Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama

Bills signed into law

Continued updating:

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

Cleaned Up the Infobox

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

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

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

The references are there because this information has been controversial over the course of Obama's presidency. Other changes you're making are poorly formatted compared to what was there before. As to the content of the changes, you're listing the "expiration" of Obama's term as January 20, 2012; in other words, today. If he loses reelection, it'll be January 20, 2013. Including that would violate WP:CRYSTAL since we don't know when his presidency will end. Otherwise, these changes don't seem beneficial. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

We don't put end dates on Presidency articles before they happen. Also, much of what you removed was compromised solutions in the infobox, after many Talk page discussions. So without going through too much, I don't see a immediate reason to change anything and think we should just stick with the consensus version for now. This article is under a 1rr restriction(which you have already violated. Stop it. Dave Dial (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Lobbying reform

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

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

The section on lobbying reform is very POV, as it seems to imply that giving out "waivers" somehow makes it OK for Obama to break his campaign promises regarding lobbying. Also, the section does not include some of Obama's other tricks that he had used to break his promises, despite the fact that such info has been reported by the New York Times.

I propose adding the following two paragraphs to the section:

While running for President, Obama promised that he would not have any lobbyists working in his administration. However, by February 2010, he had more than 40 lobbyists working in his administration.

In June 2010, the New York Times reported that Obama administration officials had held hundreds of meetings with lobbyists at coffee houses near the White House, in order to avoid the disclosure requirements for White House visitors, and that these meetings "reveal a disconnect between the Obama administration’s public rhetoric — with Mr. Obama himself frequently thrashing big industries’ 'battalions' of lobbyists as enemies of reform — and the administration’s continuing, private dealings with them."

55 fifty-five (talk) 05:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

These are not notable. And after seeing your previous edit, I can see that you are clearly here to push an agenda. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

How are those things "not notable" to a section called "lobbying reform"? Is the section only supposed to include verifiable facts that make Obama look good, and ignore verifiable facts that make him look bad? 55 fifty-five (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Your first proposed sentence is already covered (albeit sightly differently) in the article. The second proposed sentence does not discuss lobbying reform, but instead suggests that the meetings in coffee houses are done "to avoid disclosure requirements", which the NYT article does not specifically say. Since the article already discusses this matter, adding this additional material (if you could somehow make it be neutral) would probably also make the section have too much weight. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Is this a good idea for the article?

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

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

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

What do others here think of this proposal?

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

The article points out that the administration appointments have been in line with those of previous administrations. So I fail to see how this is notable. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It's notable because Obama promised that he would be different, and have higher standards, than previous administrations. The Washington Post article specifically points out that Obama's actions have contradicted his promises. What's the point of even having an "ethics" section if it can't point out that Obama broke his promises? 55 fifty-five (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

One article does not a story make. Besides, Obama's standards have been higher. For example, no previous administration has done anything like this. And this whole "broken promise" thing is a canard. Do you believe, for example, that if Newt Gingrich became President that he could arrange for gas prices to drop to $2.50 as he has promised? Candidates make all sorts of promises that never pan out. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

No, writing articles from the point of view of political commentary is not encyclopedic. Quack. Wikidemon (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a .gov link which means it's from the federal government. Of course the federal government would say good things about itself. I'd trust the Washington Post over the federal government any day of the week. 55 fifty-five (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way, if you came here from a solicitation on a Free Republic "activism" thread by a banned editor to help him insert the material we keep reverting, we take WP:NPOV pretty seriously and agenda accounts are not welcome. Remember if you are truly adhering to NPOV it should be impossible to tell from your edits whether you voted for Obama or not. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's the policy link. Antandrus (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for that. I don't want to get in trouble. I won't edit this article, or any other controversial political articles. And this will be my last edit on this talk page. 55 fifty-five (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Notability and inclusion

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

Notability is a perfectly acceptable standard for inclusion or exclusion, just not the policy. One could say, for example, that something isn't notable enough to satisfy WP:WEIGHT. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

In the above you/they were implying that it is wikipedia standard for inclusion, which is incorrect. Further, notability has a specific meaning in wikipedia, wp:notability, and it is certainly not correct to invoke that as a standard for exclusion of material. And, from the looks of this article, who lot of excluding has been done, basically the whole other half of the story. North8000 (talk) 12:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

If a story gets very little media coverage, it isn't notable. Covering it would constitute a violation of WP:WEIGHT. I use the word "notable" for convenience, and I shall continue to do so if I wish. I can see from your last comment that your real objection is about what you think is missing from the content of this article, and that you brought up notability for different reasons. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, your substitution of IBF (inventing bad faith) for WP:AGF misfired into a baseless insult, linking to wiki-lawyering. At least it's clear what plane you operate on. Regarding use/non use of the term by you, I think that the clarification I posted will help resolve the issue either way. North8000 (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

You basically said in your earlier comment that "notability" was the reason only "half the story" was featured in the content of this article. The implication is that you think the dozens of editors who have worked on this article over the years have not followed WP:NPOV. Perhaps if that comment hadn't been so insulting to all those editors, I would not have needed to point out your apparent agenda on this talk page. If you have anything useful to contribute to the improvement of this article, please do so. Otherwise, please play elsewhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a complete scrambling of what I said. What I essentially saiod was: 1. Implying that notability is a criteria for inclusion / exclusion of material is not proper. 2. bsereving that the article is missing 1/2 of the story. On your last point, saying that 1/2 is missing is not "insulting" everybody who has done anything here. To clarify, for the folks that built the half that IS here, good work. For the folks that worked to keep out the missing 1/2, not so good work. North8000 (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a common Wikipedia colloquialism, not a misuse of anything. We certainly can and do use standards like the nature and extent of coverage of an item, as well as its appropriateness and relevance to the subject of the article, to decide whether a particular verifiable fact merits inclusion in the article. Different editors arrive at the point of WP:CONSENSUS along different paths, some invoking WP:WEIGHT (itself an important context but used here outside of its strict context) and WP:NPOV, and others describing a matter as encyclopedic or not. To avoid confusion I personally describe the concept as "noteworthiness" to avoid any implication that I've misread WP:NOTE, a question of whether a particular fact is worth noting in an article as evidenced by how reliable sources treat it in connection with the subject matter. Anyway, this is a terminology issue not a content issue. If the question is whether it's worth pointing out that some people are disappointed / critical / observe / etc., that Obama's campaign promises having to do with government transparency do not at this point seem to have come to fruition, then yes, I think it is worth a very brief mention in the context of discussing the issue of transparency. However, the "he broke his promises" thing cannot be stated neutrally about any politician as fact, as that kind of thing is campaign rhetoric and not historical account. If the rhetoric rises to the level where it makes a difference, then it can be mentioned in campaign articles. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Improper refactoring to remove "This article sounds like it was written by the Obama reelection committee" section

The subject section criticized article CONTENT and suggested an approach to fix the problem. Persons have been consistently refactoring and deleting the material, citing various reasons that do not justify that changing and deletion of talk page content. One comment said it was improper use of the talk page to criticize the WORK of Wikipedia editors. ALL article content is the work of Wikipedia editors!, so that is saying that using a talk page to criticize content is improper use of the talk page! That is ludicrous. Deleting or rewording what I said is improper refactoring of talk page content. Please restore the section or I intend to report the persistent improper refactoring. And no, tag teaming do not justify violating the guidelines. This would be only the second report of any type I have ever made in my entire time in Wikipedia, a sign that this refactoring behavior is pretty extreme. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)