Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama/Archive 2

Transparency

The section talks about how the website recovery.gov was going to post info on how the stimulus money was being spent. I added info from the Washington Post saying that this promise has not been kept. Since the section already mentioned the promise, then in the name of balance, it should also mention that the promise has not been kept. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

From the article you cited:

Devaney says the site will not post much spending data until October, when recipients must file their first full reports. "I'm not being particularly apologetic about where this site is today," he said. "I would be if someone could show me anything that has happened that isn't on this site."

If not much has been submitted to put up on the site, then it's hardly surprising that not much is on it, is it?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

But it also says the private website has the information. So why doesn't the government website have it? Grundle2600 (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Because the private site is posting WAGs?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"Wag is a highland district in the Amhara Region of Ethiopia and was once a medieval province." Grundle2600 (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

S/he wrote "WAG", all capitals. See here what it means [1]--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I quoted what was at the link. It said, "Wag is a highland district in the Amhara Region of Ethiopia and was once a medieval province." Your link says, "a rough estimate." I think your link does a much better job of making its point in this discussion. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

AIG

I added this to the article, but someone else removed it - I think my use of the word "forever" is against wikipedia policy. If I remove the word "however," can the rest of it be put back into the article? Other than that one word, there's nothing here that goes against the rules. And it's certainly a topic that received widespread media coverage. I think all of this info should be in the article.

While Senator, Obama had voted for the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008,[103] which included corporate welfare for American International Group. [104] As President, Obama signed a stimulus bill that protected AIG bonuses. [105] Prior to signing this stimulus bill, Obama had said, "when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely." [106] However, after signing the stimulus bill that protected the AIG bonuses, Obama expressed surprise and outrage at the bonuses, and said that he would "pursue every single legal avenue to block these bonuses." [107]

Grundle2600 (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. It's been a few days. It seems that as long as I remove the word "however," there are no objections. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No. It is more complicated than that. Once again, your wording is setup entirely as a way of portraying Obama and his administration negatively, instead of neutrally. For example, you use conservative terminology like "corporate welfare" that is completely inappropriate. Also, your language makes it sound like Obama signed the stimulus bill specifically in order to protect AIG bonuses, rather than to try to fix the broken economy. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The term corporate welfare was invented by Ralph Nader. Please see the corporate welfare article for proof of this. Why do you think Ralph Nader is a "conservative"? He is as far from being a conservative as one could possibly be. I suggest that you do better research before making such a claim about a living person. For you to call Nader a conservative violates wikipedia's policy about making false statements about living people. Your false claim about Nader is a huge insult. I hope he never sees this horrible thing that you said about him. I followed proper wikpedia procedure by getting consensus on the talk page before I made my edit. You are the one who is in violation, because you erased it without having a talk page discussion first. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You realize that the "line by line" comment from the presidential debates is concerning budgets and not stimulus packages, right? See WP:SYNTHESIS --guyzero | talk 20:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

And votes made by Obama as a senator going into his presidency article?

What is the exact purpose of this addition, to show that he signed a bill as president that "protect" (current POV wording) AIG bonuses? I can see this detail being important for the bailout/stimulus article (along with the other specific details of what the package contains) but not this one. --guyzero | talk 20:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed edit per UNDUE (AIG bailout only aspect of stimulus we will mention in detail?), SYNTH (comments made about budget earmarks have nothing to do with stimulus), and lack of CONSENSUS. Please propose some new verbiage here on the talkpage that addresses these concerns and get consensus for it before making the addition. --guyzero | talk 21:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense to add the other notable bailouts rather than remove the massive AIG bailout? Isn't isn't it approaching 200 billion now? That's an enormous expenditure. The auto bailouts and other baking issues should also be included. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

So propose your changes. Please pay attention to UNDUE, NPOV, etc. Don't revert or reimplement your recent AIG-bailout changes without addressing the policy-based concerns above. "Feel free to tweak" [2] does not address those concerns. --guyzero | talk 03:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Baking issues? Are you sure you don't mean bacon issues? Abrazame (talk) 02:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This has become an irrelevant diversion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Grundle actually had the audacity to "warn" me on my talk page for "violating Wikipedia policy" for (apparently) calling Ralph Nader a conservative in my comment above. For the record, I would never describe Nader as a "conservative". I would describe him as the "asshole who cost Al Gore the 2000 election." -- Scjessey (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC) It was Gore who cost Gore the election. If Gore had won his own state of Tennessee, he would have won the election. Even Walter Mondale, who lost 49 states in 1984, won his own state of Minnesota. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC) Nader split the Florida vote and allowed Bush to steal the election with the help of his SCOTUS buddies. Case closed. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)\

New edits

Will someone kindly revert this edit?[3] There's clearly no consensus per the above discussions for covering Dick Cheney's speeches in the Obama presidency article. However, I've already reverted it once today -- two other editors separately reverted other things by the same editor, for whom I've left an edit warring notice. I hope this does not continue, but ideally we can just get past this and move on to productive editing. Thnx, Wikidemon (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Dick Cheney speech on Obama

I think this deserves mentioning in the article. This speech from Dick Cheney is quite interesting. He points out that although Obama released to the public the information about interrogating terrorist suspects, Obama has not let the public know the information that was obtained through these interrogations. Cheney claims that the interrogations "prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people," and criticizes Obama for making the interrogation methods public, while keeping the info about the terrorists' plots that was stopped by the interrogations a secret. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

What an ex-administrative official has to say about the presidency in a speech to a private institution is irrelevant to the Presidency of Barack Obama. Thanks. Tarc (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

True. It might be relevant to article(s) on Dick Cheney though. However, we're not here to cover supposed truths that ex officials point out. If the fact of their speaking becomes noteworthy in its own right (for example, Cheney now being a thorn in Obama's side and an embarrassment to some Republicans), that could be relevant to Cheney's retirement career as a pundit or speaker. Wikidemon (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. I won't add it to this article. Thanks for your feedback - both of you. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheney was Vice President and he's the leading spokesman for the previous administration. His speeches and positions have been widely reported on and should be included. Where are notable criticisms like these of the current administration included on Wikipedia? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"Leading spokesman" is entirely your own POV, not reflected in reality. Cheney is on par with any other Republican or conservative, his words and opinion carry no more or no less weight than any of the others. Per usual, you confuse a numerical tally of sources with notability and relevance to the article's subject matter. Tarc (talk) 01:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) - Wild claims with little basis in fact made by a former VP who was about as popular as swine flu should not be included, since they have nothing to do with Obama's presidency. The interplay/relationship between the two individuals may become noteworthy in the future, particularly if the Obama administration starts actually reacting to Cheney's comments with changes of behavior, etc. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Simon, I feel that comparing Cheney to swine flu is completely inappropriate. Given the choice between Cheney, and swine flu... I'd take the flu every time.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I said leading spokesman for the previous administration. Do you think taking comments out of context is appropriate in a talk page discussion? Do you think you're improving Wikipedia by attacking anyone who has a differing viewpoint and attempts to abide by our guidelines for the inclusion of varyious notable perspectives? If Cheney's views are ridiculous then let them speak for themselves. We don't need censors deciding what content our readers should be exposed to. So I ask again, where should notable criticisms like those made by the former VP be included? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Calm down please, everyone. There's nothing to get angry about. C of M "censors" is a not-okay word here and I've mentioned this to you numerous times, it assumes bad faith of other editors and is therefore not acceptable (if you want to accuse me of "censoring" the word "censored" that's fine with me).

Personally I think the interrogation/torture issue belongs here, at least as of this point of his presidency, and that's something to work on. A discussion of that absolutely must go beyond simply describing decisions/policies of the administration since it has been an enormous topic of debate (Obama's actually received a lot of criticism on this, interestingly, because it's come from both his left and his right, but I digress). In that context mentioning Cheney's views might well be appropriate. What we cannot do is just dump a quote from Cheney's speech in the article. It's part of a larger topic (interrogation/torture) and the basic factual context needs to be fleshed out first.

How does that sound for a project? Put together a paragraph on the airwaves-dominating discussion about torture. It's a big deal and worthy of a standalone section. Right now we have some stuff about it in the "transparency" section, but it's well beyond the scope of transparency at this point, and has indeed become a big debate, in some respects, about core American ideals. We should talk about it in this article and maybe even give Dick Cheney a line in there somewhere. He has pretty much been the point man for the GOP on torture and interrogation, and I'm sure there are sources that say that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the issue is somewhat important, although we won't know its lasting importance for some time. The first problem with including Cheney's statements (characterizing them as views, beliefs, opinions, criticisms, etc., is assuming something that may not be safe to assume) is that he is not terribly relevant to Obama's administration or the policy issue. It is also not clear that anyone is listening to him. Second, there is a backlash from some on the right for every single thing Obama does. That should be reported judiciously if at all here because it's not terribly important, remarkable, or encyclopedic. This is supposed to be an article about the presidency, not on dueling teams of partisans vying for attention. Turning national policy and governance-related articles into team sports coverage of Republicans versus Democrats is a mistake in my opinion. Third, I don't think the sources will show that Cheney is any kind of point man for anybody but himself and his search for a book deal, or that the Republican party is unified enough to even have a point man. The New York Times article that was proposed as a source for his criticisms suggests that Cheney along with other former administration officials are banding together to construct a body of revisionist history. If they actually succeed, that might bear some mention but it would not be a simple statement that they criticized Obama. Wikidemon (talk) 07:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bigtimepeace that the issue of interrogation and torture belongs here. Add Cheney's views to his article please, not here. WP is not a news source and he sounds like he thinks he's making news which he isn't. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's NPOV policy requires that we note varying perspectives. Obviously there is a dispute about interrogation/ torture and Guantanamo Bay. Cheney's comments have been removed repeatedly now, but the notability of the dispute and our guidelines make clear that we should include various perspectives on these issues. Even Scjessey said, "Obviously it is worth mentioning." It would be helpful if editors worked collaboratively on refining and improving sourcing and tweaking notable content rather than just deleting it an expecting those trying to improve our content to guess how they want it added. If they don't want it related to Cheney, then suggest how it should be included. Thanks! ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice try. Obviously it is worth mentioning elsewhere, such as on Dick Cheney's BLP. Also, you appear to be misinterpreting WP:NPOV, because you have not considered the matter of appropriate weight. There is no "dispute" that I am aware of - torture is illegal and Obama is against it. Cheney, apparently, is in favor of torturing people - obviously worth mentioning on his BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Poor sourcing

I've reverted this edit because it relies on poor sourcing. Specifically, the source proffered an opinion that posting links to upcoming legislation did not satisfy the pledge of the Obama administration to notify the public 5 days before an impending executive signature. No verification (reasonable or otherwise) was offered for this poor source. I urge the editor who added this stuff to seek consensus before making controversial additions in future, as has been explained umpteen times previously. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

