Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Obama administration drops successful case against people who intimidated voters

CNN and Fox News both have articles on this.

The Fox News article has a link to this YouTube video which is evidence against the people who were intimidating the voters.

The fact that the Obama administration is dropping the successful prosecution of these people who intimidated the voters should be in this article.

Grundle2600 (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

And what is the point here, exactly? One brotha sticks up for anotha? Tarc (talk) 23:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Good question? Seems like a repeat of past behaviors. Brothejr (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The point is that Obama is letting apparently guilty people get away with intimidating voters, and that's notable. The case was going very well, and than Obama decided to just drop it. That's notable. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Did we not discuss this very issue, with the same citations, a few weeks ago? There are very few sources here, and they contradict each other (not a good sign). But overall there's little to tie it to Obama's presidency. It's simply something the DOJ did in what looks like a very minor case albeit an unfortunate incident. There appears to be no prosecution and no success - it was a default civil judgment against the defendants, which the DOJ seems to have declined to enter, or dismissed / failed to enforce after it was awarded. Although marginally noteworthy, this is not the best article in the encyclopedia for it because it is just not very important, and the paucity of sources bears this out: a very poor quality CNN article, a poor quality Washington Times article, and a much better Fox news article that contradicts the other two, plus the usual blogs and editorials. This is covered in the New Black Panther Party article, which I just found and edited a bit. Wikidemon (talk) 01:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought I had mentioned this recently, but I couldn't find it in the talk archive. I won't add it here without more sources that tie it to Obama, although I had thought he had a big say in these kinds of things. Thank you for editing that other article. As long as it's mentioned somewhere, that's what counts. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the bot is archiving this talk page too soon and too frequently.

What do you think? Grundle2600 (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this page is very short, so no harm in keeping the discussions a bit longer. As an incremental step I'll increased the archive time from 7 days to 10 days, per your comment. Wikidemon (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't even know you could change it like that! Grundle2600 (talk) 02:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Coup d'etat in Honduras

Why does this article not mention Obama's first coup d'etat. Just go to http://www.globalresearch.ca to find out more information about this current event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.173.155 (talk) 03:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Because there needs to be better sourcing for something as controversial as this. QueenofBattle (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Better sourcing Grundle2600 (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Typing in Obama's name, consitution, and the guys name does not mean better sourcing. Simply put, there has to be a very reliable source that says exactly that this was Obama's first coup d'etat. There can be no WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Brothejr (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. That's a good point. ABC News says that Honduras' President Manuel Zelaya tried to give himself another term, despite the fact that Honduras' constitution prohibits such a thing, and that Obama said he supports Zelaya in this action. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

And of course it says much more than that - you leave out a great deal of context, not to mention leaving to the side more in-depth coverage in any number of other sources. Also you should explain exactly how you envision the Honduran coup being mentioned in this article. Personally I think it's rather important in a global history sense, but I'm not sure it deserves mention in the article on the Presidency of Barack Obama. He has talked about it, of course, but then again so has most every major leader and foreign policy NGO in the Western Hemisphere. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I was just helping out with sources. I don't necessarily think that it should, or shouldn't, be cited in this article. Perhaps it could be cited in the article about the event itself, instead. Grundle2600 (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

2009 Honduran coup d'état already says, "President Barack Obama of the United States said "We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the President of Honduras."[55][157]" I think that's enough, and it doesn't necessarily have to be added to this article. It could be cited in this article to, but I don't give it high priority in this article. Grundle2600 (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

If you "help out with sources" on an article talk page the assumption is going to be that you want that type of content included, naturally. If you don't think it belongs here then why bother contributing to the discussion? I can think of no occasion on which I have searched for sources on a topic which I did not think warranted inclusion in a given article. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that this sort of gratuitous and clueless participation on this page—and this overabundance of link-posting, ranging from the completely irrelevant to the libelous, and more often than not, not actually read by Grundle—would be curtailed. Abrazame (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Grundle is under a topic ban for political articles, but is explicitly allowed to post to talk pages.[1] PhGustaf (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. In addition, long before I was topic banned, people suggested that I discuss things on the talk page before adding them to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Abrazame - I disagree with your claim that my comments are "gratuitous" and "clueless." I also disagree with your claim that my links are "libelous." Grundle2600 (talk) 03:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Bigtimepeace, you said that I "leave out a great deal of context." All I did was cite the facts. ABC News says that Honduras' President Manuel Zelaya tried to give himself another term, despite the fact that Honduras' constitution prohibits such a thing, and that Obama said he supports Zelaya in this action. Those are the facts, as reported by ABC News. How would an explanation of context make those facts any different? Grundle2600 (talk) 03:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess the point is that the bare facts as they are don't explain what the context is or why it has anything in particular to do with Obama and his presidency. We're already having a tough time sifting through events to decide which ones are significant for readers to know, versus which ones don't make that cut. Political events are happening all over the world - elections, new constitutions, and occasionally, coups, resignations, impeachments, etc. The administration will probably make some kind of announcement for each one, either congratulating the winner, saying something guarded like "we're watching events but it's up to the people of X to decide their own fate" or, more rarely, expressing disapproval of the results. That's so routine that it just doesn't seem remarkable. It's probably of some importance to the people of Honduras, but even they probably have bigger things on their minds than what the US president says. That's all just my speculation. To understand it I'd have to see some good sources that say why this matter in particular stands out. Wikidemon (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Needle exchange

Re. this edit:[2] it looks neutral, well-sourced, well-written, and encyclopedic. The only issue I'm having is that it does not seem all that important vis-a-vis the presidency overall over the expected course of at least five years. I'm not sure what to say about that regarding article organization... Just to throw something out, what about child articles on different policies: health policy, foreign policy, economic policy, etc.? How have other presidency articles handled information overload? Wikidemon (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent idea -- weight issues in parent articles can enable more robust and detailed children articles. Its more articles to watch and maintain, but I think the tradeoff would be worth it. Is there a wikiproject:obama? kind regards, --guyzero | talk 22:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's an excellent idea. Perhaps start with just domestic and foreign policy. If we just let the article grow naturally for a few months, we can make the split when there's enough about those to make standalone articles. PhGustaf (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

wording

The initial part of the Social policy section reads:

On June 17, 2009 Obama authorized the extension of some benefits (but not health insurance or pension benefits) to same-sex partners of federal employees. President Obama has chosen to leave larger changes, such as the repeal of Don't ask, don't tell and the Defense of Marriage Act, to Congress.

