan was made may be true, but the relevance to this article is far from established by the source text. --Jayron32 02:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC) The Export-Import Bank is controlled by the President. Export-Import Bank of the United States states, "The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) is the official export credit agency of the United States federal government. It was established in 1934 by an executive order, and made an independent agency in the Executive branch by Congress in 1945, for the purposes of financing and insuring foreign purchases of United States goods for customers unable or unwilling to accept credit risk." Grundle2600 (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC) He also controls the FBI, the CIA, the military, the Department of Treasury, immigration enforcement, FEMA, the DEA, etc., etc. Does he single-handedly make every single decision of those offices?...Don't be ridiculous. Grsz11 17:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Grundle, I'm still pantomiming the good faith that your interest and perseverance in this matter has something to do with the issue you raise, and is not simply an effort to smear the subject while distracting the work of the editors here. A great way to earn that good faith would be to answer my questions. I've noticed that you expect a one-way street around here, you arrive with questions and demands and we're expected to jump for you. By not answering the questions of others, you establish bad faith. That's not a discussion, it's a tantrum. Why would you post several times here since those questions without any effort to answer them? Why would you repeat your question at an Arbitration request for amendment when you haven't held up your end of this discussion? Those questions are rhetorical. The four questions in my first post are the ones I expect you to learn the answers to. Abrazame (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Abrazame 1. Where were the drilling locations that the Bush administration opened up? Along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. 2. Which government oversees this region and had previously prevented drilling there? The United States. 3. Where are the drilling locations that the U.S. Export-Import Bank lines of credit to U.S. firms would send U.S. workers in newly created jobs working on the Petrobras site(s)? Along the Atlantic coast. 4. Which government oversees this region, and what is their position on offshore drilling? The Brazilian government. They favor the drilling. Why do you think the article should cite Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling? Grundle2600 (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Grundle, first, thank you for taking a stab at answering the questions. Second, I'm disappointed in you for the superficiality of your stabs. I believed that your question to us was one of sincere ignorance. I believed that my hint, via the answers to those four questions, was so obvious that it would lead you to the answer to your own question. Wherever you went to investigate the answers to my questions, you either didn't pay enough attention to connect the dots and have the answer dawn on you, or you do realize what I'm getting at, and you're just soaking up the negative attention at the expense of our time and Barack Obama's talk page. 1. Where were the drilling locations that the Bush administration opened up? Along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Incorrect. The U.S. president cannot prevent oil drilling off the coast of any other country than our own. That does make sense to you, does it not? This answer is staggeringly unspecific given that you're taking other things out of context; there are virtually a hundred countries with Atlantic or Pacific coasts. We're not talking about drilling off the Atlantic coast of Norway, or the Pacific coast of Russia, we're talking about drilling along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the United States. That's implied in the article Presidency of Barack Obama; it's not implied in your answer. 2. Which government oversees this region and had previously prevented drilling there? The United States. Technically correct. Yet given your lack of specificity regarding the first question, and your conflation of these two stories, you are representing that you think that the U.S. president does have power over oil drilling anywhere in the Atlantic or Pacific, regardless of whose coastline it is. 3. Where are the drilling locations that the U.S. Export-Import Bank lines of credit to U.S. firms would send U.S. workers in newly created jobs working on the Petrobras site(s)? Along the Atlantic coast. Incorrect, insofar as again there are probably 70 or 80 countries with Atlantic coasts and given your failure to specify which of the hundred-plus countries with Atlantic or Pacific coasts in your first answer, there is no implied specificity in your second answer. The implied regional specificity of U.S. presidents opening and closing the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the U.S. for drilling, versus the Brazilian government allowing drilling along the Atlantic coast of Brazil is the primary point here. That implication is understood when these issues are responsibly placed in the right articles. When you place these two facts together in a single sentence or adjacent sentences under a particular heading, it necessarily robs them of (legitimate) implied context they would otherwise have by illegitimately implying that they share context. The Tupi oil field is in the Santos Basin due south of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. I invite you to look at any of several maps depicting the region in this PDF. 4. Which government oversees this region, and what is their position on offshore drilling? The Brazilian government. They favor the drilling. Correct. Although, again, you are contradicting your understanding of this fact with your implied presumption that this has anything to do with Obama or any president of the U.S. As people have explained here, and particularly given your track record here, the onus is on you to prove why something should be in the article, not on us to prove why it shouldn't. If somebody arrives here posting a referenced sentence about the White House serving ice cream, it would be absurd for editors here to have to explain why that's not relevant to the Wikipedia encyclopedia article on the Presidency of Barack Obama, regardless of the fact that it may have been noted in a reliable source dating to this summer. Placing it in a sentence that notes that Obama has spoken out against obesity as a major national health problem doesn't make it relevant. A healthy family enjoying ice cream in moderation as part of a balanced diet while engaging in a good amount of exercise does not send a hypocritical message. The fact that a bipartisan group of Bush appointees at the U.S. Import-Export bank were doing their job by offering credit to U.S. companies to bid for jobs for U.S. workers as contractors for a foreign oil company off the shores of a foreign country in a different hemisphere in a legal enterprise—particularly at a time when the world's credit markets were sluggish due to the deep recession we're climbing out of—has nothing to do with the fact that Obama overturned Bush's policy to open up the entire shorelines of our own country for oil drilling. Brazil has other oil fields they are drilling off their shores. This is not a new practice there, it's simply a new oil field. Do you understand now why your demand for this edit has not been embraced? Can you stop asking this question all over Wikipedia now? Or are you still imagining some relevant image emerging from these dots? Even more importantly, do you see the way that learning a little bit more about the facts and contexts of a newsy factoid—particularly when you readily admit you are unaware of most of these issues prior to stumbling across them while surfing the internet, and your bad sources show us the POV blogs and Op/Eds where you surf—actually sheds some light on why the connection your sources suggest are often a sham, more the desperately puerile stuff of a school playground or partisan attack dog than an encyclopedia? Our point in responding to you here is not to simply have you acknowledge for this or that point that you have come understand that you were wrong, but to illustrate how one responsibly comes to more fully understand an issue oneself prior to wrongly posting about it here. You need to make sincere effort to rule out arguments against inclusion for your suggestions and not simply demand us to. Your answers to these questions show you were either incapable of doing, or unwilling to do, this. It's not that you don't know all the facts, and other editors can add details to fill in, it's that time and again you misrepresent the facts, and in doing so mischaracterize facts already in the article, and the only response is to revert your edits entirely. That as much as any other reason is why so many editors seek to limit or prevent your participation here. If your ignorance were innocent, and your interest were sincere, and your personal POV and that of the places you surf didn't render you absolutely incapable of understanding any issue on your own, it would be reasonable to consider you an editorial colleague despite all your past transgressions (by past I mean up through the past week); but nothing you do suggests that there is innocence or sincerity or a real effort to understand or progress into the fuller understanding of the facts of an issue that is essential in being a responsible editor. As such, taken as a whole, it amounts to vandalism, not editorial work. Abrazame (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC) It doesn't amount to vandalism but certainly to disruptive POV motivated "editorial work", w/o understanding of what WP is and is not. Nothing new here besides the same old.......The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC) Grsz You said, "He also controls the FBI, the CIA, the military, the Department of Treasury, immigration enforcement, FEMA, the DEA, etc., etc. Does he single-handedly make every single decision of those offices?...Don't be ridiculous." Are you saying that the information about George W. Bush should be removed from the Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina article, because Bush did not have any control over FEMA? Grundle2600 (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC) You have not answered my questions. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Fox News partisanship allegations

Since this topic is as equally about Fox as about the White House, I think it probably deserves its own article rather than to be covered either solely here or at Fox News Channel controversies. (BTW the talkpage of the Controversy article is here. --> Talk:2009_Fox_News_–_White_House_controversy)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 01:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Saying "nope" is not a legitimate reason to remove large amounts of relevant, well sourced material.