In particular, citations of the Washington Times deserve at least a raised eyebrow, given that the paper's avowed purpose is the spreading of the message of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church. PhGustaf (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources are reliable sources, raising of eyebrows by those who disagree with the content, aside. QueenofBattle (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Obama said he would wait five days after Congress voted for the bills before he signed them. Two days is not the same as five days. The Washington Times is a legitimate source for facts. These things are not opinions - they are facts. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Links were posted 5 days before signing. The source opines that the 5 days are not the same 5 days promised, but that is not sufficient to back up the claim made in the text. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Obama said "we will publish all non-emergency legislation to the website for five days, and allow the public to review and comment before the President signs it." Contrary to what you say, the timing of the congressional voting is not part of the five day countdown, only the completion and posting of the finished (unamendable) legislation. In the article you are trying to use a source, Gibbs refers to this issue. The article also speaks to two of the bills not having the promised sunlight, rather than all four. Anyway, can you find a source that takes a more balanced rather than an interpretive view of this criticism? thanks, --guyzero | talk 21:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, both of you, for clarifying the five day thing - that is an excellent point, which totally removes my reason for wanting to add the material. You two are right, and I was wrong. I will not be putting the material back in the article. Thank you for explaining it. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Enforce probation

or lock the article. This article is on probation for a reason. In one page of this article's history I can count over a dozen disruptive edits, for which there ought to be lower tolerance. I don't care to invoke debate over what and who is disruptive and such; all I'm saying is it's clearly there and visible to any third party, and editors shouldn't have to be on such constant cleanup duty on hot-button articles, especially ones like these that inherently require constant updating. IMHO it's time to dust off the banhammer and start probationary measures as necessary so more productive editing can be done by all of those involved. The Sartorialist (talk) 05:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The challenge being, of course, that one man's "disruptive editing" is another's attempt to introduce NPOV and keep the article from being a white-washed puff piece. There have been some disruptive edits and vandals to be sure, but not appreciably more than other articles. The rest of the edits have been content disputes. Unfortunately, the probationary status can be a very effective tool for unscrupulous editors to intimidate other editors and censure the article. So, I believe that it's time to lift the article probation. I trust the Wikipedia community can deal with any editors who expose a clear bias and edit to that bias. 05:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Not really. It's very simple. Article probation means a fast track for dealing with vandals, trolls, and sockpuppets, of which there have been plenty. The probation page lists over 100 (I think) blocks and bans in the last year, and there are quite a few blocks that did not get put up on the list. Not fast enough, alas - a number of these were allowed to linger for months. As for disruption, for sure there are a few differing opinions on content but that's true everywhere. Revert warring, accusations of bad faith, insults, battlefield mentality, etc., is easy to spot and it is a content neutral question. It is okay to question whether the consensus that exist is a fair one. But not okay to edit war, harass, accuse, and obstruct, when consensus does not go your way. The whole "white washed puff piece" is a red flag, as are complaints of censorship, cabals, liberal bias, and so on. That's no way to approach an article. Editing from that point of view guarantees a rocky time. Wikidemon (talk) 06:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I think there's been way too much deletion of relevant, well sourced material. Grundle2600 (talk) 09:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I hate to point fingers, but that's easy for you to say. You've been one of a handful of editors involved in the article's recent history; it's easier for onlookers to make the judgment of what is disruptive and what isn't. Whether you're right or wrong, or whether the information contributed is relevant and/or well-sourced, is less of an issue than the way in which it is introduced. Take, for example, the fact that Obama broke a campaign promise to wait five days before signing each bill. Perhaps this reflects negatively on the President, but Wikipedia cannot portray him as such any more than it can describe him as a divine savior who cannot physically do wrong. There are plenty of other resources out there for that.

Maybe consensus declares that Obama's broken promises are relevant. Fine. Add something like this instead: "During his campaign, Obama told the people that he would attempt to run a transparent government and that the people should hold him and the government responsible for their actions. PolitiFact.com, an independent fact-checking site, has kept track of his campaign promises in an effort to fulfill that request of holding him responsible." Provide a link and let them do the dirty work. Yes, Obama has broken promises, but he's kept more than he's broken (check the site) and to be truly neutral, if we list any of the broken promises we have to list all of them, and then ALSO list the ones that have been kept. We don't have room for that here; Wikipedia cannot conceivably keep track of what people DON'T do. Bottom line is that it's questionable and should be left to other sources, ones that you can probably mention if you are so inclined. When his presidency is over, the PolitiFact tally could be added, but for now just avoid the conflict this creates. But I digress.

Everyone who is making disruptive edits here knows they are being disruptive, because they've been warned or blocked before. All I am saying with the original post is that these users need to know what's coming to them, and should not be considered "dealt with" by multiple empty warnings and threats. I realize that there is some question as to what is disruptive, and one man's disruptive is another's attempt at NPOV. But let's avoid edits that force that question entirely. The first offense gets a warning, any subsequent ones warrant a block or topic ban. It's that simple. The Sartorialist (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Since the article already cited that he made the promise, what's wrong with mentioning that he broke the promise, if he in fact had broken it? To mention the former but not the latter would make the article unbalanced. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually you're right, bad example on my part. That particular event is currently well implemented into the article. The point stands, though, and I shouldn't have digressed with that example in the first place. That point being: the article is chock full of opportunities for disruptive edits, in whatever form they may take, and I think that an article on probation should be represented as such by admins, who should not tolerate edits that compromise the article's quality. The Sartorialist (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we add this to the transparency section?

The Obama administration has not made public the criteria which has been used to select which Chrysler dealerships are being closed, and which are being allowed to stay open, as part of the company's bankruptcy. However, according to editorials in the Washington Examiner and the Wall St. Journal, allegations have been made that the decision has been based on the political contributions of dealership owners, with dealers who donated to Republicans being shut down, while dealers who donated to Democrats were allowed to remain open. A significant number of those dealerships that were forced to close were profitable. U.S. Sensators Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri) and Kit Bond (R-Missouri) wrote a letter to Obama’s auto task force asking for an explanation of these closures.

Grundle2600 (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There are three problems with this:

1. The dreaded "however" construct is used. This is a non-neutral approach to presenting something that relies on synthesis.
2. The proposed text does not include any reference that corroborates the highly dubious suggestion that the Obama administration has any say in which dealerships are closed.
3. The Examiner source is an opinion piece by a partisan writer, partly retracted within the article itself. The WSJ source simply culls information from bloggers, so it isn't even a piece of investigative journalism. The third source only verifies the fact that senators wrote to Obama asking about criteria, but does not verify (or even mention) anything about political contributions. Even when combined, the sources do not offer anything to verify the point of this proposed text.

Good job for proposing the addition on this talk page, rather than adding it and waiting for the inevitable backlash! -- Scjessey (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support. This is a very relevant counterpoint to the crowdsourcing used in the stimulus package. Ottre 21:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That there might be poorly sourced stuff in another article doesn't mean we should put dubiously sourced editorials here as "counterpoint". --guyzero | talk 22:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not just dubiously-sourced. It's also wrong. It's a controversy manufactured by a synthesis of poor sourcing. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to explain what you mean here. I was referring to the Democrats using crowdsourcing to track spending by the Bush admin when putting together their stimulus package. Ottre 00:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've already explained why this addition would be inappropriate. It has nothing to do with crowdsourcing, so I don't know what point you are trying to make. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

beg to differ. Ottre 01:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What's that supposed to prove? Do you have anything useful to contribute, or are you just trying to make a point? -- Scjessey (talk) 01:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Bad idea to add this. I would not support its addition. Editorials are not journalism per se. If a reporter had done the research and been fact checked and published the results, the information MAY be appropriate. But editorials? Also, it does not appear to be all that relevent to the section it is proposed to be added to. I can see no way that this really belongs in this article at its current state. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I accept that it may be wise to wait a a few weeks before adding anything into the article. But you have to bear in mind that many American editors on this page operate under the assumption that only breaking news is journalism. The reality is that editorials have always been high risk publishing, and with these sorts of issues you have to get into justifications. Ottre 01:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we avoid meta discussions, please? -- Scjessey (talk) 01:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

OK - let's wait a while and see if more reliable sources become available. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI Gibbs has said that the whitehouse and the auto task force are not making any decisions wrt to which dealers to close, that it is Chrysler making those decisions. 538 found that car dealers donate to Repubs's vs. Demo's at almost a 9:1 disparity [4], so it would make sense that the closures would have around that same disparity. None of this is worthy of inclusion in the article yet as you folks reason above, but wanted to show that there is a bit more to the story.. thanks, --guyzero | talk 18:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that! Grundle2600 (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Black Panthers who were videotaped wielding weapons and blocking voters

Consensus is that the text of the source doesn't support the proposed addition. QueenofBattle (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think this should be included in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Fairly weak source (not a very good article, does not explain situation much), minor incident vis-a-vis presidency, and is not sourced as being connected to Obama. Next? Wikidemon (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC) A reliable source is a reliable source. The Washington Times surely qualifies for reliable sourcing, regardless of what one may think about the quality of the writing. But, the article isn't related to Obam's presidency, as far as I can tell. QueenofBattle (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Anything from Washington Times must be treated as suspect, since it is a conservative print organ for the Unification Church. Even with that aside, there is no mention of Obama nor his administration whatsoever, so it is difficult to see how this could be relevant. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC) (out of sequence) I assume then that anything that comes from MSNBC or CNN (the network of Hanoi Jane's husband) should be treated with the same caution? Conservative or liberal, reliable sources should not be excluded solely because of their perception of a partisan bent. QueenofBattle (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC) MSNBC and CNN are mainstream reliable publications. Washington Times is on the border of mainstream and partisan, with occasional fringiness, far less objective and not of the same caliber of writing and reportage, a publication of far less influence and respect, and as I said it sometimes blurs the line between editorial and news content. Wikidemon (talk) 22:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC) I think there are many who would disagree with the assertion that MSNBC is mainstream media, let's at least be clear on that. QueenofBattle (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC) It's not the poor writing or the name on the masthead, but rather the lack of depth or insight. The article is not clear on the relationship of the defendants to the Black Panthers, what the result was of brandishing weapons, the nature of the civil suit, the claims' seriousness or perceived likelihood of success, why the decision was made to drop them, how often such suits are dropped, and so on. Without that it's hard to put it in any context. It keeps harping on this notion of "career lawyers" being overruled, and repeats prepared statements and litigation papers that are written in lawsuit-speak, neither of which is a helpful way to cover civil lawsuits. The only thing I can gather is that someone in the justice department overruled his or her underlings in not pursuing a default judgment for failure to appear. There may be a news story in there somewhere but this piece didn't get it. Wikidemon (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC) OK. I awill keep my eye out for better sources, and more connection to the Obama administration. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC) That's an interesting approach. It sounds like you are trawling the internet looking for something negative, and then looking for ways to link it to Obama or his administration. Hardly a neutral approach to contributing to the project, is it? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC) (out of sequence)Let's stick to commenting on the article and not other editors, shall we? Some might suggest that his approach is not much less neutral than dismissing, out of hand, certain text solely because of one's perception of the partisan bent of the source. QueenofBattle (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Agreed about not commenting on editors here (though there is a legitimate issue here, and it's not clear where we should comment on editors) - but if a comparison must be made I would say that repeatedly rejecting biased sources of marginal reliability is far more neutral than repeatedly seeking to introduce trivial or tangential negative material. The Washington Times piece need not be rejected summarily. Reading it carefully, they're trying to advocate for a position that goes beyond journalistic reportage, although not doing a terribly good job of it. It's a moot point anyway because nothing in the piece connects it to Obama. Wikidemon (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Also note it's the dropping and/or failure to pursue a default judgment in a civil suit. There weren't criminal charges and certainly no conviction, so it isn't a pardon. Wikidemon (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Obama Offers Prime Posts to Those Who Helped Bankroll Campaign

I think this should be included in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this one nomination / appointment worth highlighting here vis-a-vis the other 300? If so we can mention the person, but mentioning that he was a supporter seems fairly trivial. All presidents, and nearly all politicians in any office, include their supporters and associates among appointees. It is not remarkable that Obama apparently continues the practice, and that does not seem to be a well-reported thing. If a particular nominee is worth more than half a sentence in the article, it might be worth noting simply, e.g. on (date) Obama nominated (name), a former (relation to Obama), for the office of (name office). Best to stick with the facts like that rather than try to make this an article about cronyism. Wikidemon (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Obama is in no way unique or notable for offering political positions to people he personally knows. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a whole bunch of nominates, but I agree that lots of Presidents do the same thing. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Fox News "Charges Against 'New Black Panthers' Dropped by Justice Dept."