"

References

The first part is within the authority of department secretaries in the executive branch, and Obama issued a memo which said, "... my Administration has identified a number of areas in which greater equality can be achieved under existing law by extending to the same-sex partners of Federal employees many of the same benefits already available to the spouses of heterosexual Federal employees. I am therefore requesting the Secretary of State and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management to extend the benefits they have identified to the same-sex partners of Federal employees where doing so can be achieved consistent with Federal law. I am also requesting the heads of all other executive departments and agencies to conduct a review of the benefits they administer to determine which may legally be extended to same-sex partners.[3]"

The second part, the repeal of a couple of existing federal laws, is not within the president's authority; the president does not have the power to repeal federal laws with the stroke of a pen; the president cannot choose whether or not to make such changes his own authority, because he does not have that authority. The wording here needs a bit of work. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The second part is an administration talking point to questions about why Obama doesn't use executive authority to issue a stop-loss order to end military discharges, or why he doesn't use the "bully pulpit" to call for Congressional action. --Dr.enh (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Approval

Wikipedia dosen't have his current approval rating, which is 54% on FOX News [4], 55% on MSNBC [5] and 57% on CNN. All you have is May approval ratings.--Carolinapanthersfan (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Rasmussen Reports has a chart with the long term trend at this link which could be useful. The individual data points from the chart are posted here. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This article's treatment of Obama's approval ratins is disgusting and definitely not NPOV. His approval rating has been tanking steadily since day one, yet I see no mention of this in the article. The only section on his approval is from the "first 100 days" (as if that's some sort of magic indicator) and it virtually glows with pandering POV. 67.135.49.42 (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. The article cites favorable approval during each and every month of January, February, March, April, and May, whereas the unfavorable disapproval from June and July is not cited at all. The article is unbalanced. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I can see my dozen or so critics responding with, "Well, Grundle, you see, the positive ratings from January through May are NPOV, so they can be in the article. But the negative ratings from June and July are POV, so they cannot be included. Stop using the article to try to push your own personal opinions. That's why we topic banned you in the first place." Grundle2600 (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Happy? BTW, referring to the normal settling of polls following a honeymoon period as "tanking" makes me suspect the neutrality of the commenter. I know that some on the right have been grasping every piece of potential bad news like a life raft and spinning it, but that really has no place in this encyclopedia. Carlo (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm happy. Thanks. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You know what would be really, really useful? If some template wizard could create something like {{template prezapproval|poll1date|poll1number|poll1ink|poll2date|poll2number|poll2link|etc.}} - and that template would throw up a graph or chart over time with links to each poll or articles about the poll. That way all the info could be there and nobody would have to debate which week's poll is worth commenting on and which is not. Has anyone ever thought about that? Of course it isn't just for presidents, it could be for any polling data where a single polling company conducts the same poll over time. Maybe it already exists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemon (talk • contribs)

Could always convert this into a template. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see User:Jsharpminor over at that article is producing the charts already. However it's done they're very useful. Yes, I think we could make that into a template and then transclude it into both articles at the same time. Does anyone have an opinion about whether to include an infobox-like template that would contain a (minimized but clickable) approval rating chart and table of polls? It would be updated periodically as the editors over there upload the results of new polls.... - Wikidemon (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is called, "After 6 Months, More View Obama's Presidency as a 'Failure' Than Bush's." That's notable, because Obama was supposed to be a "change" from Bush. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Obama's popularity remains in the normal range. What does his popularity level have to do with being a change from Bush?Wikidemon (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Obama campaigned on "change." He said he would be different than Bush. And those numbers prover that he is. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Cute, but you know that's not the change he was campaigning on. He never said "if elected, my popularity numbers will be a big change from Bush's." - Wikidemon (talk) 01:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Obama and race

This is an interesting article [6], but I can't see where it would belong (which isn't assuming it would be accepted for inclusion). Is there an article about Obama and race? Obama and political epithets? Anything on that sort of territory? Rd232 ^talk 12:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting question. I think it's an excellent idea to have an article called Barack Obama and race, though I don't see a precedent for that (the closest thing a quick search yields in terms of "________ and race" is Nazism and race). Thomas Jefferson and slavery is actually probably somewhat in the ballpark, but it's more about Jefferson's personal views (which require book length treatments), whereas an article on Obama would/should be largely about the cultural effect Obama has had in "racial" terms. It's disappointing that Abraham Lincoln and race is a redlink (again we have Abraham Lincoln on slavery, though the two issues are in fact distinct) and that this is just a subsection of a biography rather than a standalone article, but maybe an article on Obama and race could kick off a trend of articles that evaluate prominent figures and their relations to the racial politics of their times. It's an enormous avenue of academic inquiry, and as such quite a legitimate topic for Wikipedia.

I'm a fan of Tim Wise's writing so I'm a bit biased, but I can easily see some of his views being incorporated into a Barack Obama and race article. I don't think there's any currently existing article though where his take on things belong—it's too specific (and too ideologically driven) for this article and as you say it's not obvious which spinoff article would be a good fit.

Regardless I see it as a good idea to create a Barack Obama and race that would primarily focus on his cultural impact, but which would also mention racial controversies related directly to him (indeed the latter are really a subset of the former). We already have sources galore, and those will expand exponentially in the years ahead. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That sounds fair. But there's another Tim Wise article about the comparisons of Obama with Hitler,[7] which suggests if not a different direction then perhaps several directions. Perhaps Media representation of Barack Obama or something along those lines, as well as Barack Obama and race. Rd232 ^talk 09:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There is one article, Public image of Barack Obama, that could along with this one serve as a parent article to this whole family of topics, and in cases where a topic is not broad enough to have its own article, could house the information. Because of the nature of the article, it's an appropriate place to describe notable fringe, racist, or politically motivated beliefs about Obama. It can cover the center position and the more notable among the extremes. Wikidemon (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Clear

In contrast to earlier advocacy of a publicly-funded health care program, in August of 2009 Obama administration officials announced they would support a health insurance cooperative in response to deep political unrest amongst Congressional Republicans and amongst citizens in town hall meetings held across America.