Closing as moot
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The person, PhGustaf, who made this edit, which removed a substanial amount of material, commented by saying "nope" and nothing else. The material that they removed had been discussed extensively on the talk page and talk page archive before it was added. Saying "nope" is not a legitimate reason to remove relevant, well sourced material. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Removing large amounts of well sourced, relevant material that is critical of the subject makes the article POV and also makes it look like an advertisement. I have added the POV and advertisement tags to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC) NPOV states: "Neutral point of view (NPOV) 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 all editors." Why is it OK for the article to mention Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not OK for it to mention his actions in favor of offshore drilling? How can anyone say that including his actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling, does not violate NPOV? Grundle2600 (talk) 01:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC) It looks like you had absolutely no consensus whatsoever to add all that material, a fact of which you are well aware (given that you've tried to add or get other to add various parts of for the last several months). Trying to lump all your bad edits into one gigantic bad edit doesn't make it more likely to be acceptable, it makes it much, much less likely (and heads into dangerous territory for you, given your various blocks and behavioral restraints). I would suggest not trying the patience of so many editors with such frequency. You know how that will end for you. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC) If I had added the material in multiple consecutive smaller edits instead of one bigger edit, how would that have been any different? Why is it OK for the article to mention Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not OK for it to mention his actions in favor of offshore drilling? Grundle2600 (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC) I see that someone else has removed the tags. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC) I am addressing the following paragraph to all those of you favor the removal of the content that I cited when I started this section: There was consensus to have a single sentence about Van Jones resigning after it was revealed that he was a self described "communist" who blamed the 9-11 attacks on the U.S. government. Please explain why you think the article should mention Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling. Also please explain why you think citing one of those things without simultaneously citing the other does not violate NPOV, which states, "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 all editors." How is it not noteworthy that Obama's choice to head the "Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools" has an extensive history of illegal drug use, and avoided reporting the statutory rape of a 15 year old student? If there's going to be a section on Obama's claims of transparency, why shouldn't the section mention cases where Obama was heavily non-transparent? How is Obama's nationalization of General Motors, and firing of its CEO, not notable? How is the questioning of the constitutionality of Obama's czars by two different Senators from Obama's own party not relevant to the section on those czars? Grundle2600 (talk) 10:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC) It has been more than 72 hours since I posted the above paragraph, and no one has answered my questions. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC) You have still not answered my questions. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC) I have put the info back in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC) I don't see that you have consensus for this change - quite the contrary. The change seems to fit WP:POINT. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC) You clearly haven't learned a thing, and that really is a shame. There is no deadline. Editors aren't obligated to respond to you in a certain time period, or at all. Just because there isn't recent objection to your edits does not make them appropriate, nor is a massive edit re-adding all the informationg you favor remotely appropriate. I encourage you to self-revert, since there has already been discussion of many of these issues. Non-response does not equal consensus to insert already discussed material. Grsz11 23:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Grundle, silence does not equal consent. Perhaps it is time to take this as a sign that few, if any, editors around here view you as an honest contributor to the topic. I personally do not see the merit in discussing things for the 4th, 5th, 6th, 100th time with you. Tarc (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC) There was consensus to have a single sentence about Van Jones resigning after it was revealed that he was a self described "communist" who blamed the 9-11 attacks on the U.S. government. Please explain why you think the article should mention Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling. Also please explain why you think citing one of those things without simultaneously citing the other does not violate NPOV, which states, "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 all editors." How is it not noteworthy that Obama's choice to head the "Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools" has an extensive history of illegal drug use, and avoided reporting the statutory rape of a 15 year old student? If there's going to be a section on Obama's claims of transparency, why shouldn't the section mention cases where Obama was heavily non-transparent? How is Obama's nationalization of General Motors, and firing of its CEO, not notable? How is the questioning of the constitutionality of Obama's czars by two different Senators from Obama's own party not relevant to the section on those czars? Grundle2600 (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Sorry, that's completely incorrect. Looking through the talk page, nowhere is there consensus for you to add inflammatory language like "In September 2009, Obama's green czar Van Jones resigned after conservatives pointed out that he was a self described "communist"" The fact that you added this claim without so much as a single WP:RS makes it particularly tendentious (and before you respond, please, PLEASE don't pretend that you didn't realize that opinion pieces are not to be used as reliable sources). --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC) This article by Phil Kerpen (director of policy for Americans for Prosperity, as well as a contributing editor for National Review Online, a Fox Forum contributor on FoxNews.com, and chairman of the Internet Freedom Coalition[1]) may or may not meet WP:RS requirements as applied in this article, but it describes the sequence of events pretty well. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC) For the fifth or sixth time, opinion articles are not reliable sources for anything other than the opinions of their authors. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Individual responses I'm going to do my best to lay out for Grundle (again) why most of the additions he proposes are inappropriate here. Czars Despite who said it and who they were referring to, this isn't an Obama issue. It's a constitutional law issue that is applicable to any president since pre-WWII. Grsz11 05:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Medical pot You're linking two stories together to fit an agenda. The fact that it's a blog aside, the DEA contends that the grow was illegal. Not all pot issues are magically legal if you throw "medical" somewhere into the mix. There are still legitimate reasons for them to be arrested even under the state law, which was the case here. Grsz11 05:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Black Panthers and Helen Thomas WP:UNDUE. A single incident and a single complaint. Grsz11 05:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Please discuss here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Fox News – White House controversy. Thanks.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 17:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It is proposed that "2009 Fox News – White House controversy" and/or part of "Anita Dunn#White House Communications Director" be merged to here. Please discuss.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 16:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

We should wait until the deletion discussion plays out. Any merger suggestions should be handled as part of the AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Fox News – White House controversy rather than fragmenting the discussion in several locations. If the consensus of the discussion is to merge, then we can hash out the details later. But multiple simultaneous discussions aren't usually helpful. --Jayron32 16:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

reverted POINTy edit

I reverted an explicitly POINTy edit by Grundle2600. If other editors find that the removed material is suitable for the article, they should feel free to insert it themselves. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this to the talk page here. I don't think that edit was ideal, but it's arguable that this article should have a sentence describing the current administration's change in policy regarding prosecuting marijuana possession and distribution in states where it is not illegal at the state level. It is hard to judge how important that is next to other events, but it does affect a lot of people and for people who are interested in drug policy it seems like a fairly significant change. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Note that the info is already present at Medical cannabis#United_States, so it is not new to Wikipedia. I defer to other editors whether it also belongs in this present article. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I put it back just because I'm not trying to prove a point and it is sourced. Don't get me started on proving lines though. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The battle with Fox is over

Closed per WP:NOTAFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
According to US News & World Report. (If not the whole war, at least, apparently, these recent, high-profile skirmishes) -- thus it will be a "September-through-October 2009" affair. "[...]White House officials don't expect to fire another shot in the battle unless Fox strikes first." (link) ↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 00:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Not sure what that is supposed to mean, FOX never stops "striking" Reliefappearance (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Yes, of course, true -- but, then, again, without the WH side's further calling Fox out (overtly, anyway), the issue is rendered less of a (quote) affair (end'o'quote).↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 16:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Folks, talk pages are not forums... QueenofBattle (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there an article about this? It looks notable. 0nonanon0 (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

See the #Enemines List (sic.) section just above. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Enemies List