I was going to post this valid source in the other section, but it has been locked for lack of valid sources. How ironoic. link Grundle2600 (talk) 03:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

FOX News bias is not a great way to try to verify a story. I've removed the "Obama" qualifier from the subheading. It was Bush and his cronies that politicized the Justice Department, not Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It's really time to stop with the "not-a-good-reliable-source-because-I-think-it's-biased" string. A reliable source is a reliable source, regardless of whether one agrees with the text. That's why we call this an encyclopedia. FOX News bias is no more than MSNBC bias. QueenofBattle (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No, sources vary. Depending on the subject matter and the writer, Fox has vastly more bias than MSNBC. The Fox piece is certainly much more professionally written than the Washington Times piece, and does not include the strange and obvious attempts to prove something with stray comments about "career lawyers". However, the references to "Obama Justice Department" and "Bush Justice Department" in the Fox story are not neutral reportage. This piece does not make the case any more than the Times piece that it has anything to do with Obama. Fox has a particular weakness for allowing editorial commentary and advocacy to get into news stories without including any qualifications that that the piece is doing so, something that most responsible media are more careful about. There is a far more glaring error, in fact, that if true renders the entire piece useless. If the Times piece is correct, there were no "charges" brought against these people, and the Justice Department had not "won" the case, two claims central to the Fox story that seem to imply a criminal conviction. Rather, they were civil claims, and the government had obtained a default judgment. Wikidemon (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

MSNBC darlings Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann are two of the most liberal partisans in the media. That FOX News has "vastly more bias" is in the ear of the beholder. Which is precisely why we take reliable sources at face value, rather than trying to pick apart the reporting with "glaring errors". Seeking to include the truth of anything in Wikipedia is impossible, because truth is subjective. As long as edits are properly sourced, relevant, and notable they are adequate for our purposes, regardless of whether they come from FOX News, The Washington Times, MSNBC, or MoveOn.org. QueenofBattle (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) This source[5] is a lot more informative on the le:gal procedure. Here is a CNN account that like Fox uses the unclear term "charges" to describe the civil claims. It contradicts some of the other sources as to the legal process (which is key here, if the relevancy is the Justice Department's tactical legal actions).[6] Here is a press release[7] and editorial[8] that frame the political issue regarding the Obama administation, but it looks entirely like conjecture by partisans looking for dirt on Obama to claim that there was a particular political motive here. Here's the complaint[9] for what that's worth. There are a total of ten or so news articles so far on this per google news, with only four reliable sources, plus some anti-Obama editorializing. This does not appear to be a significant event for now. Wikidemon (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(after ec)We don't take errors at face value, sorry. The difference between criminal and civil complaints, judgments on the merits versus procedural victories, are simple facts that may be right or wrong. They are not subjective truths subject to multiple interpretations. These apparent major errors in a piece call the reliability of the piece into question. Fox frequently disguises advocacy and opinion as news, and likes to add headlines and introductory sentences into news stories that create a slant. All of these publications have their staple of pundits, editorialists, etc. A source could be leftist or rightist without letting the bias affect its reportage of facts. CNN and the Wall Street Journal, for example, do a very good job of separating their politics from their news reports, which makes them especially reliable as a whole. Fox News has much more lax standards, so it's a lot more important to look at each piece, who wrote it, what it claims, and how it's presented, then compare that to other sources. That makes Fox stories sometimes reliable and sometimes not, depending on the specific author, story, and what it is being used for. The decision by a news editor (more likely than the reporter) to past an "Obama Administration" heading onto the article is not a good source for claiming that this reflects on Obama. Washington Times is rarely more than semi-reliable for political matters, and often unreliable, from a combination of advocacy and simple low quality.Wikidemon (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, it's important not to compare apples to oranges when looking at these things. Maddow and Olbermann on the left and Hannity and O'Reilly on the right are all pundits and commentators, not reporters. Their statements should be considered only as editorial opinion and never used as a source for factual information. Yes, they're all clearly biased, but that's the point of editorial commentary. The issue at hand is the reliability of the news gathering organizations they are associated with. Fox News is more lax with standards (frequently getting it wrong and rarely issuing retractions when they do, and often laboring under a political directive) but it is still generally considered reliable as a news source. MSNBC is part of the NBC news division and held to that standard, although it has been inferred that politics played a part in some of their stories as well. Washington Times hovers around the bottom end of reliability and often falls below the threshold (as they frequently use Drudgereport or partisan blogs as the source of their "news.") --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

That MSNBC is somehow "better" than FOX News is pure opinion, born from one's viewpoint without a shred of evidential matter. To sum it all up, I agree that this is not a significant event and is not includable. The logical fallacy that one or two asserted "major errors" (I'm not convinced that they are) taints the entire article is just, well, a fallacy. I think a cursory reading of the operative point, is that the case (or claim, matter, tort, charge, etc.) was dismissed. It may be that it was dismissed because of nifty procedural lawyering, or it may have been dismissed based on the merits (or lack thereof) of the matter, or perhaps by operation of some back-room politics. But, without quite a bit of synthesis, we don't know based on the stuff in front of us. QueenofBattle (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

One thing is that Fox News has no persistence. I don't know about MSNBC or the others mentioned here but I do think that citations with links that last a year or more are preferable to those who disappear. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

←"MSNBC darlings Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann are two of the most liberal partisans in the media."

That may be true, but nobody is using either of them as reliable sources. My complaint was the use of "Obama Justice Department" in the heading - a blatant piece of POV that came directly from the FOX News source. That alone is clear evidence that the FOX News website is biased, so it cannot be considered as reliable than the more neutrally-written MSNBC. Another example of the FOX News bias was their "reporting" of the Tea Party "movement" - it was pure sponsorship and promotion. So let's not pretend that FOX, or the Washington Times, or CNS, or any like that represent sources that should be used without suspicion. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The only point I can concede with clear conscious is that MSNBC is much better at deftly presenting their bias than is FOX News. That one sees MSNBC as a standard of independent, neutral journalism exposes as much about the bias of the observer as it does about the media outlet. That another (me) sees MSNBC's bias for what it is, while thinking FOX News represents a more common sense approach (as I do) exposes as much about the bias of the other observer (me) as it does about FOX News. But, irregardless (love that term), we can not discard a source merely because of our perception of bias. With proper sourcing, even work perceived to be very bias, has some merit in Wikipedia. But, me thinks we are well past improving the article and are on the on-ramp to Meta Discussion Highway, heading south. QueenofBattle (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Since news is reported by humans, and all humans are biased, then all news coverage is biased. Sometimes bias is shown in what news sources choose not to cover. When Fox News reports something, and other sources don't, it could be reflective of the fact that those other sources are biased in their choice not to cover it. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is an editorial on this by Investor's Business Daily. I guess we usually can't use editorials as sources, but it does show that a well respected publication is taking it seriously, which increases the chance that it will eventually receive news coverage from reliable sources. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

whitehouse.gov "we will expand the restriction on oral communications to cover all persons"

This says the White House wants to censor the speech of everyone. I think this should be in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, it's an interesting read. The problem is that it is a primary source, and any interpretation you make of the white house memo to characterize it as "censorship" or anything else is WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. Beyond that, if you do want to make your own interpretation, I would not characterize a demand that all lobbying on a particular bill be done in writing as "censorship", nor do I think a memo from the President (likely drafted by an administration lawyer) detailing how communication on a specific bill is to be handled is (without a showing that it is covered by a significant number of neutral reliable third party sources) remotely significant enough to add to this article. Wikidemon (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(respond to OP, edit conflict with above). No, it doesn't. To claim that it "says the White House wants to censor the speech of everyone" is a misrepresentation of the text, and should not be in the article in those terms. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Pray tell, how is a requirement that lobbyists', both registered and non-registered, communications with government officials be put into writing the equivalent of "censor the speech of everyone"? Tarc (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Because an "unregistered lobbyist" is everyone, and the first amendment's free speech protection applies to verbal speech just as much as written speech. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is a source that talks about it - the heading is "White House moves to restrict criticism of stimulus projects." Grundle2600 (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You know by now that blogs are not reliable sources, right? Really, all it is is requiring that lobbyist contact with government officials be in writing, so there is a transparent and visible-to-all trail to follow. No one's speech is being restricted here. Tarc (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Blogs as sources "Are blogs usable as sources in Wikipedia articles? It depends on the blog in question, it depends on the article in question, and it depends on what information is going to be used." Grundle2600 (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Only a proposal, and a proposal for an essay at best. Thus, it carries no water here. Tarc (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Obama supports "peaceful nuclear power" for Iran

It has been suggested that I cite more positive things about Obama to add to this article. Since I am extremely pro-nuclear power, this quote is something that I fully agree with Obama on. I'd like it to be added to the article. "And any nation -- including Iran -- should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty." Grundle2600 (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If you think a section of any wikipedia article is unbalanced...

If you think a section of any wikipedia article is unbalanced, and you want to fix it, then please add other points of view to the section, instead of erasing the section.

I've been editing wikipedia for over two years, and I've made thousands of edits, and I have never, ever, erased anything that was sourced.

The fact that so many people here keep erasing sourced material which they claim is unbalanced, instead of adding other points of view to it, makes these articles worse, not better. Having all points of view about a subject is better than having no points of view.

Grundle2600 (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of basic editing policies, despite this professed 2 years of experience. This idea that the present material is to be balanced out by "negative" ones is not even remotely what WP:NPOV is about. Tarc (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

We try to edit articles to be as good as they can be, not to be as long and inclusive as possible. The burden is always on the person adding content (or otherwise changing the status quo) to establish proper sourcing and consensus for their edit. Across the encyclopedia, whether the subject is brussels sprouts or Lindsey Lohan, many if not most proposed additions are rejected even if they are sourced. Proper sourcing is only one of many content policies and guidelines. Wikidemon (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

A civil discussion about putting Obama's proposed changes in CAFE standards in the article

The discussion was closed, but it said, "discussion has degenerated. Please re-start if there is a viable proposal here"

Great. Let's have a civil discussion about this.

I would like the environment section of this article to have the following:

"Obama has proposed to address global warming by substantially increasing the CAFE standards for gasoline mileage. The National Academy of Sciences, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Congressional Budget Office, and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have all separately determined in multiple studies that CAFE laws have already forced automakers to build smaller cars, which has already led to thousands more deaths in crashes annually. Concerns have been expressed that Obama's plan to strengthen the CAFE program would make this death toll even worse. "

That is based on what the source says.

According to the source, there is no "may have" about it. It is 100% definite that those four studies show that those deaths definitely did occur. I want the article to match the source.

The person who had replaced my wording with "may have" was not going by what the source said. I want my exact words to be in the article, without use of the word "may have," because I want the article to match the source.

Grundle2600 (talk) 05:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather the above discussion had not been closed, because now we are starting over. You never really responded to my suggestions about how to go about this Grundle, but I continue to think that we need to actually check on some of these studies (and when they happened - if they are 20 years old it's a problem) rather than simply assume USA Today got it right. Better yet, I think we should build a whole paragraph on this topic which covers it from all sides, rather than only putting in what you have suggested, wording which amounts to "some people say Obama's plan will kill more people." I think it's a great idea to talk about CAFE standards and the debate surrounding them (possibly including something along the lines of what you have in mind), but we need it to be NPOV. Are you willing to put in some work to help research this topic and present it in a balanced manner? That's what we need here, I don't think what you have proposed can go in the article, but it can be a starting pointing for building text that is actually NPOV and not sourced to half of a USA Today article (since you are still leaving out the parts of the article that describe Obama's proposal positively). In sum, we need more (and better) sources and we need to present a neutral and overall view of the policy proposal and the reaction to it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

While of course I agree with the points in the collapsed section above about this addition violating issues of sourcing, weight and tone, I'd like to address the reference's actual claims, because that article uses specious logic to leap to shaky conclusions which everybody seems to be taking as gospel. It is simply not true that smaller cars are the only way of increasing fuel economy. It may have been true looking back on the 1960s or in the Reagan era, but in the real world of the 21st century in which we live, hybrid and electric car models are a reality at long last, and would of course be a primary factor. The Chevrolet Volt is likely to get 50 MPG or more. The Tesla Roadster is said to get as much as three times as much. To the degree it would be about size, the point wouldn't be to make vehicles like the MINI and the Beetle smaller—though these light cars and others like them already exist and have been around for several decades—it would be to make vehicles like the Hummer smaller. Yet even with those SUVs, they are beginning to manufacture hybrid SUVs, which are of comparable size and weight to other SUVs.