The above was added to the article recently, and because we've been babysitting delinquents here on the talk page, nobody's discussing actual additions to the article. I would argue that if anything is clear about the health care debate, it's that nothing is clear about the health care debate. For one thing, my understanding is that conflicting reports since the 17th have been coming out with regard to what, exactly, the White House is taking off the table, if anything, and that they have always been open to reviewing any reasonable suggestions. So what, exactly, are we saying here? Recentism doesn't get us anywhere. Health care is a huge distraction in the country at the moment, and deserves some coverage here, but I think it's safe to say that anybody arriving here for a rundown of the latest news is missing the point of an encyclopedia. If, ultimately, no public option is offered to American citizens, and notable sources draw the conclusion that it was the preponderance of these loud, angry and largely misinformed voices at "town hall" meetings that coerced the congress to take away that choice, and if the president signs such a watered-down bill, we can report notable sources' examination of that causality (and of course their characterizations, not mine). If, on the other hand, this circus has more to do with corporate organizers, with partisan pundits, with the media or with congress than with the Presidency of Barack Obama, then this still seems like an open question, despite all the media attention to the heat. Heat may be preferable to light in the "news" media. It's the light, however, that's essential to an encyclopedia article. Sometimes the smoke has to clear before you're able to ascertain what's what. If that means we don't write what's in the health care bill until there's, uh, a single health care bill that makes it past the president's desk, then so be it. We're not here to scoop anybody, least of all those who are literally writing history with these bills. The day-to-day media coverage or statements by administration officials and advisors may be relevant to an article about the health care reform process (or, indeed, about these various other phenomena) but they do not seem to belong here. Abrazame (talk) 10:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Abrazame, you said, "because we've been babysitting delinquents here on the talk page, nobody's discussing actual additions to the article." First of all, my comments are legitimate, and I am not a delinquent. Second, I grouped all my suggestions together in one section specifically so it would not crowd out the rest of the talk page. Third, I have never done anything to prevent anyone from suggesting additions to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 07:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I am the one who added the removed content under consideration here. Abrazame, as you are displeased with what I have added, I would like clarify what exactly it is you are opposed to. Is it the mere mention that the Obama Administration has said that the public option is not essential? Is is that the reason that the co-op was mentioned was because of angry town hallers? If so, would something resembling the following be acceptable?:

The Obama Administration has stated that the public option in health care is not central to the passing of health care legislation. Other insurance providers, such as a cooperative insurance organization have been proposed as possible entities that would cover currently uninsured Americans.

Also, should something mentioning the death of Ted Kennedy be added to this section we are considering? It may be recentism, but many news sources are saying his death may bear important consequences on the debate and legislation. JEN9841 (talk) 06:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that information is more relevant to America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Changes that I would like to be made to the article

The article does not mention medical marijuana. I think it should.

I think the following should be added to the article:

On June 9, 2009, the House Appropriations Committee approved a provision written by U.S. Representative Maurice Hinchey (D-New York) that asks Obama's administration to clarify its position on medical marijuana. Hinchey stated, "I've been greatly encouraged by what President Obama and Attorney General Holder's public statements in support of state's determining their own medical marijuana, but remain concerned about the matter since the federal government has still continued raids in states that permit the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes."

Grundle2600 (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Until he signs something into law, I don't agree with putting it in the article. Medical Marijuana just hasn't been a really big part of his presidency so far, so it shouldn't be included.

(Also, as a side note because I've seen a lot of people mentioning this: Obama didn't say he'd stop the raids; he said he'd curtail them – meaning reduce the number of them. They're of less importance to Obama than Bush, but he's still going to do some raids because they're in the federal law. Until it is no longer federal law to do the raids, he will continue to do them... just not as often as his predecessor(s). Just because he raided some dispensary in Frisco doesn't mean he supposedly "broke a campaign pledge.") --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Didn't we already do this at Talk:Political positions of Barack Obama#DEA Raid? Tarc (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It was me who put it in that article. But someone else erased it, claiming that political positions are only about words, not actions. The fact that the the article cites plenty of other actions on Obama's part didn't seem to concern them, which is something that I find quite puzzling. I think it should be in both articles. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Obama's new drug czar said, "Marijuana is dangerous and has no medicinal benefit." He also opposes cutting back on the DEA raids of marijuana. This is not some holdover from the Bush administration. He is an Obama appointee. This is more proof that Obama has broken his campaign promise to cut back on the DEA raids of medical marijuana in states where it is legal. This should be mentioned in this article and/or Political positions of Barack Obama. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Cigarette tax

I had added this to the article before, but someone erased it:

Early in his presidency, Obama signed a law raising the tobacco tax 62 cents on a pack of cigarettes. The tax is to be "used to finance a major expansion of health insurance for children", and "help some [smokers] to quit and persuade young people not to start". Some considered this tax increase to contradict a previous statement that Obama had made on September 12, 2008, in Dover, New Hampshire, where he had said, "I can make a firm pledge... Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes... you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." It was reported that the tax disproportionately affects the poor, who are more likely to smoke than the rich.

Please note that it's all from one source, so there is no "synthesis." And also please note that Obama said "any of your taxes." Therefore, any claim from any of you that he was only talking about income taxes is exactly the opposite of what the source states.