Since Obama has one, and there is an article about Nixons, shouldnt there be one about Obamas??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.65.63 (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the relatively flimsier Republican attacks on the President being advanced by Fox News among others, vis-a-vis the 2009 White House criticism of Fox News, an article that itself is proposed for deletion. It is reasonable for the encyclopedia to cover to some extent the antagonism between the administration and the opposing partisan press, but there is a lot of noise and not a whole lot of substance to the recriminations that fly on a daily basis. It is too early to know where this is going but the entire subject of relations between the administration and the media is probably worth a sentence or two in a fully mature article about the presidency. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Without focusing on partisan politics, I'll observe that Wikipedia's notability guideline says, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The article on Nixon's enemies list clearly satisfies that criterion. Re Obama's "enemies list", a little googling turned up [2], [3], [4] (speculative), [5], [6], [7], [8], //www.examiner.com/x-2888-World-News-Examiner~y2009m3d4-As-Americas-economy-crumbles-Obama-and-Pelosi-compile-enemy-lists (examiner.com is spam-filtered by WP), [9] (over three months ago, "Obama debunks right wing’s ‘enemies list’ conspiracy"), www.infowarscom/dems-worried-about-obamas-enemies-list/ , [10] (citing this list headed "Smears Inc." from fightthesmears.com), [11], [12], among many others. It appears to me that the topic of Obama Enemies list meets WP Notability criteria.

I note that the Enemies list article is currently a redirect to Nixon's Enemies List. I also note that the first of the links above also speaks of a Clinton enemies list, saying, ""The Clinton White House had its own enemies list and engaged in dirty practices that clearly broke the law. Clinton enemies audited by the IRS included Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, Gennifer Flowers, White House Travel Officer Director Billy Dale and the independent watchdog group, Judicial Watch, just to name a few." Perhaps the Enemies list article should be redone as an encyclopedic article on that topic, with a section on U.S. Presidential enemies lists containing subsections on Nixon, Clinton, Obama, and perhaps other US Presidents; some of these subsections (e.g., Nixon) having summary style {{Main}} wikilinks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I like this idea a lot. There is probably a lot of material available about the covert actions of the executive branch. Not too long ago I was listening to a radio show in which one of the people said that U.S. presidents, once they realize how much power they have with the secretive Central Intelligence Agency, use it to conduct all kinds of operations within the United States. I really wish I could remember it right now for a reference, but I believe this was on antiwar radio on one of the shows from Oct 15 2009 to Nov 13 2009. I'll try to find it but I'll probably need help to find this reference. It may have been this interview: http://antiwar.com/radio/2009/10/26/sibel-edmonds-and-john-m-cole/ but it's long and I'd have to go through it again. It may have been another interview. Go through the http://antiwar.com/radio archives and there are probably other good references to executive abuses of power and secretive clamp downs on enemies. The guests on that program are all notable people who can be used as references on wikipedia. You can also listen to what Jesse Ventura has to say about what he learned as governor of Minnesota: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIzfXOfpFcA

Ventura said that the C.I.A. is implanted in every state government in the United States, and that upon his surprise election he was summoned to Washington, D.C. to be interviewed by C.I.A. agents. He said he told the agents that the official C.I.A. mandate states that the C.I.A. is not supposed to be operational within the United States but these agents had no response. Ventura said that afterwards he contacted a former special forces operative who has done a lot of work with the C.I.A. and this former operative said that the establishment in the United States just wanted to know how Ventura was able to get elected. "They didn't see you coming", was the former special forces agent's response.

There are also several organizations that document government clamp downs on the media in the United States. For example, Project Censored (http://www.projectcensored.org/) publishes once per year a "Top 25" of stories that have somehow mysteriously not made it into the news but should have. See the, "Top 25 Censored Stories: Archive" at: http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/publications/

There is so much material to work with here that several wikipedia articles could be needed to document all of these enemies lists. Many congresspeople are involved in this and so are several private organizations. The organization called, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity could be another lead. There are plenty of whistleblowers from all walks of life in the United States who can be used as notable references. Analoguni (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Glenn Greenwald wrote about this type of thing back in 2006:

Monday, Jul 31, 2006 05:00 PDT

Echoes of the Nixon era

WP:COPYVIO redacted - please follow the above link. Note: it is okay to link, but please don't cut-and-paste large passages of outside sources in talk pages. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Analoguni (talk) 06:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Obama's enemies list is clearly a notable and substantive topic. It is well documented via his own requests to ask informants to send email addresses to the White House for those who object to the health care plan, as well as tirades against Fox, Humana and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Where is wikipedia's "neutrality" on this subject? Ouedbirdwatcher (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ouedbirdwatcher, you know very well that Obama only wanted copies of chain e-mails, not e-mail addresses. Very difficult to assume good faith when you spew out stuff like this. What is your true goal in editing on Wikipedia? Reliefappearance (talk) 13:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note - The article Wikilinked to, above, by Wikidemon was deleted (controversially, I might note: see the deletion review discussion here: WP:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 28) and is now being hosting on a Wikipedian's userspace here: "User talk:Cptnono/Percieved negative relations with Obama administration by some commentators."↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 13:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• When this topic receives the same historical significance that Nixon's did, it may be worthy of inclusion (still note WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Every politician notes their opponents, trying to create something substantial out of this is a reach. Grsz¹¹ 14:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion to move medical marijuana issue to Health care section

It is in the Social policy section despite the fact that it does not reflect a change in policy with respect to social use, rather a change with respect to medical use. Abrazame (talk) 08:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms Section?

Forget a section on an enemies list. Wouldn't a simple section of criticisms of administration policy be warranted? As the article stands now, the only thing we know about criticism is that some of the people voicing it have been "silenced." It would be worthwhile to include a section cataloguing some of the main criticisms of administration policy in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.138.219 (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Why would that be a good idea? Criticism sections tend to make for poor reading, tend to be magnets for poorly sourced attacks on the subject of the article, which is why well written articles don't include them. A quick perusal of the "Presidency of XXXX" articles (or sections, where there isn't a seperate article) for the last several U.S. presidents back to Jimmy Carter shows that there are no "criticism" sections in any of them. Why should this article be any different? If valid, notable, well-referenced criticisms of his policies can appropriately be worked into the text where they belong, that may be OK, but collecting an entire section where we collect everything that anyone says which is critical of this presidents seems like poor writing. --Jayron32 02:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Marginalization of critics section

Most of my posts on Wikipedia pages devoted to political topics involve minimizing even the most subtle biases that occasionally creep into pages. In the course of patrolling various Wiki articles, I've learned that the format of the article, including the priority a particular subject heading is given, can impart its own message to the reader, and so every aspect of creating an article must be handled with care.