We don't need to make small cars smaller in order to reach the 35 MPG average goal. We do need to stop selling the absolutely biggest (they have already stopped making the biggest Hummer), and start making most other models available in a hybrid or electric version. But even more important is every truck, bus and large vehicle. Trucks consume 48% of our fuel. In January, Coca-Cola bought a fleet of 185 hybrid trucks including 150 tractor-trailers, which are 30% more efficient and have 30% fewer emissions compared to diesel, which itself has gotten better over the years. They already had about 140 of the hybrids, so this move doubled the hybrids in their fleet. There is a market for electric cars, particularly sexier models like the Tesla, and that will push up the MPG on the high end. The rest of the work is done by getting rid of the worst offenders on the low end.

As to traffic fatalities, they have decreased for decades, even as smaller cars have become more prevalent. While most cars in 1950 were plenty big and heavy, there were about 7.5 deaths per 100 Million vehicle miles. Now there are 1.5, a decrease of about 80%. The sharpest declines in deaths per vehicle mile actually came at two times in history when a new wave of smaller cars were introduced and became popular—the late 1960s/early 1970s, when Japanese cars flooded the market and VW Beetles were all over the place, and American carmakers made smaller models as well; and the early 1980s, after late-70s fuel standards were enacted and the Government-aided Chrysler K cars were released and '70s "boats" including Cadillac and Lincoln grew smaller. Reagan and Clinton both undercut the effectiveness of those standards and enabled the current situation by pushing back these fuel standards repeatedly. The shallowest decline in deaths per vehicle mile has been since the 1990s, despite the return to larger cars including SUVs and Hummers. This fact alone would seem to fly in the face of the allegation. Fuel economy, which increased from the '50s through the early '90s, during the periods of sharpest decline in fatalities, has not improved since the '90s, which is when the rate of decline virtually flattened.

I will grant that the late-'60s/early-'70s decline had a great deal to do with the advent of seatbelts as standard features, and the '80s decline had something to do with laws mandating their use. On the other hand, the rise of the SUV was contemporaneous with the rise of the airbag as standard equipment not only for driver/front but side and passenger airbags, and it seems that one cancels out the other, especially when you factor in the use of cellphones and other electronic devices, all of which contribute to an increase in accidents. Yet another contributing factor in the decrease in traffic fatalities has been the adoption of lower speed limits. Measures to combat drinking and driving has contributed to a decrease, as have increases in street lighting, traffic lights and stop signs, other road signs, painted lines, in-road reflectors and grooves, and other safety measures. (Many of these developments are supported by grass-roots organizations [think Ralph Nader in the '60s], and all were implemented by federal, state and/or local government, and paid for by tax and/or consumer dollars.) You can view a five-decade chart of traffic fatality rates by year here.

Interestingly, when gas prices rose last summer, shippers worked to find ways to use trains for long hauls instead of trucks whenever possible, as trains get more miles per gallon for their weight than on-road vehicles like trucks and cars. Removing some of the need for trucks in this way both helps the increase in fuel efficiency and removes some of the dangerously heavy vehicles from the roads, making all cars safer and roads less congested (further helping reduce the waste of fuel and emissions in traffic). Increasing the accessibility of public transportation for commuters—which is one of the infrastructure plans for the notoriously traffic-addled Northeastern U.S.—will also raise fuel economy standards and decrease the rate of traffic fatalities by reducing the vehicle miles per person.

Which brings me to my final point. Vehicle miles per person is the metric by which traffic fatalities are measured, something conceded by the author. So anything that raises vehicle miles per person will make traffic fatalities be and/or look worse, and anything that lowers vehicle miles per person will make traffic fatalities be and/or look better. The author oddly presumes in the article's formulation that the price of gas will decrease by a dollar from current prices, which he construes as causing an increase in vehicle miles per person. It is this increase in vehicle miles per person that from a purely mathematical standpoint would have to raise the fatalities. However, this dollar-a-gallon decrease is highly unlikely over the long term, unless stimulative efforts fail to prevent a deflationary cycle. Most sources I'm familiar with expect that over the coming decade or so, gas prices at best will remain where they are and are more likely to rise somewhat than to fall. If the author of the referenced article actually admits falling gas prices is a major component of his perceived rise in traffic fatalities, the most responsible thing to do would be to raise gasoline taxes. (We could use the money to fund the development of alternative fuels and renewable energy sources, preventing any future wars over oil and diminishing the future proliferation of nuclear technologies.)

If you think about it, it would be every bit as logical and factual, using this author's own postulates, to write an article entitled "People Against Increased Fuel Taxes Have Killed More Americans than Iraq War." Hey, maybe that's why green energy has been so mocked, maligned and under-supported—all the traffic fatalities its adoption would cause because it would be so much cheaper to drive that we'd suddenly spend vastly more time doing it. Abrazame (talk) 08:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Bigtimepeace, I did explain the positive - I said it was to combat global warming.Corporate_Average_Fuel_Economy#Effect_on_traffic_safety contains sources to back up the claim made in USA Today. Grundle2600 (talk) 09:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec, replying to Abrazame) Interesting points, though obviously you go into quite a bit more detail on the subject than we could in the article. My basic (incredibly general) takeaway from your comment is that these issues are, unsurprisingly, quite complex, which lends further credence to the idea that some thorough research is needed to put together an NPOV paragraph on CAFE standards, and that the USA Today article is far too simplified of an account for our purposes (at the very least it cannot be our only source). You seem abnormally (in a good way!) conversant with these issues, so if you'd like to help with writing something on this I think that would be great. And just to be clear I certainly don't take the claims in the article as gospel and am glad you have elucidated some of the possible issues with it here. As I said above it's still advisable to go to the source in terms of the studies referenced (or similar ones) in order to see what they say about deaths and small cars (and when they were saying it) while also looking for sources that perhaps disagree with those conclusions. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Abrazame, I agree with you that Tesla Motors won't have any problem meeting those mileage standards while maintaining safety - they have already surpassed those standards by several multiples, when you look at the gasoline equivalent of the Tesla Roadster electric car. And I'm sure that Toyota and Honda will do just fine too. But General Motors and Chrysler are a different story. I think it's ironic Obama is bailing them out while they continue to make gas guzzling SUVs. The environment would be better off if they were allowed to go out of business. It's not like there won't be any jobs available to build cars in the U.S. without them - Honda and Toyota have already been making up for that. According to this, while Michigan lost 83,000 Big Three auto manufacturing jobs between 1993 and 2008, more than 91,000 new auto manufacturing jobs were created in Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and Texas during that same time period. Why not let General Motors and Chrysler cease to exist, and let the better manufacturers make up for it with better, safer, more fuel efficient cars? Why bail out companies that are destroying the environment? Grundle2600 (talk) 09:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

(replying to Grundle's brief comment a couple of comments' above) That's not what I meant re: the "positive." Let me try another tack to show you why your proposed addition is problematic. I'll use the same article you did - drawing only on it for information - and show you a different possible version from what you propose.

"Obama has proposed to address global warming by substantially increasing the CAFE standards for gasoline mileage. This proposed change has been hailed as an excellent solution to a variety of problems related to greenhouse-gas emissions and the consumption of fuel. Carol Browner, the director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change, has suggested that car companies will be able to use new technologies to comply with the new standards and thus will not have to significantly alter the composition of their fleets."

Does that sound good to you? Me either. It's horrible, but it is based completely on the article, it's just that I've picked out all of the positive aspects and left out the negative ones. You are doing essentially the opposite, and it's just as much of a problem. Does this make sense?

But we're moving beyond this. We need other and better sources to write well about this issue. Are you interested in working on that? Because really no one seems interested in putting in your suggested change as is, so some additional work is probably required here. At this point, discussion of CAFE standards should not be based on this one USA Today article.

Also let me say that both Abrazame's comment and Grundle's last one are shading off into questions of politics and the automotive industry, rather than focusing solely on the article. We need to deal only with the latter. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I do like that paragraph. You did an excellent job writing it. Grundle2600 (talk) 10:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If that was the only thing that was in the article, it would be horribly unbalanced, given what the USA Today article says. You still seem to be having some problem fully grasping NPOV, and that accounts for a lot of the problems you have faced in editing this and other Obama articles. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The article still says, "Critics have pointed out that CAFE laws may have forced tradeoffs between fuel economy and auto safety."

Am I the only one here who thinks that the words "may have" do not reflect the source?

This is what the source says:

"The National Academy of Sciences, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Congressional Budget Office and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have separately concluded in multiple studies dating back about 20 years that fuel-economy standards force automakers to build more small cars, which has led to thousands more deaths in crashes annually."

It says those four studies show that those deaths definitely happened. There is no "may have." It is definite, according to the source.

Wikipedia requires that articles match the source.

Why am I the only person here who disagrees with the use of "may have," when it is very clear that such wording goes against wikipedia policy?

Grundle2600 (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I have already explained my use of the words "may have" to you (more than once), but you have chosen to ignore me. The wording does not "go against Wikipedia policy" at all. You are trying to write something that basically states that there is a direct relationship between an increase in fuel efficiency and an increase in deaths, but the source does not support that, and it is obviously not true. At best, it could be described as a gross oversimplification. The biggest problem, however, is your framing of this event, which is actually about how Obama brought together a disparate group that included auto manufacturers and came up with new fuel efficiency goals that everyone agreed with. You made it sound as if Obama was personally signing the death warrants of people who buy fuel efficient cars. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's a simple temporary solution already suggested above. Rewrite the sentence as "Critics have argued that CAFE laws force tradeoffs between fuel economy and auto safety." That's accurate in terms of what the source says, and avoids the word "may," while also making it clear that this is only a claim made by some, not an iron clad fact. But we need to rewrite the whole thing ultimately using better sources. I've asked Grundle2600 repeatedly if he's interested in doing that, and for now the answer appears to be no since I've received no reply. That's instructive (particularly as all Grundle seems able to do is push, over and over again, for his or her preferred version, despite repeated efforts on my part to draw the editor into actual collaborative work), but I don't think I have anything more to say here at this time. I suggest making the change above as a temporary fix to put this silly discussion over "may" to bed (so long as a couple others agree - don't just make the change without discussion), but then I hope at some point we can actually write a good paragraph on this issue. What we have now is not that, regardless of whether we say "may" or not. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to give a bit of extra context for my choice of "may", the edit I performed was a quick and dirty change to try to neutralize the version put up by Grundle. I never intended for it to be a permanent solution, and at the time I considered just deleting the entire paragraph per WP:NPOV. Clearly the main story is that Obama succeeded in negotiating a set of new standards that move the country further toward improvements in lowering emissions and decreasing our dependence on foreign oil. The mainstream media has given little attention to the notion that it will lead to an increase in auto-related deaths, presumably because there are no current data to support the notion that fuel efficiency improvements automatically involve making cars lighter and less safe (as evidenced by the gigantic Chevy Tahoe hybrid). -- Scjessey (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards leaving all that out and just saying that Obama supported the move to tighten CAFE and pollution standards. This article should simply state what Obama and his administration did during the period, and not the arguments on both sides of each policy issue. Thanks to the wonders of hyperlinking, that can all be explained in each article on the subject - organizing things that way is part of the fundamental premise of Wikipedia. Stating pro and con arguments, either from analysts or partisans, is best kept to a minimum, and only where the arguments themselves factor into the presidency. The support, opposition, or effect would have to rise above the normal noise of politics, and I don't see that here. Wikidemon (talk) 16:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

In response to Wikidemon, I don't see the harm in a sentence (that's probably the extent of it) describing a couple of viewpoints on the CAFE policy proposals—it is the kind of issue that in the past has provoked a lot of reaction, from environmentalists, the auto industry, perhaps even consumers. In this article far more than at Barack Obama, we really need to move beyond just saying "here's what the administration said/did." In my view an article on a presidency needs to discuss reactions and effects throughout. Yes a lot of that can be farmed out to sub-articles, but confining this article to "what Obama and his administration did" is a mistake I think, and turns us into little more than stenographers summarizing White House press relies. I think the end product in that scenario is an uninteresting and uninformative article (and maybe I'm just misreading your comment, but what you're describing sounds more to me like what we should have at Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama). Now one can certainly argue that, so far at least, this has not received enough coverage to warrant more than a passing mention if that, but I don't think any of us have investigated that question sufficiently as yet. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey, you said, "You are trying to write something that basically states that there is a direct relationship between an increase in fuel efficiency and an increase in deaths, but the source does not support that, and it is obviously not true."