Grundle2600 (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Although this is reasonably neutral I would oppose adding this because: (1) the increase in cigarette taxes is a relatively minor piece of legislation; (2) although it is a reliable source, it is advocating a disputed position, that an excise tax increase violates a promise not to raise individual taxes, and (3) the noteworthiness of the material seems to rest more on its arguing the breaking of a campaign promise than an actual official / policy action as president, hence a weight problem. Between all three of these I don't think it is right for this article, but there may be a better place for it. If and when it is included in an article I would not use the long quote but simply say that some considered the tax increase to contradict a promise Obama made during the campaign not to raise taxes on families earning less than $250,000 per year, and considered the tax regressive because it falls disproportionately on poor people, who are more likely to smoke. Wikidemon (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

He said "any of your taxes." How does that not include the cigarette tax? Grundle2600 (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I think a short (because the legislation is minor) addition about the cigarette tax is appropriate, if you fix the broken reference(i.e., ) --Dr.enh (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the outdated link. I changed it to another link with the same article. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This brand new Associated Press article states (the bolding is mine): "President Barack Obama promised to fix health care and trim the federal budget deficit, all without raising taxes on anyone but the wealthiest Americans. It's a promise he's already broken and will likely have to break again. Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress have already increased tobacco taxes - which disproportionately hit the poor - to pay for extending health coverage to 4 million children in working low-income families." Grundle2600 (talk) 04:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

First cabinet meeting

I had added this to the article, but someone else took it out. I would like it to be put back in:

On April 20, 2009, Obama convened his Cabinet for the first time, and ordered them to reduce the $3.5 trillion federal budget by $100 million.

Grundle2600 (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember how that discussion concluded but this addition looks fine to me. It just states the facts, it was widely reported, and anyone can reach their own conclusion about what it means. Wikidemon (talk) 23:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Well before we go wit that, take a look at the backstory here. I had no recollection of this either, but looking the the history, Grundle added it, you edited it to conform with the source (his version echoes the Republican talking points of the time that it amounted to a drop in the bucket, while in reality it was for the Cabinet to cut the funds from their own budget, not tackle the $3.5trillion in totality). Grundle reverts, a bit uncivilly, and finally the whole of it is reverted by Scjessey per WP:NOTNEWS.

So, not sure if it is noteworthy or not, but note that what is being proposed today is the original version that you seemed to disagree with back then. Tarc (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, both of you. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Obama’s health policy czar

MSNBC says, "Obama health czar directed firms in trouble. DeParle made millions from companies under federal investigation. Nancy-Ann DeParle, President Barack Obama’s health policy czar, served as a director of corporations that faced scores of federal investigations, whistleblower lawsuits and other regulatory actions... Several of the companies were investigated for alleged kickbacks or engaging in other illegal billing schemes, while others were accused of serious violations of federal quality standards, including one company that failed to warn patients of deadly problems with an implanted heart defibrillator... After leaving government, DeParle accepted director positions at half a dozen companies suspected of violating the very laws and regulations she had enforced for Medicare. Those companies got into further trouble on her watch as a director...."

That's just a tiny bit of this very long article.

It also says, "Critics see DeParle’s re-emergence as a classic case of Washington “revolving door” syndrome, despite Obama’s suggestions that he would shut that door."

I think this should be mentioned in the article.

Grundle2600 (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Reporters Chip Reid and Helen Thomas point out Obama's lack of transparency at town hall meeting

This YouTube video of C-SPAN2 shows what Reid and Thomas say about Obama's lack of transparency at the town hall meeting. Grundle2600 (talk) 08:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

examiner.com has this about it:

"Last week, President Obama was holding a "town hall" on the issue of health care. Chip Reid asked White House Spokesman, Robert Gibbs why the town hall forum had been turned into a staged Q&A segment for President Obama. He noted that this town hall seemed "very tightly controlled", and that town halls were supposed to be "an open public forum." Also, Chip Reed was upset by the "very tightly controlled list of questions" that were to be asked of the President and his health care plan. Chip and Robert went back and forth, almost debating what "openness" really means for a few minutes. Robert Gibbs was just about to put the Orwellian White House spin on things when the almost 90 year old, intensely liberal, Helen Thomas began to command the briefing room."

"She said, "...you're trying to control (the media), we have never had that in the White House." Gibbs giggled and tried to mow over the top of Helen Thomas. She then chided, "I'm amazed, at you people who call for openness and transparency, that you control..." Then the three of them batted this thing around for awhile, and none were satisfied in the end. Oh wait, Gibbs did suggest that they have this conversation at a later date, but the ornery Helen Thomas told him, "No, we're having it now, it's a pattern. You are controlling the press.""

Grundle2600 (talk) 08:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

What is your point in posting this here? It sounds like a fine blog post, but that's not what this talk page is for. I actually read through this, and must say that you are literally wasting my time as a Wikipedian by posting this kind of lengthy quote without any suggestion as to what to do about it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

My point is that this article has a section called "transparency," and Helen Thomas, who is perhaps the most well respected U.S. reporter, criticized the Obama administration for its lack of transparency. That is relevant to this article. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Then at the very least you would need some reliable sources that discuss this. The Examiner.com piece (whose second sentence begins "Every media outlet, the Communist News Network, the All Barack Channel, the Fe aux News Network, the Couric Buffoon Series, and the Never Been Credible news channels...") is a highly partisan opinion piece and therefore not appropriate as a source in this context. If Thomas's complaints have been discussed in general news stories then it could be worth including (a short sentence on this issue was added by another editor, which I have just removed, though I'm not necessarily opposed to some kind of inclusion if the sourcing is better). The best thing to do might be to find a couple of articles that have discussed generally Obama's openness (or lack thereof) to the press and to questioning by reporters and/or the general public (Politico is one outlet that comes to mind that may have run a story about this). Presumably there are others besides Thomas who have been critical, and there are probably other (relatively objective) persons or groups who have praised the Obama admin's interactions with the media and/or compared it favorably to previous administrations. In terms of transparency the issue of press access and openness to questioning is an important one, but it should be discussed fully and not just with one Helen Thomas quote. If multiple outlets have mentioned Thomas's beef (which is likely) then I could see mentioning it in a longer paragraph on the general topic. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is all very interesting. I agree with BTP here that we need stronger sourcing, but if this becomes a pattern and is not just a blip, I'll guess that within a few months we're going to see analysis pieces about how the Obama administration manages the press, just as happened about a year into the Bush administration. It's probably too early yet to know if that's going to be the way they do business, and for people to start writing retrospective articles. Wikidemon (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Gerald Walpin

I propose that the following be added to this article:

In June, 2009, Obama fired Inspector General Gerald Walpin, after Walpin accused Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson and St. HOPE Academy, a non-profit organization, of misuse of AmeriCorps funding to pay for school-board political activities. According to Associated Press, Johnson is a friend of Obama's. Johnson and St. HOPE agreed to repay half of the $847,000 in grant money they had received from AmeriCorps between 2004 and 2007. In a letter to Congress, the White House said that Walpin was fired because he was "confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve." A bipartisan group of 145 current and former public officials, attorneys, and legal scholars signed a letter that was sent to the White House, which defended Walpin, said the criticisms of him were not true, and said that his firing was politically motivated. The letter can be read here.