In short, I do not find devoting an entire major section of the article to Obama's suggested tendency to marginalize his critics is appropriate. While mentioning this argument elsewhere in the article is acceptable, to give it a priority equal to his presidential policies, the legislature he has drafted and signed, and other topics that are actually ESSENTIAL to describing his term of office inadvertantly assigns it too much regard. I believe that the section itself is adequately well-written that I loathe to impulsively redirect or delete it; besides, it is entirely possible I may be mistaken on this. So, does anyone agree/disagree? - Drlight11 (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your observations above. A while ago I did a little rearranging and releveling of the sections here; the "Marginalization" section struck me as being unduly emphasized. I considered moving it under "Approval ratings and opinion", or possibly putting both those sections under a more general one like "Reactions", but then the question of location arose. The "Approval ratings" section is early in the article; moving "Marginalization" up would again increase its emphasis even while demoting it, but moving "Approvals" down might imply public reaction is not considered important. So I took the easy way out, deciding in best Scarlett O'Hara fashion to "think about that tomorrow". It's probably a topic worth discussion. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Belatedly removed inane, poorly sourced (to October 21, 2009 blogs) "Marginalization of critics" section added to this article on October 22, 2009 by Unitanode when told (Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 64#New source?) it was inappropriate to add to the Barack Obama article (as a sop to first-time editor 67.60.50.5's comment that the Barack Obama article was Talk:Barack Obama/Archive 64#Way too biased).

see also:

• Justmeherenow's October 21, 2009 article "2009 Fox News – White House controversy" (archived at User talk:Cptnono/Percieved negative relations with Obama administration by some commentators) was deleted one week later on October 28, 2009 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Fox News – White House controversy)

and:

• Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama/Archive 4#Fox News partisanship allegations
• Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama/Archive 4#Merger proposal
• Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama/Archive 4#The battle with Fox is over
• Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama/Archive 4#Enemies List

Newross (talk) 02:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This section was just a holdover from a tendentious period when this page was bombarded by pointy editors — several of whom have since been banned from the project — dragging the dead skunk du jour from blogs, Op-Eds, tweets, fevered dreams. I too have long intended to wade into the article and copyedit it, and while the comment from Pat Buchanan made a valuable point about the insane hyperbole, the whole section really does not belong. From the standpoints of recentism, undue weight, sourcing, take your pick. Thanks for instigating its removal. Abrazame (talk) 02:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Energy policy?

There's no section on President Obama's policy on Energy??? Simesa (talk) 10:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It's sort of intermixed with the "Environment" section. Which in a way makes sense – it's hard to discuss energy topics without running head-on into environmental issues. Maybe a section rename to "Energy and environment" (or vice versa)? Fat&Happy (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

See Political positions of Barack Obama#Energy policy. --NortyNort (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Fox News opinion polling data

I reverted edits that cited Fox News Channel, and provided other sources like Gallup and Rasmussen Reports. In my educated opinion, those two sources are more reputable as references, given their sole responsibility to collect polling data. Also, given Fox News Channels' track record on being overly-conservative and it also not being a polling data leader, I believe it should be kept out as a source. Also, Gallup is already cited as a reference in the paragraph directly above the statements in question. If anyone has any input on the matter, please feel free to join in. Thanks. BalticPat22Patrick 18:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

FoxNews used a polling organization for the actual poll, as reflected in the cited sources. That's the same way ABC News, USA Today, etc. seem to do it, commissioning polls by professional pollsters and reporting the results. Your personal opinion of their reliability, educated or not, has no bearing on whether they are considered a reliable source in WP, which from the number of times they are cited they seem to be. Restored. Fat&Happy (talk)

Well, first of all Rasmussen Reports is skewed towards polling more conservative voters based on their criteria for inclusion. In off-year elections and earlier in the election season their numbers are usually quite off from the final results, but as the election draws closer they are usually pretty close or within the margin of error. The reason for this is the way Rasmussen defines the value of "Likely voter", and the value changes as the election draws closer.

On the other hand, Gallup polls all adults. I don't see any real differences between the way the Fox polling firm uses criteria and the way Rasmussen uses criteria. If this article is going to have a section called Approval ratings and opinion, there is no reason to not include the Fox poll. Of course, it doesn't have to be worded exactly as the editor(Movieguruman) that initially added the poll. In my opinion, anyone that would call for the Impeachment of a President barely a year into his first term, with no rational reasons to do so, is subject to(at the very least) a little suspicion. Especially with the account being created barely a week ago. So if the poll is going to be added, and I think it should be, perhaps editors can use some consensus on the wording. You can also include the Gallup and Rasmussen polls at the same entry. Also, the Fox poll does show that Obama is still viewed favorable by a majority of Americans, and Republicans are far down the list. With the Republican party being viewed less favorable than Obama, the IRS and the Democratic party. Obama is viewed more favorable than all of those, plus 14% more favorable than the Tea Party. Pelosi and Reid are both viewed more favorable than Republican minority leader Boehner. The source is the same PDF file linked to by the original editor, but here is a breakdown.

On another note, Business Week has an article out that breaks down the fact that the Obama economic plan is working.

On the larger topic raised by Wikidemon in an April 9 edit summary, finding a systematic way to handle polls, I would personally prefer to leave them out altogether under the theory that Wikipedia is not a news source and they are mostly an extreme example of recentism. If they must be included, a separate article may be preferable, but in any case we don't get to pick and choose based on personal preferences. I doubt (haven't checked official rulings) that, say, either World Net daily or Daily Kos are considered reliable sources for most purposes, and if that's true they wouldn't be for polls either. Fox, CBS, ABC, CNN are all considered reliable sources (for non-opinion content) and need to be treated equally. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I agree with you. Although I did think there was an article strictly for polling(for Obama). I haven't looked right now, but I'm almost sure of it. In any case, you're absolutely right about Fox being a reliable polling outlet. I would, however, argue with the wording of their results and the original editor's interpretation. I would just tweak the wording while also adding the results of the other polls. I won't do it now, to wait and see if we can have some consensus on what we are going to do with this section. (Btw-- my first post in this section was a reply to BalticPat22. I put the indention back to reflect that. DD2K (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment -- In regards to an article that is just for polling about President Obama. Here is is - President obama approval. It looks like it isn't updated as much as it should be, and there may be some sneaky vandalism going on with the numbers. Although I haven't looked into the details of the changes, it doesn't seem as if the historical numbers should be changed. Anyway, there it is. Perhaps it would get more attention if there were more Wiki links directing people there within the numerous other Obama articles. DD2K (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The current revision works for me. My only qualm was to have one news source as the reference (that being Fox News Channel) and not several sources which would have given a more neutral and balanced array of information. But like I said, the way the section is written now is fine by me.BalticPat22Patrick 19:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Transparency

I find it interesting how the section talks about how he wants transparency, but there is no mention of how he frequently said on the campaign trail that he was going to have health care debates in public, only to have them behind closed doors.[13][14][15] Truthsort (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I added a section about this issue. The wording is open for criticism and if others want to discuss how to make the entry better, I'm all for it. DD2K (talk) 04:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue, and the article section, are overblown. It's a basic fact of politics that many things happen privately. Keeping score, and criticizing / praising, based on the number of private communications, is kind of silly. It's like overattention to polls. The real business of the presidency lies somewhere else. It's probably worth a paragraph or two to describe the whole issue of transparency, but not adopting the inside the beltway tone of "broken promises" type posturing. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the current way the information was inserted by DD2K is good and neutral. Truthsort (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with Wikidemon's sentiment about "keeping score", for article purposes. Of course people will keep score, for political purposes. Although I do believe that the bigger issues should be mentioned in articles, and health care reform is definitely one of the bigger issues. I tend to agree with Senator Franken and Matt, in that the pledge was kind of stupid. Although it did sound kind of reasonable during the campaign, the pledge was well beyond Obama's authority to make. Separation of powers should have been known to a Constitutional scholar. :-) DD2K (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It should say Obama had the government take 60.8% ownership of General Motors

I added the following to the economic policy section:

"In 2009, Obama had the government take 60.8% ownership of General Motors."

I commented "adding reliable sources on GM - this has been in the news constantly for a year - it deserves one sentence in this article."

Another editor erased it and commented "try again."

Seems to me that "try again" could lead to edit war, which seems to be against policy. So like it says in the rules, I'm taking it to the talk page.

As I said in my comment, this has been in the media constantly for a year. It's also notable because this kind of nationalization of privately owned industry by the U.S. government during peacetime (FDR did it to convert manufacturing facilities for use in World War II, but that's totally different) is unprecedented in the U.S.