If it's not true, then please tell me what this part of the article means, in your own words:

"The National Academy of Sciences, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Congressional Budget Office and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have separately concluded in multiple studies dating back about 20 years that fuel-economy standards force automakers to build more small cars, which has led to thousands more deaths in crashes annually."

Grundle2600 (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Bigtimepeace The best way to have this article be balanced is to allow different people to add to it. If I get to add what I want, and you get to add what you want, and Scjessey gets to add what he wants, then the article will be balanced. Right now, it seems that everyone except me is allowed to add what they want to the article. That's not balance. An article gets balanced by adding to it, not by erasing from it. If you think my addition is unbalanced, then please add to it what you think needs to be added. But please don't erase what I wrote. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That wouldn't lead to "balance", that would lead to an incomprehensible mess. The way for you to get something into the article is to write something that a consensus agrees passes at least WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:WEIGHT. Cherry-picking cheap shots from wherever you find them is the wrong approach. PhGustaf (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Grundle, you are not being prevented from adding a goddamned thing, it is what you wish to add that is the problem. Stop with the persecution complex, please. Tarc (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Grundle your statement above, with my username leading off in bold, is shocking for an experienced Wikipedian. That is absolutely not how we do things, period, end of story, how are we even talking about this. If you continue to edit along the theoretical lines you lay out above, you will not be able to participate at these articles anymore (at least for awhile, in the form of a temporary topic ban). Please go read WP:NPOV and other various content policies backwards and forwards, because my efforts to explain the problem in your approach are obviously falling on deaf ears. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully to all, the argument is devolving into one of Wikipedia policies, which Grundle has been apprised of on dozens of separate occasions at this page and the bio. The point I was trying to make is that the article Grundle is trying to reference uses specious logic and jumps to conclusions that are not so. It also looks backward and not forward. As such, it has no bearing on the subject much less Obama's presidency. Grundle, you have asked what is wrong with the sentence you wish to add and I will tell you. "...multiple studies dating back about 20 years..." are about the past, indeed going back about 20 years. And if the study is as old as 20 years, it is clearly looking back further than that to make its conclusions. During that period of time, hybrid and electric cars were not a factor in mileage standards. Hybrid and electric cars will be a major factor from this moment through 2016 and beyond. That is what is wrong. The author is not writing about modern times and what the effect of Obama's legislation is likely to be. As with so many conservative views, the author looks backward at how things have failed in the past and uses these past failures to condemn any current or future venture, completely ignoring how modern science—if no other factor—changes and grows and improves over time, and can contribute something different now. Have you ever seen Who Killed the Electric Car?? Aside from the answer to the titular question, the last go-round of the electric car was severely limited and finally the plug was pulled, no pun intended, despite the fact that drivers of the car loved the car and there were long waiting lists for more. Instead we got more SUVs.

I'm not sure why you seem solely to blame American carmakers, and favor Japanese carmakers over them. While you can argue that U.S. automakers are late to the party on fuel standards, this is a factor of federal laws, standards and tax policy in the U.S. not keeping up with federal laws, standards and tax policy in Japan and Europe. Federal standards precisely like those Obama has just enacted are what are required in order to make these vehicles more than just a European, Japanese and California standards kind of thing. As I alluded to last night, Jimmy Carter enacted some rigorous standards in the late 1970s with the intention of creating an electric car by 1990, much the same way as Kennedy's early '60s stance created a moon lander by 1970. The difference is Kennedy was followed by Johnson, who committed himself to continuing Kennedy's vision, while Carter was followed by Reagan who committed himself to "ABC"—Anything But Carter, and took the punch out of or completely undid all of Carter's energy policies. Bringing this back into the present and future, Obama is the first president since Carter who is bold and visionary enough to bring federal policy to bear on the issue of fuel efficiency and decreasing our dependency on foreign oil rather than kicking deadlines further down the road. And, like Carter, he is standing up for this in the midst of a struggling economy, braving the fear mongerers who claim it's too expensive or the wrong time, because he realizes that this is something that will ultimately help us economically, not to mention from the security standpoint.

You cite the number of jobs created in Alabama, Tennessee et al, as if this is entirely Toyota and Honda doing this. You're wrong there too. American carmakers have been moving to these states where the cost of living and doing business is lower and tax incentives lured them away from Detroit. You've cited that campaign sloganeering piece by Phil Gramm before, Grundle, and you missed the point of it then too. This is an opinion piece written by John McCain's disgraced economic adviser in the days leading up to the election. Not unlike your edits, Grundle, Gramm was cherry-picking and slanting and misleading in an effort to discredit Obama and his policies. Places like Florida and Arizona have been growing for years. It's got a lot to do with population density. Many of those jobs are directly related to the fact that retirees have moved there for the cheap real estate, and so those places needed more retail and more public services and more doctors and lawyers, etc. One thing the article does not state, but you seem to think that it does, is the point I made at the beginning of this paragraph. Gramm does not even hint at which automakers are responsible for the Alabama and Kentucky etc. automaker jobs. So not only are you turning to the absolute worst possible sources to find balanced and factual material, but you are further twisting those sources to make even more histrionic and even less accurate claims.

I have nothing against anything simply because its foreign. I've owned German, Japanese, Italian and French cars. (I currently drive an American car.) But it perplexes me that you seem to be slipperily flopping about on this page. You accuse Obama of killing future drivers due to his effort to make more fuel efficient cars (which you conflate with smaller) at the same time you call for the destruction of the U.S. automakers because the cars they make are too big, and not fuel efficient enough. That is a contradiction of logic, do you see that? That's not a rhetorical question, I think it's important for us to understand what you understand if Wikipedians are to continue to have discussions with you about your edits.

As to the edit, what all of those organizations said about the relationship between CAFE standards and smaller cars is inappropriate for inclusion in the article. A.) Looking at the past, smaller cars have come into the market at times when fuel standards were not a factor, and as I pointed out previously, death rates did not increase during these periods, they decreased. B.) Looking at this present moment on into the near future, as we should be, I have also already pointed out that hybrids and electric cars are for the first time a real and major factor. They were not a real or major factor at the time these previous studies were done. This is the point of change. It forces you to discard your old perceptions and treatises and take a good, long, open, honest look at the truth in an effort to see which of your views you may need to recalibrate. Not so that you see the same old vision you used to, but so you see things more accurately.

You write "Why bail out companies that are destroying the environment?" Grundle, that precise concern is just one of several things the president's standards address. How on earth can you not see that? How can you be so self-contradictory? How can you have so many people writing so many things directly to you about the things you write while acknowledging at best only one or two of their secondary points? You can think whatever you like about Carter or Gramm personally, but you have to see that some of what you and your sources write fails all logic and is anachronism, unrooted in the real world of the present and the future. Abrazame (talk) 05:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a mouthful Abrazame. I hope you don't take offense at me making a friendly observation/suggestion, but most people are not going to read something that long, or at least not carefully. I'm hardly one to talk since my comments can be overlong as well, but there's a lot of stuff in your previous comment that does not really relate to the article and sounds more like a blog post. You also have some very germane comments on the issue at hand (particularly in the first paragraph), but they're likely to get lost in the "wall-a-text" as such long posts are sometimes called. Ultimately there does not seem to be consensus for the specific change Grundle wants to make, so I don't think we need to argue it much further here, and instead should consider generally how and if we want to talk about CAFE standards. Finally, while I hate to assume bad faith, I'm afraid that I'm forced to conclude that you did in fact intend that pun. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Grundle raised several points with others and with me directly and I did him the honor of responding to them. I am sure that if he is sincere in what he writes on these talk pages, and if he wishes others to respond to him in the future, he will read this response he requested, and respond back to me in kind. Other editors may follow the discussion or not as they so choose. Abrazame (talk) 02:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Just found this ref: http://www.autosafety.org/comment-lighter-vehicles-are-not-unsafe By Rob Chapman, Automotive News / October 17, 2005

A striking example was given to me by Robert Hall, professor emeritus of operations management at Indiana University and one of my fellow Automotive News PACE Awards judges.

"In the last 40 years," Hall said, "auto racing speeds have increased, yet deaths have decreased significantly while the weights of the vehicles have gone down progressively. Why? Crushable fronts that absorb impact, 'tubs' that shelter drivers after the entire car has disintegrated, a relocation of the front axle and, yes, crash bags. In this case, lighter is markedly safer."

As a member of the Society of Automotive Engineers, I have attended SAE's annual World Congress for more than 10 years. Every year, hundreds of technical papers are presented. I have never heard of a presentation on vehicle weight increase as a means of occupant protection.

The technical sessions focus on new techniques to improve safety and reduce fuel consumption. Conversely, presentations have cited weight savings as a benefit, for cost reduction and fuel efficiency.

Not sure how Reliable this source is, but at first glance, it looks good -- the original source, if not the place it's quoted.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware that it was improper to bold the name of the user that I was responding too. I did it because this section is so long, but since someone complained about it, I will not do it in the future.

Although I have not seen "Who Killed The Electric Car," I am familiar with it. GM had an electric car that people wanted, but they chose not to mass produce or sell it. For that, they deserve to go bankrupt. The government should not bail them out.

Obama's so-called "standards" for fuel efficiency are a joke - if he really wanted fuel efficient vehicles, he would not be bailing out the companies that make gas guzzling SUVs. Let the Japanese companies take over. Let the American Tesla Motors take over. Let General Motors and Chrysler go out of business. I do respect Ford, because they didn't take a bailout.

I never, ever erase sourced material that's in articles. If I think something is unbalanced, I will always correct that problem by adding additional points of view. I will never, ever, erase anything if it's well sourced, no matter how unbalanced it may be. I wish that other people here would show the same respect to me.

Grundle2600 (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

When it said the studies go back 20 years, it doesn't mean they are all 20 years old. It means they go from 20 years ago until now. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll take your points in the order you raise them.

1) I certainly don't speak for Bigtimepeace, but I think he was shocked by your statement, not the typeface you used for his name. Namely, your suggestion we allow everybody to "get to" add whatever they want to achieve balance and weight. There are guidelines against overemphasizing with typeface, but I don't think his point was that superficial. The section you created below shows you still don't get this.

2) Who Killed the Electric Car?: How can you be familiar with a film you did not see? As I linked it, why did you not click on the link to disabuse yourself of your mistaken impression by reading that article's lead paragraph—the film distributes the blame equally among "automobile manufacturers, the oil industry, the US government, the Californian government, batteries, hydrogen vehicles, and consumers in limiting the development and adoption of this technology". "Automobile manufacturers" was not only GM, it was all other U.S. and foreign manufacturers, for not moving in Saturn's direction. This isn't just about the answer to the film's titular question, it's about your refusal to investigate something because you already somehow have acquired some hunch. If everybody's telling you that you're wrong, and linking to things, maybe you're wrong, and would discover that if you read the links.

3) You've established that your edits on CAFE standards and other auto related issues are motivated by animosity toward American automakers and your desire to see them fail. That's part of the reason you aren't able to see and edit the broader picture here. As you have the same opinion about banks and insurers, I don't know what it is you expect to be left of the U.S.—indeed, the world—economy, but I think we'd be talking more about Planet of the Apes than Who Killed the Electric Car.

In the interest of keeping this from getting too long to digest and respond to each point, I'll withhold the remainder of what I've written until you have a chance to process this. Abrazame (talk) 08:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"Obama was..."