Grundle2600 (talk) 08:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The article has a section on transparency. Without this information, that section is unbalanced. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the material is neutrally presented and reasonable to include with a few tweaks, although it is a bit long weight-wise give that it's more or less the issue of the week a couple weeks ago. I would say the reason to include it is that it is of reasonable importance as a political matter, not necessarily to try to balance anything out. If there are no objections within a few days I'll go ahead and add it, possibly with some minor edits. Wikidemon (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

There being no objections for more than ten days I've added it.[8] I decided to create a special section on "other" administration personnel because I think it might be synthesis or advance a particular point of view for us as Wikipedia editors to decide that this reflects mainly on Obama's transparency. To keep it neutral, it's just something that happened relating to personnel during the presidency. I've also moved around the sentences and shortened it some, but kept most of the language and facts. Let me know what you think. Wikidemon (talk) 02:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute, we're supposed to object to each objectionable item on this ever-unfolding vanity page for Grundle? This Grundle blog of buckshot grudge 'n' links? Of course I object. There's many times more information for this guy who apparently isn't in the government than there is for just about anybody who is. (Note the Supreme Court nominee immediately above Walpin.) So, WP:Weight would be only the first of many objections. Even if we whittled down the excessive five sentences to a mere three or four (I'm joking), what is the point? Obama fired someone "identified as a friend" because he realized the guy sadly wasn't up to the job and the political motivation is what exactly? That Obama favors this other guy or organization over his friend? That sort of tabloid speculation is now its own section in the Presidency article? Neither Grundle's version nor the version Wikidemon added to the article make it clear what precisely is the point of this being here. This, like so many of Grundle's suggestions, seems to be Libertarian pique in search of any and every shred of dissonance he can Google. Abrazame (talk) 03:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion of the firing at Gerald Walpin is far more informative, less tendentious, and less POV than this one. (That last sentence re the AP statement definitely has to go.) Perhaps one sentence stating that there was a controversial firing and pointing to the Walpin page would be appropriate weight. No more, possibly less. PhGustaf (talk) 03:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec, responding to Abrazame) Yes, if an item is proposed and not objected to, it's fair to add. How else could one add content? Per WP:BRD it's fair to add in the first place, I'm just being extra cautious. Indeed an administrator has placed Grundle on a topic ban that allows him to make proposals here but not to edit the main article - beyond that, can we please allow Grundle the freedom to be an editor here? Per WP:AGF there is every reason to assume he is honoring any restrictions by floating proposals on this page rather than editing the article. I (and others?) rejected others, but this one looked okay. Obama did what the material says he did - he fired the guy, citing various reasons. Some political players objected as described, by accusing Obama of playing politics by helping a friend. The reason to add it is that it is an official act / incident of the Presidency that gained a significant amount of press - every major mainstream news source has run several articles bout it. Per weight, if he had fired Hillary Clinton and everyone wrote about it, it would be a more significant issue. When Michelle's social secretary got fired there was hardly any coverage, so it's not covered here. This is in between, and arguably deserves at least some mention. Wikidemon (talk) 03:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidemon on this. Each editor may edit the passage as he/she sees fit; that's what Wikipedia is all about. It is notable (somewhat) and is reliably sourced, so what's the complaint, again? QueenofBattle (talk) 03:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

(responding to PhGustaf) Gosh, I wasn't trying to be POV or tendentious. I'm doing everything I can to keep it neutral and friendly :) I think your proposal to turn it into more of a link and bare mention has merit, because we don't need to repeat here what's covered more fully in an article where the material can be more fully explored. Per weight, as a rough guess I would say it's probably one of two issues of the week for one week, so after 4 years of presidency it's worth about 1 / 52 / 4 / 2, or 1/400 of the weight of the article. If we do try to explain the context, it's pretty important to note that the controversy arose over claims the mainstream press took seriously (whether or not in fact true) that Obama was helping out a friend or political ally, not just claims that it was an unfair firing. Wikidemon (talk) 03:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it certainly deserves less coverage than, say, Sotomayor. And it's much more important to Walpin than to Obama, making Walpin's page the logical place for details. Actually, you (Wikidemon) tried to edit the tendentionness and POV out of a Grundle idea, and did pretty well, considering. PhGustaf (talk) 04:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh. In the AP article cited, Johnson is called Obama's "friend" only in the headline, not in the text body. Headlines are written by copy editors, not reporters, and are dicey to cite for content. PhGustaf (talk) 04:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) (responding to QueenofBattle:) Somehow I get the feeling you haven't read my post with an intent to materially respond to it. "What's the complaint, again?" Truly? You're telling me to write my complaint again? How about reading it again.