You sunk my battleship! (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

At some point, the reference list becomes WP:POINT-making: You're saying "look, I have 23 references, so you HAVE TO include what I want you to in this article". That's not how it works. References are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for including information in the article. There are also issues of relevence and style and the additional problem of using references to advance a position the references don't support and other issues like that. The fact may be true, but it also may be more appropriate to include in other articles, such as Effects of the 2008-2010 automotive industry crisis on the United States. It may not be germaine to this article, largely because of the specificity of it; an omnibus overview of his presidency probably isn't the place to discuss statistics. It may be worthwhile to have a paragraph, properly worded, under the "economy" section, which discusses the Obama administration's role in the automotive bailout. The section: Effects_of_the_2008-2010_automotive_industry_crisis_on_the_United_States#Obama_Presidential_Task_Force_on_the_Auto_Industry has some relevent details which could possibly be imported into the article. But a bare statement, without context, on the % stake in GM the U.S. government purchased as part of that bailout is vague and misleading and there needs to be careful consideration given to how information about the automotive bailout is included in this article. --Jayron32 14:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

In any case 23 citations would be citation overkill. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

To start with, "Obama had the government..." is an odd way of saying it. I don't believe that's the way government actions work. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You sunk my battleship! (talk) is an obvious WP:SOCK of the indefinitely banned Grundle2600 (talk). Newross (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I see on your talk page that this "Grundle2600" has accused you of multiple violations of an ARB-COM ruling. You sunk my battleship! (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I would think that if a new new editor is such an "obvious" sock of a banned editor, the preferred course of action would be to open a WP:SPI rather than bandy about charges on an article talk page... Not being familiar with the Complete Works of Grundle2600, I couldn't comment on the assertion, but Battleship's edits don't seem to give me a reason to believe the account is anything other than what is claimed, a new, inexperienced editor – albeit possibly one with a definite political viewpoint, something not totally unheard of on WP. (I admit I do wonder, though, how many brand new editors casually quote ARB-COM rulings from other editors' talk pages on their second day registered.)

The new version of the GM sentence seems more neutral (and less pointy) than the original. I'd call it innocuous but pointless (no pun intended). Marginal as to whether it's worthwhile keeping (or expanding), but not something I intend to revert as it now stands. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that the new sentence better fits the article, but have to disagree about the edit. There is no way the editor is a 'new user'. The reflist and ARB-COM show a user who knows Wikipedia well. Not to mention the 'new user' Captain Lance Murdoch made two very similar edits(although more obviously biased) two days ago(1,2). I've had no dealings with Grundle2600, but I am much more inclined to believe this particular editor is part of some sock farm than a new user. DD2K (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

If it is Grundle, hi, you rascal you! - Wikidemon (talk) 01:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

These edits bespeak a lack of understanding of the issue. The Bush administration had already given billions to the automakers without much or any "strings"; that was a "bailout". Understanding that the billions more they were asking for would not be enough to ensure their survival, the Obama administration directed GM and Chrysler to move through special bankruptcies that ensured some jobs could continue and others could resume earlier than in any other possible outcome. In so doing, they changed tactics from the Bush administration, which had simply made loans that were gobbled up—and added to the debt that was the companies' problem in the first place—and instead made investments that garnered them stock shares in the company. The reason for this was so that the taxpayer was more likely to see a return on the loan/investment/bridge money. This is the same thing they did for the banks, bank holding companies, and insurers. It is in part why so many have paid the loans back so quickly and it is in part why the additional payments of dividends means the taxpayer made money on those parts of the deal. That's before you even get to the government's sale of the warrants, preferred stock and common equity. While TARP was initially expected to lose three or four hundred billion dollars (and some wags acted as though they wouldn't see a dime in return, and factored it into their projections for the federal deficit), due to the amount already repaid, the expected loss has shrunk to less than $80 billion, or a fraction of the taxpayer cost of the Savings & Loan crisis of the Reagan/Bush era. By the time the government has sold all I mentioned above, it's likely that the excess paid by those who were able and the increased value in the companies by the time of the warrant/share sales will make up for much if not all of the many (smaller) entities that may not be able to pay back in full.

This is one reason why "bailout" is such an erroneous word. Money with no strings to speak of, as was flowing in the last months of the Bush administration, is a "bailout". Then there is a simple "loan", which in some cases—as we know from subprime mortgages—is less likely to be repaid than others. However, money in exchange for stock shares which the government intends to sell as soon as it is economically responsible to do so, is an "investment".

GM was not the only company from which the government required the exchange of stock shares (largely dividend-paying preferreds), making an investment out of the money desperately required at a time when the banks were unable and/or unwilling to do so. The banks themselves and AIG are prime examples of companies where the Obama administration accepted stock in exchange for that cash and credit, making it an investment as opposed to a bailout. At the time people doubted that these companies were viable going forward, or that they would be able to repay the money for years or ever. Of course we now know most of the money has been repaid, much earlier than expected.

It's not a bad idea to note this all somehow, but it is a bad idea to note it as it has been these last couple edits. To single out GM is irresponsible and has the effect of stigmatizing one company for those who cling to the negative "bailout" perspective, or the effect of making them look foolish or singled out by the government to provide equity to the taxpayer in return for the aid. I'm reverting the edit, but if we can work out a way to present this that doesn't single out particular companies, I think it would aid in helping the public to understand the issue. Another thing that would aid in better understanding (and help keep you from being perceived as wishing to add negative POV) would be to cite whatever we come up with to a recent source(s), which will obviously acknowledge the facts with less fear and negative speculation, given the fact that it's proven to be such a financial and economic success. Don't get me wrong, if it were not a financial and economic success, it would also bear noting, but the fact that it is, rather than is not, does not seem to be irrelevant to the point. Abrazame (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Response to Gulf Oil Spill

Shouldn't the President's response to the Gulf Oil Spill be at least mentioned in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.94.169 (talk) 06:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

See Barack Obama#Gulf of Mexico oil spill. I agree it should be in this article as well. It doesn't have to be a controversy although it is becoming one, but it is an important part of his presidency.--NortyNort (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Energy, Environment Section: oil, commercial whaling and everything else

Per a bunch of comments here, I think a section on the environment can be created here, maybe most cut from other articles. The oil spill is big news and also now the administration trying to lift the ban on commercial whaling as well. Other energy and environment initiates could be included as well.--NortyNort (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

There is already a section on the environment. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

True, I was confused with all of the Obama pages and places to put the issue. Anyhoo, I inserted several sentences centered around the spill and Obama's response.--NortyNort (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

NASA

I noticed a user started a new section on NASA, putting the "muslim world" outreach as a highlight. I believe this is important to include in the article because it is different compared to other presidencies. However, the three other goals stated, "re-inspire children to want to get into science and math" and "expand our international relationships" should be included as well. In addition, information on how Obama has changed NASA, i.e. the program to goto the moon, should be included as well. I can revamp the section in the next week.--NortyNort (talk) 08:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed a section on this is totally justified. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. The impetus for including the material[16] is clearly a partisan political thing having some vague connection to the whole muslim + Obama meme. It starts at the conservative advocacy press (e.g. Fox News) and goes from there to the fringe and blogosphere. I see little mainstream coverage of this. The simple fact that Obama appointed a new NASA administrator, though noteworthy, is only a minor aspect of his presidency. The fact that it is minor, that Obama does not seem to be placing a high emphasis on space and space exploration, may be the most salient issue here. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree on the lack of emphasis on the space program, big notable change. Given something like the Muslim outreach will push conservative media, it is still an issue and one of contrast from previous administrations. A lack of mainstream coverage coverage reflects the ideology of U.S. media in general. Its inclusion along with the other two priorities doesn't have to be condemning but notable. A balanced paragraph above the above issues is still noteworthy for this article. A reader could make their own judgment.--NortyNort (talk) 03:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I expanded the section with budget and space program info along with the three NASA priorities. The White House defended the comments today which increased the issues notability. I added that as well, I think it is fairly balanced. The space program part may need some details added (not my area of expertise).--NortyNort (talk) 11:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Very balanced section, good work. The fact the American "mainstream media" chooses to gloss over certain matters does not mean they should not be covered.BritishWatcher (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it does - per WP:V and WP:UNDUE. We repeat what the sources say, not what we decide is important. Anyway, I've trimmed and addressed a number of issues with the proposed addition - primarily length, and an undue focus on Republican versus Democrat political issues. The partisan political ramifications are one aspect of presidential acts, but it is not terribly encyclopedic to filter every action through the lens of what party operatives have to say about it. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I would say the phrasing from Bolden was odd, and the "freak out" from many on the conservative side was predictable. It seems that anytime anyone from the Obama Administration mentions "Muslims" in a thoughtful manner, a freak out ensues. Although I think if one is rational and unbiased, the "Muslim outreach" has more to do with the explanation from Bolden himself, on the follow-up to the statement.

