User talk:Bencmq/STEPS

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Testing insertion...


No Critical Views Allowed[edit]

I just spent an hour skimming the Wiki articles of each president the US has had. These articles typically refer to actions, responses, and policies of the president, along with a description of how these events were received by the public, and how the president's popularity was affected. Notably, the article on Barack Obama is missing any information about the critical response many of his actions have received. This article reads like a campaign website, listing all of his "achievements" along with far too many legislative details, with little information about the history of how these things happened, or what resulted from them.

Of note, the section on the 2010 midterms is a single sentence, and omits any mention of WHY Obama was so unpopular in 2010, and about how his 2010 legislative policies were received. The section on the 2012 elections omits any mention of HOW he won the election, or what sort of campaign message he was leveling against his opponent. The section on "health care reform" mentions far too many legislative details (that could easily be gleaned by reading the page on PPACA), while omitting any mention of what sort of criticisms were leveled against the policy, how it has affected Obama's popularity, or how the implementation of the new health care system was handled.

Furthermore, there is no mention of the IRS targeting scandal, the Benghazi scandal, the many court cases against Obama's executive overreach, the fact that Obama was held in contempt by a federal court, the fact that Obama created the largest and most intrusive domestic surveillance operation in human history, his racially-motivated comments and policies, or the fact that he has been so widely and openly criticized as a totalitarian, a socialist, a fascist, and other labels for authoritarian philosophies. These types of facts are a major focus of the articles for previous presidents, and were certainly a dominant component of the page on George W. Bush during his presidency.

The level of president-saluting sterilization in this article is positively Orwellian. TBSchemer (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of this Orwellian cleansing, I included a series of polls showing that Obama is "the most divisive and polarizing president in history" in the first-term legacy section, and the change was rapidly reverted by Tarc. This leaves the section as a paragraph of praise from academics, with little general-public polling data. The reversion can be viewed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=603081323&oldid=603080058 TBSchemer (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Far too much of your own politics is on display in those posts for your comments to be considered in any way as objective and constructive suggestions for improving the article. HiLo48 (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I've tried to point out the many flaws in this article over the years and to no avail. I hope you have better luck than I did, or better than the countless accounts that have been blocked or banned over the years for pointing this out as well. JOJ Hutton 02:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If someone came here with a clearly neutral point of view and made explicit, non-POV suggestions for improving the article, they might get somewhere. That is not the case with this thread. HiLo48 (talk) 02:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
HiLo48, your dislike of people's politics is not an argument. If you can't respond to his points you don't need to respond. —Designate (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have no idea what my political views are, and that's precisely how it should be. During the most recent presidential election campaign I was attacked by supports of both major candidates as being a supporter of the other side. I was proud of that. TBSchemer's political views are far too obvious. HiLo48 (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any reasonable objection to the inclusion of this poll or not? TBSchemer (talk) 02:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
HiLo48, this page is for discussing the article. He's discussing the article. You're discussing him. There's no policy that requires people to pretend not to have opinions and there never has been, so your complaints belong in another forum. —Designate (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I object to most opinion polling most of the time. People generally only want them added if they think they support their political position. The only way in which they could ever be included, IMHO, is when the precise question(s) that were asked are listed, and no editorial interpretation is made of the results. That's clearly not the case here. I suspect that the word "polarizing" was never part of the poll. As an example of misinterpretation, it could be argued that Republicans hated Obama because he was doing such a good job it made it harder for them to get rid of him. I actually don't know. Do you? So, if you must include polls.... Present the question(s). Present the results. And stop there. Better still, ignore mid-term polls. They prove nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