(out of sequence) Hmm Abrazame, given that my comment that you took personally wasn't directed at you personally, but rather to the whole community, I'm not even sure how to respond to that bit of snarkiness. I might just suggest that any editor who has a problem with the addition made by Wikidemon, step on the field and go edit the passage. QueenofBattle (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

(To all:) Simply because something happened and many people have acknowledged that fact doesn't make it relevant to articles about anybody involved. And, as I've said, I don't actually understand the issue by reading those five sentences. I'm going to go out on a limb and put the issues as I understand them from these five sentences into chronological order. To me it sounds like he hired Walpin. Then Walpin accused the Sacramento mayor and a non-profit of misuse of funds. Is that the political motivation? Only half the money they received is going to be paid back. Is that a problem? (Did they misuse all the money they were given, and only return half of what they misused, or did they only misuse half the money they were given, and so returned the full amount of misused funds?) Do I understand that the money was not intended to pay for school board political activities? If so, surely that's the political motivation, then, no? Then Obama fired his pick for IG, Walpin, because he was "confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve." Gee, that sounds like a problem to me. (What Board? We happen to have this thing called Wikilinking...) Then a bipartisan group defended Obama's IG pick and accused (someone—Obama, I'm assuming?) of "political motivation" in firing the guy. Were they politically motivated? I presume, given that it's Grundle that's suggesting this, that Obama is being accused of political motivation in firing Walpin, and I'm taking a leap by supposing that it's because Obama saw political expediency in favoring the mayor of Sacramento or St. HOPE Academy (whatever that is, it's not linked either) over his pick for Inspector General, Walpin. But what political motivation? Are we surmising that Obama prefers the school board of (what? St. HOPE? The city of Sacramento?) over his IG pick Walpin? How can we make such a vague and absurd accusation? In five sentences aren't I supposed to be able to draw some reasonable conclusion about what this issue is really about? And if we don't know what it is about, and it isn't clear what people are claiming it to be about, then why is it in an encyclopedia? Because it might be about something, and whether or not we ever turn out to know what exactly, in the meantime it looks like an omelette and we get to be the ones to claim to have splatted it into the article?

While I don't want to go too far in the opposite direction, it strikes me that putting this seemingly irrelevant bit in the article in this lengthy yet incoherent way is the politically motivated act we should be dealing with here. Just because an editor suggests three things a day here, three things a week there, doesn't mean we have to put any of them in the article if none of them are either materially relevant and appropriately weighted to the subject nor clearly understood and presented by the contributing editor(s). Abrazame (talk) 04:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I will pledge that it is not a politically motivated act for me to add this to the article. I added it after Grundle proposed it because in my judgment it is fair to include in the article. Does anyone wish to accuse me of some other purpose? Although weight, neutral wording, intelligibility, and faithfulness to the sources are all valid concerns, weight would be the only one of those that would argue against excluding the material entirely. Walpin was a holdover from the Bush administration. Obama fired him. Relevance is not the issue. It strains credulity to suggest that the notability of the incident is anything other than that Obama had a hand in it. It is about an official act of the president and has never been reported otherwise. I don't see any other presidents around here. Unlike certain other things that are controversies only in the partisan press, this one was a nontrivial if not major mainstream story regarding the presidency. I don't think it's helful to try to excuse or question Obama over it. One could speculate on all kinds of scenarios but none are corroborated by reliable sources, just editorials and partisans, so that's not our job. Outside of editorials, the press simply reported that the incident happened and that people were making accusations, and go into some background. Wikidemon (talk) 05:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

(out of sequence)I have known Wikidemon for a while now, and we have "bumped the guardrail" of each other on more than a few occasions; it's safe to say that we don't attend the same political party rallies (although, we do like similar adult beverages). If he/she is attempting to apply POV against the president, it is news to me. QueenofBattle (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Both the original 127-word section[9] and shortened 95-word section[10] added by Wikidemon about Walpin's firing were blatant WP:NPOV violations.
• Four of the five citations did not support assertions made, and the fifth citation was a dead link.
• In a WP:Summary style article about the entire "Presidency of Barack Obama" that devotes 74 words to Sonia Sotomayor, zero is the only appropriate number of words merited by trivia about Gerald Walpin.
• Any WP:NPOV account of Walpin's firing would be WP:UNDUEWEIGHT for this article, e.g.:

  After its May 20, 2009 meeting, the bipartisan Board of Directors of the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) requested that the White House review Gerald Walpin's conduct as CNCS Inspector General. On June 11, 2009, Walpin was suspended with pay by President Obama, who on the same day advised the U.S. Congress that he would remove Walpin from office, effective 30 days from then, because he no longer had "the fullest confidence in" Walpin as Inspector General. On June 16, 2009, the White House submitted a letter with additional information on the reasons Walpin was being removed.

Newross (talk) 07:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Admirably concise critique and brilliantly articulate example of how even an elegantly simple, NPOV reading is excessive weight, Newross. Had an edit conflict and wrote the below prior to reading your post above.

To Wikidemon (et al): Forgive me for leaving that statement open for your very understandable misinterpretation. I didn't think and did not mean that you were politically motivated with regard to the material in the edit whatsoever. I was clumsily alluding to a political correctness that would make a reasonable person, when deluged by inappropriate suggestions yet governed by a code of conduct that compels them to assume good faith and act not only judiciously but invitingly to all comers, to be beleaguered into making a more than reasonable effort to be inclusive, to take pains to show that we are not objecting for objection's sake. But by the same token, we shouldn't be accepting suggestions for acceptance's sake, even if it turns out to be a tiny percentage of the overall suggestions or even none of the suggestions of a particular editor we are accepting.

Thank you for clarifying that Walpin was a holdover from the Bush administration. As I have suggested with topics from church attendance to unemployment rates, if giving as finite a subject as this one such broad coverage, it's reasonable to expect some applicable context. It seems that one should reasonably expect the moderately intelligent but uninformed reader to come away with a general understanding without having to click on wikilinks or read the source material.

I'll AGF that I'll get an honest response from all quarters on this: does it surprise anybody when I note that Gerald Walpin is not "Inspector General"? In fact, there is not one but more than thirty Inspectors General who are appointed by the president, as well as more than thirty more Inspectors General who are appointed by various boards of governance. Sixty-nine in total. Just as Laszlo Bock is not "Vice President", but rather "Vice President, People Operations of the Operating Committee of Google, Inc.", Gerald Walpin is not "Inspector General" but "Inspector General of the Corporation for National and Community Service".

