Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama

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[1] 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.

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 bagen, and also 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)