"Obama was a United States Senator from Illinois before defeating Arizona Senator John McCain in the 2008 presidential election."

He didn't cease to be a senator the minute he won the election. This should be reworded, but how? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.62.168 (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Saying he was a senator before isn't mutually exclusive to his serving in that position until his inauguration. The point of the sentence is to indicate that his previous position to assuming the presidency wasn't Governor (like W. Bush, Clinton, Reagan and Carter), or Vice President (like H.W. Bush, Ford, Nixon [with a hiatus] and Johnson), but Senator (like Kennedy). The bulk of his senatorial duties did come before the election, and after the election his primary official designated title was President-Elect, not Senator, though indeed he did hold both titles. This implication is supported by that sentence, yet to spell all this out is belaboring the point in such a short article and doesn't shed light on any context or mitigating point so far as I can see. I'm all for adding detail when it prevents a likely misunderstanding, or a perceived slight, POV, etc., but I don't know that this is such a situation.

Having said all that, I don't think anybody here would oppose a change if we can arrive at a better phrasing. Does anybody here want to weigh in on changing "before defeating" to "when he defeated" or "upon defeating"? Some other suggestion? Abrazame (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

How about "Obama was a United States Senator from Illinois before being elected president in the 2008 presidential election."? Defeated sounds so, well, ungentlemanly. He got the most votes; he didn't defeat anyone. It was an election, not a boxing match. QueenofBattle (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I was actually feeling quite ungentlemanly after typing that word three times in a row. However, as I wrote to the initial poster, we don't want to remove information, and the point of that phrase is to indicate in a single, simple sentence that it was McCain against whom he ran. I deplore the horse race aspect of campaigns and don't like the perception (and the degree to which it becomes actuality) that it is a zero-sum game. On the other hand, it is a contest and only one person can "win" the office at a time, regardless of precisely how or with what degree of gentlemanliness. And there were indeed times when it was a boxing match, and the majority of sources characterize it this way. Is it perhaps the three times in a row here that is abrasive, and the single use of the word isn't really debasing? Abrazame (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, how about: "Obama was a United States Senator from Illinois before he won the 2008 presidential election against Arizona Senator John McCain."? QueenofBattle (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that "against" solves the problem I just elaborated. Abrazame (talk) 04:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Against seems less debasing to me than defeating. I agree with your statement that "the point of that phrase is to indicate in a single, simple sentence that it was McCain against whom he ran," so I'm guessing the word against might get the job done. Other thoughts? QueenofBattle (talk) 04:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't strike me as a huge deal either way, though the original point from the IP editor about "before" is valid. But in the interests of having multiple options, how about "Obama was a United States Senator from Illinois at the time of his victory over Arizona Senator John McCain in the 2008 presidential election" (maybe emphasizing "victory" is a bit classier than emphasizing "defeat"?). Or "upon defeating," or "won...against" as already suggested, personally I'm fine with any of those. Ultimately there's no nice way to say the other guy lost so I don't see a huge distinction, but I do think we should word it such that it's not implied that he ceased being a senator after winning the election (e.g. Q of B's "before he won the 2008 presidential election" suggestion should be "when he won the 2008 presidential election" or something similar). It's a bit of a pedantic point but we may as well get it right. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, OK, we are getting somewhere. How about "Obama was a United States Senator from Illinois when he won the 2008 presidential election against Arizona Senator John McCain."? Any objections? QueenofBattle (talk) 06:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

(To QoB) I said he ran against him. You said he won against him. That has every bit as much of a boxing/sports/war connotation as "defeating". Not to sound naïve, but ideally, an election isn't defined as against something or someone, it's for something or someone. I like Bigtimepeace's "victory" (with "over" rather than "against"), as it pertains to the elevation of the winner (the subject of this article) rather than the deprecation of the loser (McCain/Palin). Abrazame (talk) 06:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

But really, who cares? I'm fine with QueenofBattle's recent suggestion, or with mine, or with Abrazame's. Defeating, won against, victory—same difference, as they say, incorrectly. Seems too silly and trivial to edit war over so I say whoever changes it first wins! But for god's sake don't ever tell anyone I said that. Anyway, whatever anyone else decides on is kosher with me. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Why get into a discussion of semantics if you're not interested in the semantics? I'd say it's trivial relative to, say, trying to find a way to address the scope of the economic situation as it pertains to the presidencies of Bush and Obama in two paragraphs or less each, but once you join the discussion, and it hasn't devolved into something ugly or petty, if you're going to bail, don't throw a wet blanket over it as you go. You wrote "how about 'Obama was a United States Senator from Illinois at the time of his victory over Arizona Senator John McCain in the 2008 presidential election'", so to other editors, how about that? Abrazame (talk) 07:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

OK by me, as a compromise. QueenofBattle (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. In general, I think discussions of consensus should remain open for a week to allow people who don't spend time here every day to weigh in. In this case, as simple and straightforward and innocuous as the change seems to be, I would not be opposed to adding it now, but I will leave it up to the judgement of another editor to determine whether they'd like to rush this into the article now or leave it open for comment. Abrazame (talk) 00:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

How about saying, "Obama was a Senator from Illinois for a part of one term as a stepping stone for his plan to become Presidient." Grundle2600 (talk) 01:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

A bit too Manchurian Candidateish. Tarc (talk) 06:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock

I would like this to be included in the article, but I won't put it there without first having a discussion and reaching consensus:

The Obama administration has been accused to treating Chrysler's secured creditors in a manner that is different than that called for under U.S. bankruptcy law. Some of the allegedly mistreated secured creditors include pension funds which cover thousands of retired police officers and teachers. Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock has filed a lawsuit in New York’s federal court to protect the pension funds of these retired teachers and police officers. Mourdock pointed out, "This is the first time in the history of American bankruptcy law when secured creditors received less than unsecured creditors." Mourdock also stated, "The Chrysler deal is a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution and more than 150 years of bankruptcy law." Mourdock also pointed out that under the Fifth Amendment, private property cannot "be taken without due process of law. That clearly has not happened in this case. There has been no process of law consistent with long-standing precedent whatsoever." Defending his actions, Mourdock stated, "As fiduciaries, we can't allow our retired police officers and teachers to be ripped off by the federal government." Mourdock also stated, "They bought according to the rules, and then the rules got changed," and, "Our portfolios are no longer going to buy the secured debt of American corporations that are accepting bailout moneys. It is an unacceptable risk for us to purchase that debt."

Grundle2600 (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest preserving the cites, but greatly condensing the content (per undue weight). Perhaps stating something about creditors taking issue with the government's treatment of creditors? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's somewhat of a shorter version: The Obama administration has been accused of treating Chrysler's secured creditors, including pension funds which cover thousands of retired police officers and teachers, in a manner that is different than that called for under U.S. bankruptcy law. Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock has filed a lawsuit in New York’s federal court to protect these pension funds. He stated, "This is the first time in the history of American bankruptcy law when secured creditors received less than unsecured creditors," and "The Chrysler deal is a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution and more than 150 years of bankruptcy law," and "As fiduciaries, we can't allow our retired police officers and teachers to be ripped off by the federal government," and "They bought according to the rules, and then the rules got changed." Grundle2600 (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I would edit this to avoid pointing the finger, adding color context, calling it an accusation, or repeating public PR statements. If the matter passes weight, relevance, and sourcing (I haven't checked), simply say something to the effect that the proposed bankruptcy settlement, by giving unsecured pension plans some priority over secured creditors, diverges from the standard resolution of most common bankruptcy cases, for which it has been opposed (and/or) criticized. Wikidemon (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That's why I used the wording "has been accused" instead of just saying "has." Grundle2600 (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you said that I should avoid using the word "accused." OK. I won't use that word for this. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Grundle I strongly recommend that you self-revert your latest addition. Your proposal did not achieve anything like consensus, indeed neither of the two editors who commented on it said they supported it as written (nor did anyone say they supported the changes you made). Certainly no one suggested that this be included in a newly created "Notable controversies" section which you have taken the liberty of creating without any discussion whatsoever. Please undo your last edit and wait for further discussion to develop. In the last week you've created 7 new talk page sections suggesting new material that portrays (or could be perceived as portraying) the Obama administration in a negative light. A relative lack of response to one or more of those suggestions should not be taken as evidence that they have consensus. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit was reverted by another editor as I typed the above. Discussion can obviously continue here about appropriateness of adding something along the lines proposed by Grundle, but there needs to be agreement. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I waited four days, and I incorporated all the suggested changes. I'm not the one who created the section on GM. And the section that I created on nuclear power is a case where I said I strongly agree with Obama. How come you never criticize other editors for never adding anything bad about Obama? Are you saying that it's OK to make edits that are biased in favor of Obama, but it's not OK to make edits that are biased against him? Grundle2600 (talk) 08:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying, and have said repeatedly, that it's not okay to make any biased edits whatsoever, be they in favor of, or against, Obama or any other encyclopedia subject. Of course that's standard policy. Are you admitting that your edits are biased against Obama? Because in the past you have suggested the way to edit this article is to have some editors put in "good stuff" and some editors (including you) put in "bad stuff" (I'm not quoting you directly here, but that was the idea) and then we'll come out with a good article. But that's not how NPOV works as has been explained to you on more than one occasion. Are you now admitting that your editing approach falls afoul of that policy, but justifying it on the grounds that others do the same thing? It sounds like that's what you are saying but I don't want to misinterpret you so I'd appreciate it if you'd clarify your views on what WP:NPOV means, since we've communicated about this issue on multiple occasions but seem to get absolutely nowhere. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I am saying that every editor, including me, is a human being, and that all human beings are biased, and that all editors' edits are biased. The only difference between me and everyone else is that I am willing to admit it, and they are not. You see all these people who keep erasing the stuff that I add? When's the last time that they added anything that was critical of Obama? They are just as biased as me, but they aren't willing to admit it. Oh yeah - there's one other difference between me and them: when I think the article is unbalanced, I try to fix it by adding to it - I never erase other people's sourced stuff. But when the other editors think the article is unbalanced, they try to fix it by erasing stuff. It seems to me that they would rather have no points of view about a subject, instead of letting the article have all points of view. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

To say that all editors are humans and therefore biased is a truism, and indeed this is even discussed at WP:NPOV. I don't believe anyone has claimed otherwise, but regardless that's not the point. The way to write a neutral article is not to give free reign to our various subjectivities and hope it comes out well in the end, but rather for all editors to write in as NPOV of a manner as possible from the beginning. As the second sentence of the policy says, "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." We all have bias, certainly, but it is something to work against, rather than something to run with. Again, this has been explained to you repeatedly (just as the "why do they keep erasing instead of adding stuff" line of yours has previously been responded to), and again I'll close this comment with a simple question: do you feel you understand our core policy on neutral point of view, and are you committed to following that policy while editing the Obama articles? Please don't worry about other editors while answering it because I'm just asking you. You are the only editor I've seen on these pages that seems to question NPOV as a policy, at least the way I read your comments, and we need to know whether you intend to abide by it or not. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The info that I added to the article reflects the sources from which it came. Please feel free to improve it, but please don't erase it. The case has now been taken all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and if you think that's not worth mentioning in the article, then I think you are very mistaken. Grundle2600 (talk) 08:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I have shortened the section so now all it says is this:

"

Main article: Mourdock v. Obama

On June 7, 2009, the Indiana State Police Pension Fund, the Indiana Teacher's Retirement Fund, and the state's Major Moves Construction Fund asked the U.S. Supreme Court to delay the sale of Chrysler to a group led by Italian carmaker Fiat while they challenge the deal. The funds argued that the sale went against U.S. bankruptcy law because it unlawfully rewarded unsecured creditors ahead of secured creditors. "

I have written that new article to cover this event, and it is very well balanced, with lots of quotes in defense of Obama.