But if you object to most opinion polling, then doesn't that mean you also object to the polls of academics that already comprise the entire section we're discussing? Would you rather have that whole section removed? What about the need to describe the public response to the president's most influential policies, as is done in all the articles for every previous president? TBSchemer (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd be happy to see most of that polling stuff gone. It looks like cherry-picking anyway. If you can find a very well run poll that truly describes the public (Which public?) response to the president's most influential policies (How will you decide which they are?), maybe we can discuss its inclusion, but only in the way I described above. Precise question(s) listed. No editorial interpretation. HiLo48 (talk) 03:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a break. The edit was clearly a partisan WP:POV edit. Designate, you should take your own advice. We are not, with Wikipedia's voice, making the claims that TBSchemer wants in the article. Orwellian sterilization.....Come on now. Dave Dial (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you refuse to have any critical views included in the article on Barack Obama? You want the page to remain a discussion of how many accomplishments Obama has achieved, and how many people he has insured, and how good were the intentions of his bailout, and how many university professors he has impressed, with no mention of the results of his policies, the public response, his impact on partisan polarization, or any of his many scandals? The article, as it stands right now, is horribly WP:POV, representing the views of those who voted for the guy, while selectively omitting the facts understood by those who didn't. TBSchemer (talk) 04:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So does anyone here have an interest in seeing this article become more of a historical account and less of a campaign page, or am I the only one? TBSchemer (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reject your assertion that the article reads like a "campaign page". I think part of the problem here is that you seem to want to shoehorn ficticious, non-existent "scandals" and right-wing garbage into the article:
  • The IRS "targeted" all political groups equally, as is part of their remit.
  • Benghazi was a tragedy, not a scandal. Everything was done that could be done, and there was no coverup.
  • "Executive overreach" is a right-wing canard. Obama has exercised his right to issue executive orders on far fewer occasions than recent presidents (including Bush).
  • "The largest and most intrusive domestic surveillance operation in human history" was created by George W. Bush.
  • What racially motivated comments/policies?
  • He's been "openly criticized as a totalitarian, a socialist, a fascist, and other labels for authoritarian philosophies" only by low information voters (morons, basically) and right-wing ideologues. You can seemingly conflicting labels like "weak" and "dictatorial" to this ludicrous list of yours, if you wish.
All of these are simply nonsense, and including such limp-wristed garbage in this article would make Wikipedia into a laughing stock. There's already a wiki to satisfy your needs, and I respectfully suggest you take this stuff to there instead. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing fictitious about the events I'm describing. They were all widely reported in plenty of reliable sources.
  • The IRS targeting scandal was factual enough to get its own Wikipedia article. If it's good enough for Wikipedia, it's good enough for Wikipedia. So why do you refuse to allow these crucial facts about Obama's presidency to be placed on Obama's Wiki page?
  • The Obama administration "knowingly misled the country" about Benghazi, according to the reliable sources cited on the Benghazi scandal Wiki article. Why shouldn't such a significant event in his presidency be included on his page?
  • Executive overreach, like taking us to war in Libya without Congressional approval, like changing by decree the legislatively-established dates of implementation for Obamacare, like the plethora of unconstitutional actions he has taken while in office. Why shouldn't such significant, abuses of power, recognized by the Supreme Court, be mentioned on this page?
  • The Patriot Act did not apply to US citizens. Obama's version of the PRISM program spies on everyone. Even if you dispute this version of events, why shouldn't the fact that Obama has operated the largest domestic surveillance program in history be included on this page?
  • Racially motivated comments, like those on Trayvon Martin, or his new race-based preferences program.
  • Really? I think in light of all of the above, the fact that Obama has been widely, and quite accurately criticized as a totalitarian is quite relevant to his historical identity.
So why are you against including these facts in an article that's supposed to represent a neutral view of the history of Obama, and not just the cleansed version that his campaign staff want the world to see?