  Question: Are you in some sort of diplomatic role ... to win hearts and minds? Bolden: No no, not at all. Its not a diplomatic anything. What it is - is that it is trying to expand our outreach so that we get more people who can contribute to the things that we do - the international Space Station is as great as it is because we have a conglomerate of about 15 plus nations who have contributed something to that partnership that has made it what it is today.

  The "Muslim outreach" falls in line with the other objectives of the administrator, to get more monetary contributions in order to keep the space program solvent. And don't many of the Muslim nations have many monies? Of course, it won't matter to many. For obvious reasons. Dave Dial (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Be that as it may, is this particular "Muslim freak-out" noteworthy enough to merit discussion in this article about the Presidency - does it rise above the din of all the other freak-outs? And if so, should we cover it as "Obama was criticized..." or "Republicans said... / Obama defendend"? That strikes me as being a little in-universe, telling these events from a perspective that presumes that these political ripostes and dodges are the actual business of government. The sourcing problem is that the political press, particularly partisan-leaning ones, sometimes take that perspective in lieu of covering substantive government actions. A more neutral, informative approach would be to describe this from the perspective of a neutral observer: "the comments became the subject of a minor political controversy when (etc)", if that could be sourced. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm not adamant of either inclusion or exclusion, given proper sources and context. Dave Dial (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• I notice the entire section has been removed. Setting aside the controversial second paragraph, I'm wondering about the inclusion of the first. The constelation program and the path he directed for the future of NASA seem like a valid inclusion.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I placed it back in. I think what is in there is good now. I honestly did have misconceptions about the space program budget until I read more about it.--NortyNort (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Transparency section

I added the bolded part to this paragraph, because it's notable that Obama's website on "transparency" is only "transparent" on 25% of its subject matter.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act requires all recipients of the funds provided by the act to publish a plan for using the funds, along with purpose, cost, rationale, net job creation, and contact information about the plan to a website Recovery.gov so that the public can review and comment. Inspectors General from each department or executive agency will then review, as appropriate, any concerns raised by the public. Any findings of an Inspector General must be relayed immediately to the head of each department and published on Recovery.gov. According to a July 2010 report from the Government Accountability Office, only 25% of the projects listed on Recovery.gov provide clear and complete information.

Little runt sitting there on a log (talk) 06:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I see someone doesn't want this info in the article. That's too bad, because without this info, the reader is wrongly left with the false impression that the recovery.gov website is accurate. It's also ironic that by removing the info, the section about transparency becomes non-transparent. Little runt sitting there on a log (talk) 06:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Struck out sock of banned User:Grundle2600. Quit it, Grundle. PhGustaf (talk) 03:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why it was described as vandalism or POV pushing. The GAO is non-partisan and that was a fact that has relevance to the preceding paragraph. I don't see a problem with including it. I also think the reverts of the edit, regardless of the user's suspected status, were unwarranted and are not good editing practices.--NortyNort (talk) 08:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The content itself is POV, not strongly sourced, and not terribly relevant to the subject of this article. Further, the editor in question has been making problematic edits and may not be legitimate (something to discuss elsewhere). To avoid blocks and edit protection we ought to restore the article to its status quo version, and agree to keep it there pending any consensus to the contrary - the burden is on those proposing changes to demonstrate consensus anyway. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so we could restore it to this version for the time being. I just downloaded that GAO report here and putting the original source aside, it states that 25% of the programs have all the public information listed. The GAO is non-partisan and I am not here to condemn Obama, I think I have made balanced contributions to this article in the past. If the paragraph within the section is speaking about how transparent the recovery bill is supposed to be in reagrds to "funds, along with purpose, cost, rationale, net job creation, and contact information" and the GAO estimates that 75% it isn't meeting this standard, I don't understand how that is not relevant. To be specific, the addition could be modified to something a long the lines of "The GAO estimates that 25% fully meet another 68% partially meet and 7% provide little or no information. See page 2 for of the PDF for the scoop. I also didn't know about the user's suspected status at first and am just trying to make sense of the edit. I can propose the changes.--NortyNort (talk) 09:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Er, the GAO is not a partisan office. Tarc (talk) 12:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Like the Congressional Budget Office, the GAO is (and must be) completely non-partisan in order to function properly. Evidence of the GAO's non-partisanship can be found in the way its head is appointed, for example. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I meant non-partisan. --NortyNort (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That was actually pretty obvious from the context. I'm assuming you also meant the reverts "were UNwarranted and are not good editing practices"? Gotta watch those negations, LOL. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The GAO report is a primary source for purposes of stating what the conclusions of the report are. We can't make heads or tails of the relevance or meaning of the statement about 25% compliance without reliable sources. We're not in a position to independently assess whether 25% is an unusually low figure, what it means to be noncompliant, etc. For example, if you inspected every restaurant in Los Angeles, you might find that fewer than 25% are in compliance with all of the relevant health regulations. Fewer than 25% of drivers manage to spend a day in compliance with all applicable traffic laws. At least 75% of all commercial buildings may contain a fire code violation. So what? For Fox News to jump on this is no surprise. To source this as a relevant meaningful fact what we need is a sober analysis by a more thoughtful source, say the Wall Street Journal, about what this means. To source this as a bona fide controversy we need the mainstream press to be reporting that Obama's opponents have jumped on this. Either way it needs to rise above all the din and actually say something about, or be a significant event in, Obama's presidency. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The GAO report cited "25 percent of the descriptions met its transparency criteria", the same criteria set forth by the Recovery Bill. See left hand column of page 2, it reflects on the criteria described in this bill. Pg. 23-25 displays the met criteria for three random projects. The point I want to make though is not how good or bad 25% is but that only 25% met the required criteria when all projects or "all recipients" are supposed to. What is means is that 75% of the project descriptions have not met their required criteria. Is that really bad? I don't know, the GAO just reported numbers. I don't expect the government to be perfect but I know it was required. The addition of the GAO numbers at the end of the paragraph about recovery is a follow-up to how the bill and its transparency is being handled. It doesn't have to be followed with a judgment/controversy made by an editor. Transparency was one of the platforms Obama ran his campaign on and it has its own section in the article, deeming significance. So I see its significance but don't think it is a controversy, nor should it be displayed as one; just the numbers displayed. The intent or requirement of something is important but more important is its outcome which is worth including. The number could be 100% met criteria and I would still support its inclusion. My apologies on the typos, yesterday was a long one.--NortyNort (talk) 08:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Re secondary vs. primary sourcing, a previously cited news article (now-removed) from The Hill (newspaper) works for me to support the 25% number and to support the editorial conclusion by that secondary source from information in the primary source that, as the article says in its lead sentence, "The website used to track stimulus spending does not meet the transparency requirements laid out by the administration last year." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Not enough for me - though that's enough for verifiability (as is the primary source), it isn't enough to show that it's worth covering here. A blog from a minor special interest news site (circulation 21,000 for its print version) doesn't establish that a fact, however true, is relevant and of due weight to cover as an apparent shortcoming of the POTUS - if it's real and worth covering, bigger and more mainstream sources will cover it. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Completely disagree. We don't automatically cede our editorial judgment to what counts for journalism at USA Today. Personally, I think the information is quite worth including and strongly oppose any removal. However, the GAO report is the preferable secondary source (the primary source in this case being the underlying public data, The Hill being tertiary) and saying only 25% meet the criteria distorts their conclusion since 68% partially met the criteria. II | (t - c) 04:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are completely wrong about this. The section utterly fails to be justified by a preponderance of reliable sources. The GAO report is not a secondary source at all. As Wikidemon says, it is a primary source in the purest sense of the term. The Hill is a poor quality secondary source. I would expect to see at least a couple of well-respected secondary sources (such as mainstream newspapers, websites of cable news) before I could support this inclusion. It is the responsibility of the editor seeking inclusion to satisfy proper inclusion criteria, and that has not happened. Please seek consensus before adding this material again. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY permits the use of "reliably published [primary] sources". If the GAO is not reliable then I won't support the inclusion. The inclusion I am supporting isn't intended to make a judgment or assessment based off the primary source, just a statement based off the primary source. No "however", "despite", "on the contrary", etc. Maybe preceding the statement with "According to a July 2010 GAO report, by December 31, 2009, 25% met the criteria, 68% partially met and 7% did not meet..." This article in response to the report says Obama officials were encouraged that 7% of the projects did not meet the criteria. By the way, I just checked Fox News and to my surprise they didn't appear report it.--NortyNort (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to delve into some edit war over this, since it's inclusion/exclusion doesn't interest me much at all. My main problem with the inclusion is that it was first introduced by an obvious sock. I think the sources are fine. Perhaps if we wait for the news to make the usual rounds, there will be more sourcing and analysis. It's not as if there is some urgent need to include the material, but I do think it should be included eventually. Dave Dial (talk) 14:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• This is plain bizarre, and more people around Wikipedia need to be aware what the approach is towards writing these articles. I also hope someone reverts Scjessey. If this incident is reflective of the general trend, it seems that these is a strong tendency to avoid using actual analytical reports in favor up hyping up the random vacuous statements which get a brief press buzz. The rich irony here is that the paragraph in question actually cites the ARRA actual bill to make it sound like Obama is doing a great transparency initiative. There's no way that the GAO report can be considered anything else but the best secondary report available, but even if it is not a secondary source, it is still the most appropriate source for a paragraph discussing the effectiveness of Obama's transparency initiative with regard to the ARRA. The article throughout relies on poor sources which cover brief incidents - USA Today, obviously primary things like Gallup polls, rather than referenced academic-level sources, which the GAO report rises to. I understand that with stuff this recent it can be difficult to find academic-level sources, but certainly such sources should not be rejected when available. II | (t - c) 18:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... When you make statements like this:

The rich irony here is that the paragraph in question actually cites the ARRA actual bill to make it sound like Obama is doing a great transparency initiative.

It makes me question whether you understand the context here. The transparency initiative undertaken by the Obama Administration is historic, and never before done by any other. The fact that the website currently does not fully fall in line with all of the goals may be news(and I think it is), but the context that the sock puppet(and some others) are trying to imply is not in line with the facts. Dave Dial (talk) 18:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm not trying to sound snarky or sarcastic, but do you have an advanced degree in public administration or political science? Have you reviewed the transparency initiatives of the local and state governments of the United States, or of elsewhere in the world? I have a Public Citizen News article from May/June 2010 - "Opening Up the Government" - which notes that some of the recent pressure for open government in regard to FOIA is from legislators; thus, the transparency legislation could have been done even if Obama had not been made President. Also, Obama campaigned upon a bill he worked on which basically mandates this transparency already (Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, which Obama should not receive all credit for). Now, I'm not saying the paragraph should be removed - certainly not - but it does highlight the inconsistency between using primary sources and rejecting "primary" (GAO narrative) sources. II | (t - c) 19:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

"The facts" are exactly what the inclusion would bring. ...citing a report from the GAO on the effectiveness of the ARRA transparency initiative already cited in the article. Fact: the ARRA requires all projects to report specific criteria to Recovery.gov. Fact: the GAO reports that 25% of the projects meet that specific criteria, 68% partially meet and 7% dont. I am not trying to imply anything by the numbers except that is what they are. We don't need a seconadry news source to tell us that 25%, 68% or 7% is not 100%. We don't even need to tell the reader what the numbers mean. We could even include that the Obama administration is encouraged that only 7% did not meet the criteria. And yes, it is sad that a sock brought this up, I didn't know until after I joined the discussion. It still shouldn't sway the issue at hand.--NortyNort (talk) 04:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:DENY suggests that we should not let sockpuppeters set the agenda. In any event, Wikipedia articles are more than random collections of factoids. We count on reliable sources not only to verify that claims are true, but also that they're worth reporting. Again, if this percentage figure has any weight to it, a number of major sources will pick it up. If they don't, this fact joins hundreds of thousands of other facts reported in minor sources, and we don't have nearly enough room to report them all. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

He isn't involved in the discussion anymore. It wouldn't be worth including if there wasn't a section and paragraph in this article regarding the issue.--NortyNort (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The beer summit is less notable than things that aren't in the article.

We should create a WP:DNIGS (Do Not Indulge Grundle's Socks) policy page. Tarc (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The beer summit is in the article. But it was only in the news for a few weeks. Other topics that aren't in the article have been in the news for over a year, such as the New Black Panther Party Voter Intimidation Case and the firing of Gerald Walpin. These are both more notable than the beer summit, because they are still being covered more than a year after they began, and also even more importantly, because they both set new legal precedents. I'm not saying the beer summit should be removed from the article. But I am saying that those other things are more worthy of inclusion. Hand me the keys you fairy godmother! (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC) So we need the rest of the camel in the tent? That material has only been in the article two days[17] and I've already noted its disproportionate length.[18] - Wikidemon (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep article up to date

If it is possible, I believe it is important to keep the Presidency of Barack Obama current. There is the oil spill issue and the Arizona civil rights controversy that should be looked into. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This article covers the policies and personel of the Barack Obama administration, and isn't really a general history of the United States during the past 2 years. Information about the Gulf Oil Spill and on the Arizona imigration laws are copiously covered elsewhere in Wikipedia. Furthermore, the oil spill is adequately addressed in this article. The Deepwater Horizon spill is covered in the "Environment" subsection under "Policies". The article does lack any overview of the Administrations imigration policies in general. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to add a subsection on Imigration policies under the "Social policy" section, and address it there. --Jayron32 23:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The last update GOS was on May 27, 2010. I believe a "Civil Rights" section needs to be added. Social policies refers to a person's economic status in society where civil rights covers a justice and equality for everyone. For example the Tea Party has been labeled as racist and the Arizona immigration laws are allegedly racist. Civil rights covers both socio-economic and legal issues. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Domestic and Foreign Policies

The Presidency article should be divided into Domestic and Foreign policies, not just one heading "Policies". These can be sorted in chronological order. Any suggestions? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Approval Ratings

I think there should be something about his recent AP numbers, which currently sit at 44.7 approve, 50.1 disapprove. http://realclearpolitics.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaitsev10 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You may have noticed the link to United States presidential approval rating at the top of the "Approval ratings and opinion" section? Fat&Happy (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