Grundle2600 (talk) 14:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you did a nice job summarizing the lawsuit and it is neutrally written. I don't object, although ideally this would be part of a larger section about the auto bailout overall. I can imagine that some people would consider this too minor to mention... anyone can petition the Supreme Court, but they only accept something like one case in 100. Until and unless that happens, we don't know if this case is going anywhere. Plus, events could intervene. Chances are the bankruptcy parties will settle on something and make the case moot. Wait and see.... Wikidemon (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - especially for your compliment about my neutral writing! I agree with you that if the Supreme Court doesn't take the case, it won't necessarily deserve its own article. But since there are already so many sources, I thought it was worth starting an article for now. Also, I don't want to clutter the bankruptcy article with such a big section. By the way, I moved this from its own section here to the Economy section (the second Economy section - this article has two). I just wanted to briefly mention it and link to the article - it certainly doesn't need its own subsection here. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The article is now located at Indiana Pensioners v. United States Department of the Treasury. One editor has erased all of my quotes from Obama, claiming that Obama is not relevant to the case. There is a discussion about this on the article's talk page. If you wish to offer any comments in that discussion, please feel free to do so. Since Obama is the boss of the boss of the Treasury Department, I think his comments are very relevant. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This little paragraph is OK in tone, but it kinda hangs there apropros of nothing. Perhaps an introductory sentance or two about the auto bailout in general mau be useful, because otherwise it looks like "Hey look, here's some random recent bad news about Obama we can throw in here?" If we want to include information about the Detroit bailout; that's fine, but this one little section makes it appear as though this is one of the most important bits about the bailout rather than a small footnote to the whole matter. Per WP:UNDUE, we shouldn't make it appear as though this little lawsuit is a central aspect of Obama's presidency when it is not. Either we need to expand the auto bailout information, OR remove this non-sequitur paragraphy from the article. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Obama supports Chrysler in SCOTUS case

Bloomberg news says the Obama administration "... is supporting the automaker at the Supreme Court... The Supreme Court case is Indiana State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler."

Now can it be mentioned in the article?

Grundle2600 (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd give it a couple days to a week or more to see how it pans out. Who knows how the Supreme court will rule and it's best to wait. Heck, it could amount to nothing or it could completely reverse everything. Brothejr (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

We definitely should address the wider issue of the auto crisis / bailout / bankruptcies. Is that in the proposed update? Wikidemon (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec with Wikidemon) I don't have a firm position on whether this belongs or not, but I would echo Jayron32's comment above - namely that the short paragraph as it currently exists in the economy section is a serious WP:UNDUE problem. As currently written, it would suggest that roughly 30% of what we need to say about Obama's presidency and the economy relates to this court case, which is clearly absurd. What this needs is context, the kind of material that is probably discussed here (though I have not looked to see the quality level of that article). This court case, while now seemingly important, is just one part of the larger story relating to Obama and American auto companies, which in turn is one part of the larger story about Obama and the economy. It needs to be covered as such, and I would suggest that the current info be removed for the time being and a larger discussion about expanding our coverage of the auto industry/Obama administration happen here on the talk page. Right now there does not seem to be consensus to have this material as it is currently written, but I imagine there would be consensus to say something about it in the larger context of the auto industry bailout. That's probably the best direction to move in. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone else put it back in. Then I changed the name of the case to the correct case. If it gets removed again, I will understand, and I won't put it back in. I would like to address your claim that this is "seemingly" important. This issue is a huge deal.... (I am removing the rest of my own comment. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)) Grundle2600 (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Whether this seems important to you or us is not important to this situation and only history will tell us how important it is. We are not here to debate the Obama administration, the legal system, pending court cases, etc. We are here only to improve this article by using reliable third party sources. This excludes syntheses of sources, original research, or personal thought. Please take a moment to read WP:NOT and remember that this is for discussing how better to improve the article, not the subject, per: WP:TALK. Thank you. Brothejr (talk) 01:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is a great explanation of why this case is so important. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Although that's a one-sided editorial, I think it's right that this is a potentially important case that could set some constitutional precedent on the limits of federal power to set the terms of bail-outs. For inspiration you might want to take a look at the way the Supreme Court challenge to the National Industrial Recovery Act is handled in the FDR article. Whatever you think of the wisdom of the New Deal or Obama's policies, there's no question that the NIRA was a far more sweeping change to existing laws than the Chrysler bankruptcy, although the setting and justification is the same. NIRA got struck down by the Court then, and it has two seemingly neutral paragraphs in FDR's article. As Bigtimepeace has noted it would have to be put in the larger setting. Mentioning the case without first mentioning the larger issues puts the cart before the horse, although there seems to be no harm in that. We need a cart and we need a horse, so the order in which they arrive is not too big a deal. Wikidemon (talk) 03:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. As I said above, I have no problem mentioning this case; but let's not make it look more important than it is. Lets instead expand the section on the auto industry so the level of coverage reflects the level of importance here! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism and praise of Cairo speech

An editor has recently added a statement that "The speech received both praise and criticism from leaders in the region."[10] and, in the Barack Obama article,"The speech was largely praised by world leaders, but criticized by some"[11] (which conveys a different impression). I think the latter expression is more in line with the sources, but more fundamentally, I don't think the main thing the sources convey about the speech is the relative amount of criticism and praise of it by leaders. They analyze what was in the speech, and then they run down more detailed reactions in different countries, ranging from official statements by spokespeople, to statements by some leaders, to man-in-the-street impressions. I don't know how relevant any of this is to the importance and impact of the speech. To take a few famous examples, when Ronald Reagan said "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" or Kennedy said "Ich bin ein Berliner", we wouldn't really have to say "the statement drew both praise and criticism from world leaders". The former article has a pretty good analysis of the context and legacy of that speech (whereas the latter is mostly about jelly doughnuts - ah, Wikipedia! Anyway, if it's worth an extra sentence, how would you summarize what the speech was about, how it was perceived (and by whom), and its effects? Wikidemon (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering the speech wasn't in either article yet, and knowing these are controversial articles, with warnings about POVs, I decided to put in a minimalist statement and see if the whole thing was immediately deleted or whatever. FYI there is a whole article on the speech linked in first sentence Barack Obama's speech at Cairo University, 2009 of both articles which probably could provide some ideas of who said what. Maybe that also needs to be made more clearly linked? And obviously responses do continue. Anyway, I thought I'd see what happened before proceeding further. Obviously there is a lot of negative reaction in the US from people who support Israel and/or dislike Muslims as well, but I didn't even want to start getting into that mess of POV. If the one sentence stays, I'm happy for now. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

GM's bankruptcy

Read: General Motors bankruptcy

From the article: " Obama noted that GM will receive $30 billion in additional funding from taxpayers, giving the public a 60 percent share in the company."

"GM became the largest industrial company (and fourth-largest overall) to seek bankruptcy protection in the history of American business" Ultraszuro (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

What about it? Presumably the failure and bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler, the administration's response to it, and the aftermath, deserves some kind of mention here. The outcome is far from known, so it's hard to predict what that will look like. An up-to-the-day account of exactly what is happening and being proposed will be hard to maintain. There is some merit in trying to keep some of the child articles relatively current, but in this article I would argue that we could use a placeholder statement, such as that the administration in 2009 reacted to the financial failures of these two automakers with a variety of proposals, and then a link to those articles.Wikidemon (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I favor including this in the article, but also mentioning that the bailout was started under Bush, and supported by McCain. If Obama is a socialist, then so are they. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The New York Times referred to GM as "Government Motors." Grundle2600 (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The Wall St. Journal used the word "nationalize" to describe Obama's actions. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Romania's former "car czar" writes about his own personal experience, and explains why he thinks Obama will be unable to fix General Motors. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I would not describe the sources that way. The Times, for instance, used that play of words as an attention grabber intro to a story. It was not presented as a serious news reportage claim, but at the same time is not one of the Times' highest moments for journalistic objectivity. Wikidemon (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. We certainly don't have to put that (joke?) in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Support if we're voting. -SusanLesch (talk) 05:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Also Support if we're voting. I don't think we're to determine what was an attention grabber and what wasn't. Any article could be argued that way on the premise that media organizations make money from their news and that attention grabbing is the crux of their purpose in all news.(Rustydangerfield (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC))

I think this info about the White House helping to save the Hummer should go in the environmental section of this article. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read your provided source(s) before commenting. Always read the whole story "like you wouldn't care" and then pull the whole info out of it. That might help you in the future (even so I doubt it very much as you "dismissed" previous helpful recommendations from all sides. And by the way, it would be nice if you could and would add something "nice" to any article maybe just ones a week?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It says the White House said it was "good news" that the Hummer brand was being saved. So much for Obama's concern about global warming. I changed the link to a different source with the same info because the previous link no longer works. I did add some positive stuff about Obama and marijauana to the political positions article, and a few other positive things last year. I voted for Ron Paul, and to me "good news" is when Obama agrees with Ron Paul on issues. If there was something that was "good news" about Obama once a week that I could add, I probably would have voted for Obama! How come you never suggested that the other editors add "bad news" once a week? Grundle2600 (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Neither the old link, nor the new link, mention any connection to Obama. Even if Obama had personally said it was good news, or a source said he was involved, this is not sourced as being at all relevant or significant in connection with his presidency, much less environmental policy. Wikidemon (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The article includes this paragraph:

"The White House welcomed the pending sale of Hummer while quickly pointing out that it had not been involved. The transaction 'is good news for the 3,000 Americans who will be able to keep their jobs, the two American plants that will remain open and the more than 100 Hummer dealers that should be able to stay in business all around the country,' said Bill Burton, a presidential spokesman."

Since you said, "Neither the old link, nor the new link, mention any connection to Obama," please explain who the "presidential spokesman" is speaking for. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Dunno. The article does not say what it has to do with Obama's presidency. Reading press conference tea leaves for evidence of the President's involvement is something best left to reliable sources. Wikidemon (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Please explain who the "presidential spokesman" is speaking for. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not up to me to explain - it is up to reliable sources to describe what this has to do with Obama, if anything. A spokesman commenting that an industry development is "good news" (for workers) seems pretty trivial. Wikidemon (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this should be included:

The Financial Times wrote that Obama's treatment of Chrysler's secured creditors "disturbed the security of expectation that has made lenders willing to provide capital as secured credit, thus handicapping all US industry and undermining what has been, for all its flaws, one of the best financial reorganisation processes in the world, now emulated elsewhere."

Grundle2600 (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

No point including editorial flourishes and advocacy. The rules of bankruptcy and the nature of secured credit are basic economic matters, the arguments for which don't have to be repeated here. The long and short of it is that the plan gives some unsecured creditors priority over some secured creditors, running counter to the default rules of bankruptcy law.Wikidemon (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. And thanks for showing that you really, really understand what this is about. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This edit[12] goes beyond what we were talking about. Among the issues, (1) it introduces a "controversies" section, an idea that has consistently failed to get consensus on this page; (2) it suggests that the Chrysler plan is counter to the dictates of bankruptcy law, when that is not clear or precise - it is simply a different priority order than called for by bankruptcy plan, which if the creditors accept it is perfectly fine and if they do not is subject to resolution by the courts with an outcome we cannot know now; (3) I specifically suggested we not include advocacy and rhetorical flourishes (which describe the PR / public statements in connection with the Richard Mourdock lawsuit); (4) the Murdock lawsuit's relevancy and weight are something that needs to be reviewed and discussed before including. If there's a section about the auto bailouts, that's the place to mention that the administration advanced bankruptcy plans. If there is consensus to mention this we can simply say that the Chrysler plan involved giving some unsecured creditors priority over some unsecured creditors. If people think appropriate we can name those creditors, i.e. the pension plan received money even though the secured bondholders had not been fully paid. Further, if people think it's right to include it seems reasonable to say that this drew reactions that included editorial criticism and/or mention the lawsuit. However, repeating one side's statements of advocacy about this gets into weight, relevancy, and POV problems. Wikidemon (talk) 01:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You said, "it suggests that the Chrysler plan is counter to the dictates of bankruptcy law, when that is not clear or precise." You are wrong - it is very clear and very precise. This is the first time, ever, that unsecured creditors have been given precedence over secured creditors. This goes 100% totally completely against what the bankruptcy law calls for. It is very clear and very precise about that. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that claim? It doesn't sound plausible. Bankruptcy settlements are whatever the creditors will accept. If the secured creditors accept it, then it is not counter to bankruptcy law. Further, I am not sure what powers the administration may have to impose its own settlement terms.Wikidemon (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we should include this quote reported by Reuters:

"Hey, Obama has just nationalized nothing more and nothing less than General Motors. Comrade Obama! Fidel, careful or we are going to end up to his right." - Hugo Chavez

Grundle2600 (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Polling

Can we try to keep polling information down to a minimum? It's fairly arbitrary use of statistics, subject to change and interpretation, and not a terribly informative way to tell the story of the presidency.[13] Unless a poll is particularly remarkable I don't think it's very informative. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 16:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That would also suggest removing the old poll information,[14] which in addition has the disadvantage of being stale. Polls are just snapshots - beyond being unreliable, and of uncertain meaning. If there is a long term trend and we could cite it, we could eventually say something like "public and congressional support for Obama's economic recovery policies fell from a once-high level over the spring and summer of 2009, as X, Y, and Z." But that story is still being told. Wikidemon (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

There should be some discussion of the broad trend, I think, preferably based on a meta-analysis. Rasmussen has much poorer numbers than Gallup. II | (t - c) 16:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

To Wikidemon, respectfully, you just posted at the bio that poll numbers are nothing but factoids without context such as the events and policy decisions, and noted the question of whether it is related to the presidency at all. When the new editor recently added the negative polls to the bio, I edited that to correct his numbers, not to revert or re-add the mention or take it to the talk page. But when this other new editor removes one set of evaluations with some minor qualifications with another set of evaluations with a different claim, I see a story that is failing to be told, not information that is relevant and contextual and responsible. I do not agree that just because a snapshot is perceived as being one moment in time that any editor should come in and substitute that with other data points just because those data points came at a later point in time. We don't want this done with the literal snapshots. We don't want this done with other data. Either the data is bloodless and shouldn't be here or it has the potential to be conveying information and we should understand what that is, discuss how we move forward with encyclopedically presenting a broad but detailed picture of the presidency (or the bio). This isn't a peak on the Billboard chart. This is an oversimplification of an average of numbers based on a variety of questions framed to fit the news of the day. We need to make sure it's not so much of a closeup or displayed from such a skewed perspective that it doesn't actually show that moment in time for the presidency (and/or the man). Abrazame (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Abrazame, I agree with you. I was not disputing your edit, but rather using it as a way of highlighting the original version. Sorry I did not make that clear. Replacing a positive-sounding poll with a negative one highlights the problem that the positive-sounding polls weren't terribly explanatory either. Wikidemon (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Descriptive reference names

Can we try to keep the names somewhat descriptive? When references are named "ethics", "waivers", "lobbyists", "energy", it takes me ten minutes just to track down the original reference. Please use reference names which are more than one common word long. Particularly in an area like this, refs can become outdated pretty quickly and need to be removed, and it's nice to be able to find the master reference and all of its other references easily. II | (t - c) 16:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Obama fires inspector general who exposed misuse of tax dollars by Obama supporter

link I think this may deserve a sentence in the transparency section. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait and see (like for several days or a week or two) if the story develops further - so far it seems like all we have is an AP wire story, and it's certainly not dominating the front pages of newspapers. This is a general comment for your suggestions as well Grundle. You regularly ask for breaking news to be immediately included, but that risks us falling into the trap of WP:RECENTISM. That recently happened with the Supreme Court case re: Chrysler/Fiat which you were pushing. It could have been a big deal, but ended up not being one at all since the Court let the sale go through—in the end it was a tiny blip and should never have been added in the first place. The same might be true of this story, or it might turn into a large controversy. We have no way of knowing, and until we do we should hold off adding it. I think your suggestions on this talk page will carry more weight if you avoid saying "add this" several hours after a story breaks, and instead wait for quite awhile (it may be weeks sometimes) until we can determine the significance of the story in question. Remember that in the end this article needs to cover four (or maybe eight) years of a presidency—we don't have room for anything except the most important aspects. Maybe this will be one, but we don't know yet. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thank you for your comments and suggestions. I will take them into consideration. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is a new editorial by the Wall St. Journal. Here is a new article from Associated Press. Also more from ABC and The Washington Examiner. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It sounds quite murky. As so often happens, when an overseer / whistleblower is fired, somebody claims a coverup, and someone else claims the person who was fired was misbehaving and making false claims. I wonder if we can allow a sub article to develop on the office or the people involved, and then try to make sense of it in a summary sense to decide if it's important enough to cover and, if so, how. Wikidemon (talk) 04:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. A subarticle it is: Gerald Walpin firing controversy. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Bias in editing of this and other Obama related articles?

I think that 100% (or almost 100%) of the editors who keep erasing my entries in this and other Obama releated articles are Obama supporters, and that this bias is being reflected in the Obama related articles. Either they voted for Obama, or, if they are too young to vote or if they live outside the U.S., they at least supported Obama in the sense that they wanted him to win the November 2008 election. Some of these editors may have supported Hillary in the primary, but they still supported Obama in the general election.

I wrote in Ron Paul in the general election, but I have never, ever erased any of the sourced criticisms in his article.

To the dozen or more of you who keep repeatedly erasing my stuff, is there even one of you who didn't support Obama in the November 2008 election?

Grundle2600 (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I voted for Ron Paul too.. but I know what NPOV means. Btw, this isn't a forum (In fact, I think you need to read that entire page and take it to heart).--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope you have better luck with this than others have had. POV protectors are all around us.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Grundle, I sympathize with your frustration, and the prodding of your new article -- see my comment on the arbcom evidence talk page. But please, can we avoid having this discussion on the talk page here? It's only going to make people dig in their heels. There's probably a better place to take this concern. I know we all live in the real world, but we're all supposed to try to edit fairly regardless of who we voted for. Wikidemon (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Dudemanfellabra voted for Ron Paul would go a lot against my agrgument, if Dudemanfellabra was actually one of the people who often erased my stuff or ever tried to have me blocked. But Dudemanfellabra does not have such a track record. However, it does give Dudemanfellabra a proven frame of reference of not being biased trying to protect Obama. So in the future, whenever Dudemanfellabra is critical of my entries to articles, I will really, really, really take that into consideration. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon - OK. This isn't the place. I just wanted to let you know I read your comment. Thanks. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The criteria we are to use at Wikipedia for "really, really, really" taking an editor's criticism of our entries to articles into consideration is whether their criticism has merit, not whether you voted for the same guy for president. If I weren't familiar with your editing history at this article and your writing style, I would have assumed you were joking with that statement. You've consistently displayed a Libertarian bias at this article, and that statement is a bizarre assertion that you intend to continue to practice the exact same ideological bias you have been, and believe you see in others here. I, too, sympathize, and have contributed to the avalanche of painstakingly specific, informative and referenced responses and constructive criticism you have received here, to no avail. Repeating the same behavior and expecting a different result isn't getting you or us anywhere, it seems. Abrazame (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Every editor is a human, and all humans are biased. If everyone gets to add what they want, then the article will be balanced. I don't erase other people's sourced stuff. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

DO you honestly believe that "everyone gets to add what they want..." is how an article becomes balanced and satisfies WP:NPOV? Sometimes I wonder if our collective legs are being pulled here. Tarc (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

One way of thinking about it is that everybody gets to put in their two cents (within the bounds of reason, civility, good faith, etc), and then the community as a whole decides how to write an article of reasonable length, appropriate focus, usefulness to the reader, and all the other content goals. Think of it like electing a city council. Everyone gets a vote but there are only so many people that fit in the room. Sometimes, if your belief about how things should be done is at odds with others, you may feel shut out. Other times minority voices get heard. Well, they always get heard and if everyone is considerate they're taken seriously. But they may not always win acceptance. Wikidemon (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Three Banks Fail on a single weekend; 40 Closures So Far This Year

This ain't a forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Read more about this: Three More Banks Fail; 40 Closures So Far This Year Could you tell me why there is only ONE occurence of the word "bank" in the whole article when there is world financial crisis????? Lots of Obama fans tell that these closures is thanks to Bush, but how? Obama is the president for more than 5 months... I would write only the slightly bad news also, because this is the truth. Szupermasszív fekete lyuk (talk) 09:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC) I do not see a viable proposal or comment here relating to improving the article, except that we should perhaps cover the banking crisis in more depth. That may happen, but it is unlikely that an encyclopedic article like this would try to cast blame. If you have anything specific you wish to propose to add to the article, please feel to do so. Otherwise this new thread will likely be archived shortly. Wikidemon (talk) 09:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC) It's great to hear from an editor interested in bank failures! The funny thing about this is that if the government keeps insolvent banks open, they are called "zombie banks" which are going to soak up more and more of the taxpayers' money. (This is what caused Japan's lost decade in the 1990s.) If banks fail, people run around saying the sky is falling. Because we have actually begun to deal with toxic assets and the opacity of excessively risky investment vehicles, we don't have to fear returning to the horrible Reagan era. The closures of these small banks, overseen by the FDIC, is a necessary culling of the bush to keep the overall plant healthy. And, sure enough, there are banks lining up to pay back the TARP. If we hadn't intervened there would be hundreds, perhaps even thousands by now, and not just these smaller banks but the major ones. The FDIC insures all deposits up to $250,000 and this has been in the news for almost two years (allowing for people to split their accounts, move into other assets, etc.), so nobody has lost their deposits. In the Reagan era, banks failed at a rate never seen before or since in American history, worse even than in the Great Depression, yet people have been socialized to view this period as one of the most affluent and economically positive. After Reagan's policies had time to take effect, in 1982, the bank failure rate made a nearly right-angle turn and soared. I don't pin 100% of the fault on Ronald Reagan, but it's worth noting that the failure rate didn't stop increasing until after he left office, in 1990. By this point in 1987 (the end of June)—before the dramatic stock market crash of that year—there were already 96 bank failures, almost 250% worse than 2009. From 1982 through the end of the Bush recession in 1994, there were 1600 savings and loan failures. Though of course it was a matterhorn (sharp rise to a peak and then a sharp drop-off), that averages out to 123 a year! This ref notes that 145 failed in 1986[15]. And all of these numbers only count U.S. savings and loan banks insured by the FDIC! There were also 2,050 insured credit unions that failed! In all, 4,695 federally insured institutions with assets (not adjusted for inflation, so this would be much larger in today's dollars) of $665 billion. In 1989 alone there were more than 275 savings and loan failures and 534 failures including all FDIC-insured banks. (Did you know that the word "bank" appears only twice in Ronald Reagan, once to note he was born near a bank and the other to note the Burbank location of a film he made? Ah, Reagan.) You note that Obama has been president for five months, but it takes longer than that for these problems to reach the point of failure. As I noted, the Reagan administration's policies took a year or so to kick in to start that horrific era, and George H.W. Bush's administration's policies took almost that long to stop the rise. Although Obama bank policy, specifically the Public-Private Investment Program, had an instant positive effect on the stock market, resulting in three consecutive months of gains reaching almost 40% off their lows including gains of several hundred percent for some banks, I predict that the actual bank failure rate won't subside until 2010, which is around when Obama policies will have begun to lower unemployment. But I—and the FDIC and Obama policies—guarantee you it won't reach the horrible highs of the Reagan era! (Did you know that the word "bank" appears only twice in George H.W. Bush, once to note that he was the chairman of one and once to note his freezing of Manuel Noriega's assets?) Comparatively, the 1970s is the era people have been socialized to view as the most volatile and economically negative since the Depression, yet from 1970 to 1982 there were only 96 bank failures. And, in the 1970s as now, the failed banks tended to be smaller banks with smaller deposits; in the 1980s, the failures were mid- and large-sized banks, with many multiple times more in deposits. We're working on a slightly expanded section on Obama's economic management, but in the meantime it's been fun to share some banking truths with you! Best, Abrazame (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)