TBSchemer (talk) 03:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know anybody who thinks Obama is OK? HiLo48 (talk) 03:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. TBSchemer (talk) 05:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@TBSchemer Let me address your comment point-by-point as before:
  • The IRS "scandal" got a lot of coverage, so it warrants a Wikipedia article; however, it has absolutely nothing to do with Barack Obama or the office of the Presidency. The head of the IRS at the time of the "targeting" was a Bush appointee. And, in fact, the only group that failed to win tax exempt status as a result of the additional focus was a progressive group.
  • There is no "Benghazi scandal" Wikipedia article. You have linked to what we call a "malicious redirect". There was no scandal, and no misleading of anyone. The so-called "reliable source" you quote was Stephen Hayes (Dick Cheney's biographer) writing in the neocon Weekly Standard, and so we can safely ignore his radical right-wing opinion piece for the trash journalism that it is.
  • Again, your "abuses of power" claim is not backed up by any reliable sources, and the notion is generally considered to be ridiculous by any thinking person.
  • You obviously have no understanding of what the Patriot Act is. And PRISM was launched by the NSA in 2007 under President Bush.
  • Obama's comments about Trayvon Martin were not "racially motivated", as you persist on calling it. And calling the My Brother's Keeper Task Force a "race-based preferences program" smacks of racism to me. The White House is simply trying to address the problem of disadvantaged young black men getting into trouble. Other programs exist for other demographics, but you are strangely silent on those.
  • Perhaps you should read Totalitarianism. You will see that is bears absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to Obama or his Presidency. That is just ridiculous right-wing bullshit from the conservative lunatic fringe.
Clearly you are only here to promote an agenda, which regular Wikipedian's frown on. This article does reflect a neutral point of view, and editors go to great lengths and considerable effort to make sure of that. Perhaps you don't actually understand the concept of neutrality. In what universe is blaming Obama for the activities of the independent IRS "neutral", for example? It isn't about finding the political center, or trying to balance out the good with the bad. It is about reflecting what is covered in a preponderance of reliable sources in appropriate weight. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The IRS scandal happened in the Executive Branch controlled by Barack Obama, and was partially handled by Barack Obama, until he began stating that "there is no there there." Tell me, were the scandals in the administration of Warren G. Harding relevant to his presidency? If so, then why shouldn't the scandals in the Obama administration be relevant to Obama's presidency?
  • There was indeed a Benghazi scandal. The wiki article I linked you to describes how Susan Rice ended up lying to the entire country about the Benghazi tragedy, turning it into a scandal. Are you in denial about these facts reported in reliable sources?
  • Your No True Scotsman fallacy rings hollow here. The search I linked you to digs up unconstitutional actions by this administration reported by CNN, ABC, CBS, NPR, FOX, National Review, Washington Times, Huffington Post, The Guardian, Politico, Reason, Washington Post, and more. Yet, not a single one of these unconstitutional actions so much as gains a mention on this wiki article. Are you going to try to claim that all of these sources are unreliable? The complete absence of ANY of this information on the wiki page for Barack Obama is a complete WP:POV disaster. If you can't see that, then you do not seem interested in presenting a neutral view of history.
  • I repeat myself: Even if you dispute this version of events, why shouldn't the fact that Obama has operated the largest domestic surveillance program in history be included on this page?
  • You're saying it's racist to point out that a race-based program is racist? Are you insane? Are you being paid by OFA to spread their lies or something? I'm done responding to these demagogic personal attacks.
You very clearly have NO INTEREST in WP:NPOV, and only seek to maintain this article as a campaign site. Anyone who has followed this conversation can see that very clearly. Whether you're a paid campaign official, or are just a fanatical partisan, your opinion has been noted, and it will be ignored from here on out. Strikethrough: TBSchemer (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TBSchemer (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a new wikipedia member and as someone who unfortunately read this chat, I can see very clearly that your ideology has compromised your ability to edit, TBSchemer. 1st Corinthians 11:9 (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a new wikipedia member, you can be forgiven for the error, but in the future, please discuss how to improve the article, rather than trying to ascertain the ideology and character of the editors. TBSchemer (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ________