O yeah you're right...thank you for pointing that out. I saw it but I thought it was an article on what the presidential approval ratings are (as in the definition of presidential approval ratings or something) so I didn't even look...next time I'll do some more investigating. Thanks Zaitsev10 (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course, that still leaves open the question of which polls are deemed "worthy" of being included in this article. But since I'm more conservative than many on the subject of Wikipedia not being a newspaper, I choose not to raise that issue too often. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

We've got far too many polls here, and they seem to be chosen fairly randomly. The only useful information I can get out of this, is that his approval ratings started out very high, and in particular early impressions of his handling of the economy, but slid fairly quickly over time, particularly in response (to what? - continuing recession, ongoing unemployment despite improvement in economy, health care bill passage, attacks from opponents). There's not much more in it than that, and it could be said in about 3-4 sentences. We don't need to report on March 2010, then again in April, and then skip 2 months, then July. And I don't think we really need to break down between men and women, old and young, rich and poor, democrats and republicans - everything there is pretty much as expected. If there is something striking and important in the breakdown, maybe. And best to avoid numbers trivia. We can just say that his approval ratings slipped, so that by July his approval was between X and Y in various polls (with a footnote to those polls). A month or two from now depending on how it trends we can update it, depending on how things go. Something like that. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Reference to "Army Field Manual"

There are many, many "field manuals" (lower case, unless in a specific title) and they go through different editions just like books on the civilian market. The statement that the president directed that interrogations be carried out as per "the" "Army Field Manual" needs to be rephrased to indicate which manual, by number and title, and which edition of that manual.

Terry J. Carter (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I pointed a link to the article on the specific Executive Order referenced, which in turn links to the content of the order itself (which references at least two specific manuals). That should be sufficient for a general-purpose encyclopedia. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Impeachment

Although it is too early at this stage to start the article Impeachment of Barack Obama and the efforts to impeach him are not yet as notable as the Efforts to impeach George W. Bush but here is an excellent article (aptly titled "Scandal TBD") predicting an impeachment of Barack Obama should he win a second term and should Republicans a majority in the House of Representative during his second term. Victor Victoria (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how this is relevant to the article in any conceivable way. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

At this point I think any inclusion, be it here or in its own article, would fall afoul of WP:CRYSTAL. It isn't an action we can be sure will happen even if the Republicans gain a majority, which is also speculative (even if likely) seeing as the election has not taken place. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

A lot of right-wing BAWWWing at the moment, but it's not surprising to see editors picking up the banner; they've done it before, they'll do it again, over every "controversy real or imagined. Tarc (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

We don't wear a hat and we don't write the future like Jonathan Chait is free to do. We write the past and sometimes the present. Let's collapse this till it comes true.TMCk (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Transparency section of article

Let's reach a consensus for supporting or opposing adding this new info to the Transparency section.

I support adding it, but I would like to see what other editors think:

"In October 2010, Reuters reported that the U.S. had received its worst score ever in the Corruption Perceptions Index published by Transparency International."

Kc252 (talk) 06:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Before even considering adding it, the addition would need to be reworded. Right now it is somewhat ambiguous, someone could interpret it to mean that the United States received the lowest score that Transparency International has ever given (meaning to any country, ever). Obviously this is not true when reading the article. One possible rewrite would be:

"In October 2010, Reuters reported that the U.S. had received the worst Corruption Perceptions Index score in the nation's history as published by Transparency International."

Something like that, making clear that it is a national historic low, not a Transparency International historic low. As for the addition itself, I'd have to oppose it. I'm not opposing its inclusion somewhere in this article, but it does not seem to me that it belongs in the "Transparency" section. Despite the article section and the organization title both including the words "transparency," they don't seem to be about the same thing. The article section is about making the processes of government more clear and available to scrutiny by the American people. The Transparency International score is a measure of government corruption. The two are not the same thing. A government can be incredibly secretive while not being corrupt, and the stated objectives of Obama's transparency initiatives (whether followed or not) weren't about combating government corruption. This score might belong somewhere else in the article, or in another article (such United States, Federal government of the United States, or Politics of the United States). --OuroborosCobra (talk) 07:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, some of the reasons for the drop the group's spokeswoman cited were outside of his presidency and others at state/local level. I wouldn't directly attribute it to Obama.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems that Kc252 didn't actually read the article. The rank has nothing remotely to do with the Presidency of Barack Obama. It reads:

"Nancy Boswell, president of TI in the United States, said lending practices in the subprime crisis, the disclosure of Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme and rows over political funding had all rattled public faith about prevailing ethics in America. "We're not talking about corruption in the sense of breaking the law," she said. "We're talking about a sense that the system is corrupted by these practices. There's an integrity deficit." Various financial scandals at state and city level had encouraged the impression that the regulatory oversight was weak and that influence could be bought, she added."

Now let me ask you something: which presidencies engaged in mass deregulation? Reagan, Bush I, Bush II, even Clinton. Now answer me which presidency has passed a greater degree of regulation with major credit card reform, student loan reform, and overall financial reform (which specifically addresses lending practices in the subprime crisis) and health care reform laws that phase in over several years? Obama. Now tell me which party is actually running (and at the moment reportedly winning) on the message that we need to repeal all this regulation on the grounds that those we bailed out are complaining it will hurt the profits they're already raking in in the billions? The Republicans. Now tell me what Obama has to do with state and city level politicians engaged in the scandals noted?

I am opposing its inclusion somewhere in the article, because this isn't a compendium of random data about the United States during but wholly unrelated to Obama's presidency, it's an article about the Presidency of Barack Obama. If anything, its inclusion would be to justify the necessity for the reform the administration has passed and continues to propose.

To OuroborosCobra, of course the transparency initiatives were about combating government corruption. The thinking was that if things like the stimulus funds would be tracked and the results shown to America, the portion of the stimulus that went to the states, for example, would not be diverted by state and local officials and wasted or claimed as coming from and for something else. Obama often used the maxim of sunlight being the best disinfectant when talking about the issue during the campaign and when initiating the directive. Combating doesn't mean it's in his power to eliminate it entirely, it just means that he directed that the public gets to see who it was that was spending those stimulus dollars and how.

That's the irony about people unhappy with the stimulus blaming the president: 1/3 went directly to the public as tax breaks and a huge amount was dispersed to their state and local officials to spend however they determined the money could make the most impact in the quickest way. Those people have themselves and their state and local officials (Governors, State Legislature) to blame as much or more than the Presidency or the Congress. The TI number is related to State and Local Government, to Big Business, to Private Investment Brokers, and to the Supreme Court decision allowing unlimited and largely undisclosed corporate money into elections. Remember McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform? The Supreme Court decision overturning that good-faith legislation to be more transparent and responsible and ethical and independent is a big part of this, as noted in the second lead: "The United States has dropped out of the "top 20" in a global league table of least corrupt nations, tarnished by financial scandals and the influence of money in politics, Transparency International said on Tuesday".

Finally, as with any data point you need to understand it not only in the context of our country but in the context of the rest of the data points. The ranking is determined by an amalgam of several surveys. The worst absolute single-survey rankings we received were actually in 2003 and 2002, and this year's rank is very nearly tied with 2006. That year, we were actually rated in 21st place, as we were tied for 20th. When it's not simply the European Socialist states but Qatar and Chile that rank above us, I'd say it's interesting food for thought about what political and regulatory and legislative directions we would need to go in order to improve our ranking.

I'm curious: as the only individual or entity that your source actually noted by name as causing this slip in the rank, do you plan to suggest this addition at Bernie Madoff's biography? Abrazame (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)