The POV problems with this article are serious and real. If any editors are interested in having a truly civil discussion about the POV problems with this article, please do so here, and refrain from personal attacks. WP:PERSONAL TBSchemer (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • To start with, shouldn't there be some mention here of the many actions by the Obama administration that have been ruled unconstitutional? Isn't it a POV issue to report only favorable court rulings, and none of the unfavorable ones?
Please discuss here. TBSchemer (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, cutting across all of the President's actions from the point of view of the frequency that courts find against them on constitutional grounds is a filter that is beyond the scope of this article. Setting aside the question of what it means, if true, there just doesn't seem to be anything at that level of meta analysis that stands out as particularly noteworthy. Court rulings that affect major Presidential policy initiatives, such as the one on Obamacare, probably do pass the threshold on an individual basis. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss here. TBSchemer (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obama isn't operating it, it seems to be the province of the NSA and to some extent other agencies. Obama's involvement if any and his take on it may be relevant in the long run but it seems to early to tell - Wikidemon (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"You very clearly have NO INTEREST in WP:NPOV, and only seek to maintain this article as a campaign site. Anyone who has followed this conversation can see that very clearly. Whether you're a paid campaign official, or are just a fanatical partisan, your opinion has been noted, and it will be ignored from here on out." - Actually, one could say this could also apply to you TBSchemer. Heck I'm neutral here and try not to have an opinion on Obama (Although the birth place/religious conspiracy theories are complete and utter garbage!) but it's basically a 1v1 argument of people with different views. You're never going to agree, so just stick to policy and procedure here. If you think there is a serious issue here, take it up on another board here or something where it can be looked at with greater scrutiny. --Somchai Sun (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The NSA is an executive branch agency controlled by Barack Obama, correct? TBSchemer (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The NSA operates under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense, and reports to the Director of National Intelligence (currently James Clapper). Obama's control over the NSA is no different from Obama's control over any other government agency. While the executive has some control over the department, oversight comes from Congress. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After calling me racist, Scjessey, your input is not welcome. Strikethrough: TBSchemer (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anyone else who objects to the fact that the NSA is an executive branch agency controlled by Barack Obama? TBSchemer (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do for the same reason as Scjessey. You are just wanting to push your pov agenda and are grasping at straws. Also remember we build a consensus and Scjessey is allowed to comment as much as he likes. Or will you listen to me when I would tell you, your input is not welcome here anymore? If the answers is no, then you know why it does not Jive. If the answer is yes, then consider yourself being told now. NathanWubs (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in having this discussion with Scjessey, who demonstrated he is only interested in demagoguery when he accused me of racism (aren't such insinuations a direct violation of WP policy?). TBSchemer (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC) Strikethrough: TBSchemer (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The executive branch that Barack Obama was elected to control has everything to do with Barack Obama. The president controls the executive branch through executive orders and political appointments. If anything in the "Domestic Policy" section beyond his signatures is relevant to Barack Obama, the fact that he is running the largest domestic surveillance program in human history most certainly is. TBSchemer (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just my two cents: If George W. Bush can have, "Some pundits labeled Bush 'the worst president ever'" in his article without there being much of a fuss, then Obama should at least have more info on criticism. Either that, or if people don't want to include criticism (which it seems like most people here are wanting) then that should be taken out of Bush's article. My point is that Wikipedia should not have a bias on either side, and we need a balancing of this kind of thing in order to ensure that. Having a political debate on this talk page doesn't solve anything. You may agree or disagree with the criticism leveled at Obama, but that's no reason to keep it out. The sentence could say, "Obama's critics assert...yada yada yada" to be clear that they are others' opinions. Again that's just my opinion. Oh and one more thing: please let's try and be civil to one another. Resorting to personal attacks does nothing but hurt people's feelings. Twyfan714 (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion topic is repeated periodically, and is referenced in the FAQs: it's not encyclopedic to add criticism just for the sake of adding criticism or trying to "balance" things. Balance is not the same as neutrality, in fact it's the opposite of neutrality because it's a deliberate attempt to inject more of one POV versus another. The very idea that a politician should be made to look no better or worse than a counterpart from a rival American party, is not aligned with the function of an encyclopedia. Might as well balance the pros and cons of Jesus and Buddha, or Mick Jagger and Paul McCartney. Having this discussion once a month is tolerable even if it never goes anywhere. People are sensitive because this discussion used to come up every several days, in a hostile way, often from fake accounts. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, populating an article with praise, while omitting any facts that were highly criticized is not neutral at all. A neutral view would include the fact that Obama runs the largest domestic surveillance program in human history. A neutral view would include the fact that Obamacare tanked his approval ratings. A neutral view would include the fact that the original Obamacare website launch was plagued with technical problems that were not resolved until months later, necessitating a 4-month extension of the enrollment deadline. These are not matters of opinion- they are simple facts that are known by people of all political colors, even if some want to bury it under the rug. TBSchemer (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Obamacare website having technical problems has nothing to do with Obama himself. So if you would want that included you should go to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act wikipedia page to do so. Or are you going to pull Obama his responsibility even further till the point that if you litter a candy wrapper on the street its Obama his fault? NathanWubs (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The executive branch that Barack Obama was elected to control has everything to do with Barack Obama. The president controls the executive branch through executive orders and political appointments. If anything in the "Health Care Reform" section beyond his signature is relevant to Barack Obama, the failure of the website most certainly is. TBSchemer (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From your limited understanding of government, it would seem that you think President Obama is actually King Obama the First, with absolute power over everything. The reality, due to America's fucked up political system, is that President Obama only has limited powers when it comes to legislation. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have already referenced executive orders and political appointments as the means by which the President controls the Executive Branch. Are you disputing that these mechanisms exist? If you are, then you should be more concerned with every article on a previous US president, as each one references actions by the executive branch as matters under the control of the president. TBSchemer (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

102 years ago, more than 1,500 people died when the RMS Titanic hit an iceberg and sank, and yet the liberal media have never held President Obama accountable for this failure of leadership! -- Scjessey (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when the RMS Titanic becomes an office of the current executive branch. Until then, this is nothing more than hyperbole. TBSchemer (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bencmq/STEPS&oldid=1065963834"