Reading the Gerald Walpin bio, I see he's filed a lawsuit. Even if Walpin were to win his suit, it would still be arguable whether it rose to the level of relevance here. If so, something as spare as "After dismissing Inspector General of the Corporation for National and Community Service Gerald Walpin in June 2009, Walpin successfully sued to X (win his job back? get damages?)." If Walpin does not win his suit, it seems more obvious. Grundle also sought to add the lawsuit brought on behalf of—was it Chrysler bond holders?—and he did add that, with a vote of confidence by a number of editors. As I recall, only a day or two later the suit was thrown out of court. We've got to make sure we don't confuse positions pundits believe could ultimately prove to have merit or repercussions with positions which actually do have merit or impact. We've got to make sure we don't make the impact by presenting such dodgy bits as encyclopedic fact rising to the level of inclusion in this article and getting it mirrored throughout the internet. We've got to make sure we don't confuse news with encyclopedic content. We're not here to scoop the AP (or any other news source)—or to reprint it wholesale. If I'm wrong in my assessment that this Walpin issue will not ultimately be legally borne out, the findings in this lawsuit and/or other events would prove that in time, and once it is authoritatively decided in a court of law, we may then publish the decision of the case if it is deemed to meet the weight threshold. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid.

Finally, with regard to the literal meaning of the term I clumsily tried to use metaphorically, insofar as this is an encyclopedia, and what is most important is what is on the article page, it isn't our concern as editors whether someone was raised to believe something, picked it up in their adolescence, was convinced of it the moment immediately before they clicked onto this page, or read it here, it's whether we who are evaluating it editorially are putting it into the article because it tells a relevant, appropriate, well-sourced, NPOV and properly weighted issue in a clear and informative and NPOV way, not because we don't want to appear this way or that by arguing against something yet one more time. And, while I'm on a roll here, I'd like to point out that the more we are being distracted by addressing the chaff flying at this page, the more our adherence to sourcing, discussing, composing and publishing truly encyclopedic substance is suffering. Abrazame (talk) 08:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding that link that no longer works, here is a working link to the same article. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Abrazame, I disagree with your use of the word "tabloid." The Associated Press is not a "tabloid." Grundle2600 (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Here are some articles to prove how noteworthy his firing is: Washington Post, Washington Post 2, Washongton Post 3, New York Times, Boston Globe, Seattle Times, Chicago Tribune, Miami Herald, Politico, Politico 2, examiner.com, examiner.com 2, examiner.com 3, San Francisco Chronicle, National Review, ABC News, U.S. News & World Report, Altanta Journal Constitution, law.com, Youth Today, Fox News, Fox News 2, Fox News 3, Fox News 4, Fox News 5, Kansas City Star, Huffington Post, Brietbart, Salon, Wall St. Journal. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be in the transparency section, because it was Walpin's job to make sure the government was transparent, and he was fired for doing his job, and Obama claimed that the reason he fired Walpin was because Walpin was incoherent, but more than 100 prominent people signed a bipartisian letter claiming that Obama's criticism of Walpin was false. Either Obama is lying, or more than 100 prominent people are lying. This is relevant to the issue of transparency. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's a better source for the bipartisian letter that was signed by more than 100 people defending Walpin. The letter defending Walpin was reported on by U.S. News & World Report here, and that same magazine also put up a PDF of the letter here. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Abrazame, although I did want the Chrysler thing to be added to this article, as far as I remember, it was never added. However, for the record, it is a fact, not an opinion, that bankruptcy law says that secured creditors get precedence over unsecured creditors. It is a fact, not an opinion, that Obama treated Chrysler's secured creditors (the retired teachers and police officers from Indiana) worse than its unsecured creditors (the retired Chrysler workers). The Supreme Court did not say that what he did was legal or illegal - they merely said that they would not hear the case. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Abrazame. I agree with most of that, but I disagree regarding the weight. I think based on what I read that this one passes the threshold. Weight is more than just word count. This one has a slight weight, but also, there's only so much you can pare it down before the mention is too short to be understandable. Plus, I think my version could be further improved to get to the gist of what the bulk of the reliable sources are saying. If the result is still POV, I guess that's why we call it "editing" the encyclopedia than "writing"... continual refinement. I also agree that there are more important missing pieces, many of them, and it would be good to end the logjam and start adding some more content to bring the article more up to date. Wikidemon (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Newross has observed that the citations do not support the assertions, among other issues noted by him and myself. It seems recentism and snowballing some anti-Obama POV is the only reason there would be any dramatic need to revert this back into the article before the allegation has been responded to, and relevant changes made, by editors interested in seeing this in the article. Even then I would argue it may not belong, but prior to that, it certainly does not. Below, the passage as it appeared in the article after Wikidemon's cleanup. Abrazame (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Other administration personnel

In June, 2009, Obama fired Inspector General Gerald Walpin, saying that Walpin was "confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve." A bipartisan group wrote a letter to Congress to claim that the firing was politically motivated. Walpin had accused Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson (who the Associated Press identified as a "friend" of Obama's) and St. HOPE Academy, a non-profit organization, of misuse of several hundred thousand dollars of AmeriCorps funding to pay for school-board political activities (half of which was later repaid).

NPOV violations

QueenofBattle (talk) has repeatedly and disruptively reinserted a section—originally added by Wikidemon (talk) on behalf of the topic-banned Grundle2600(talk)—that is chock-full of blatant WP:NPOV violations:

Other administration personnel

In June, 2009, Obama fired Inspector General Gerald Walpin, saying that Walpin was "confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve."[11] A bipartisan group wrote a letter to Congress to claim that the firing was politically motivated. [12][13] Walpin had accused Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson (who the Associated Press identified as a "friend" of Obama's) [14] and St. HOPE Academy, a non-profit organization, of misuse of several hundred thousand dollars of AmeriCorps funding to pay for school-board political activities (half of which was later repaid).[15]

WP:NPOV violations:

• The sentence:

  Obama fired Inspector General Gerald Walpin, saying that Walpin was "confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve."

  is not a WP:NPOV summary of these two letters:

  Mr. Walpin was removed after a review was unanimously requested by the bi-partisan Board of the Corporation. The Board's action was precipitated by a May 20, 2009 Board meeting at which Mr. Walpin was confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the board to question his capacity to serve. Upon our review, we also determined that the Acting United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California, a career prosecutor who was appointed to his post during the Bush Administration, had filed a complaint about Mr. Walpin's conduct with the oversight body for Inspectors General, including for failing to disclose exculpatory evidence. We further learned that Mr. Walpin had been absent from the Corporation's headquarters, insisting upon working from his home in New York over the objections of the Corporation's Board; that he had exhibited a lack of candor in providing material information to decision makers; and that he had engaged in other troubling and inappropriate conduct. Mr. Walpin had become unduly disruptive to agency operations, impairing his effectiveness, and for the reasons, stated above, losing the confidence of the Board and the agency. It was for these reasons that Mr. Walpin was removed.[16]
  
  — Norman L. Eisen, Special Counsel to the President

  and:

  We are Members of the Corporation’s Board of Directors, a bi-partisan group of Presidential appointees appointed by President Bush and confirmed by the Senate. Our Board has an oversight role for the agency and we owe an obligation to the President, Congress and taxpayers to make sure that the organization performs effectively.
  
  As Special Government Employees, we volunteer our services on a part-time, intermittent basis, but we can assure you that we are fully committed to a high-functioning agency that strives for responsible stewardship over the valuable Federal funds appropriated by Congress to support national and community service. To do this, we rely heavily on the Office of Inspector General to provide leadership, expertise, and resources in making sure the Corporation is managed properly. We have benefitted from the good work of the Offices of Inspector General over the years and through several changes in Inspectors General.
  
  Over an extended period of time, we observed how Gerald Walpin's effectiveness as Inspector General significantly diminished. Without an IG who can focus time and energy on areas of greatest risk, we are hampered in effectively discharging our responsibilities to you and your colleagues. Our concerns became paramount after an event in May involving the full Board of Directors that caused us collectively to question Mr. Walpin's ongoing ability to carry out his duties. As a result, the entire Board unanimously asked our Chair to convey our concerns to the White House. We support the President's decision to remove Mr. Walpin.
  
  We need a strong, credible and respected Inspector General who will help give the Congress and the American people confidence that their taxpayer dollars are being used properly to support national and community service, and we look forward to reestablishing an effective working relationship with a new Inspector General.[17][18][19]
  
  — Board of Directors, Corporation for National and Community Service

  also, it was a June 16 letter from Norman L. Eisen, Special Counsel to the President, saying, not Obama saying, that Walpin was "confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve," which was corroborated by a unanimous June 17 letter from the Bush-appointed, bipartisan CNCS Board of Directors.

• It is improper and a blatant WP:NPOV violation to attribute a sentence from an article by Susan Crabree of The Hill:

  His defenders argue his removal was politically motivated, and that Walpin is an effective watchdog who blew the whistle on the president’s friends and pet causes.[20]

  to a letter by 145 of Walpin's friends that says no such thing:

  We have never seen Mr. Walpin to be "confused, disoriented [or] unable to answer questions." While none of us was present at the meeting referred to in Mr. Eisen's letter, we can report only that such an allegation is totally inconsistent with our personal knowledge of Mr. Walpin who has always, through the present day, exhibited a quick mind and a command of the facts (whether we agree with him or not) and eloquence — essentially the opposite of someone who is "confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions."[21]
  
  — 145 friends of Gerald Walpin

• Kevin Johnson has invariably been referred to in WP:Reliable sources, as he is in the second sentence of the June 12 Ann Sanner and Pete Yost AP article,[22] as "an Obama supporter and former NBA basketball star," not as an Obama "friend," as (noted above by PhGustaf) he was in one misleading, sensationalist headline[23] that is not confirmed by WP:Reliable sources. It is a WP:NPOV violation to cherry-pick a misleading, sensationalist headline to exaggerate Johnson's relationship to Obama.

• "misuse of several hundred thousand dollars of AmeriCorps funding to pay for school-board political activities (half of which was later repaid)"

  This is not what the Acting U.S. Attorney Lawrence G. Brown[24][25] and the Corporation for National and Community Service[26] said about St. HOPE Academey's alleged missue of AmeriCorps funds.

What does:

• a 77-year-old man becoming confused at a meeting with the board of directors of a small government agency
• a letter from 145 of Gerald Walpin's friends saying they weren't at the meeting, but he's normally not confused
• Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson
• St. HOPE Academy
• school-board political activities

have to do with a WP:Summary style article about the "Presidency of Barack Obama"?

Disputed, contentious material must remain out of, not in, articles unless there is consensus for inclusion, which there is absolutely not in this case.

The Never-ending disruption by Grundle 2600 trying to push the same WP:NPOV-violating material again and again and again into article after article after article, is an extremely disruptive waste of other editors time.

Grundle2600's community topic-ban from editing articles related to U.S. politics and politicians should be extended to their associated talk pages to stop this never-ending disruption. Newross (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do not use these talk pages to accuse editors of disruption. The content was proposed in good faith, with an attempt to be neutral and encyclopedic. If you have a behavioral complaint please take that to the right forum. Having said that, I respect your concerns about the neutrality and appropriateness of the content. I happen to disagree in part. Neutrality comes from accepting the reportage of the reliable sources, not from our own analysis here of politicians, political realities, and source documents -- in this case some letters and meetings. The letters themselves, one from a special counsel to the president and the other from the board that recommended Walpin's firing, are not the sort that one can take at face value. They're agenda-driven documents. Thus, we must approach them through the intermediary of presumably neutral journalists, who decide what is notable in them. Those journalists latched onto the confused, disoriented, etc., language, and most chose to report that rather than repeating the entire text of the letters. That is not surprising, because dirty laundry like that about public officials is rarely aired, at least not through official channels, when they are fired. It is encyclopedic, per summary style, to report this as the most noteworthy of the stated reasons. Further, even if it were not a fair summary, I don't get the connection of how that would be POV. Whose POV is that supposed to favor? Obama's presumably - that's a very serious charge to make about someone, so if there is any truth to it Walpin looks very bad. Of course if the claims are false or exaggerated it looks bad for the accuser. But nowhere in the encyclopedia content is there a judgment or speculation in that regard. Nevertheless, you are right that it was the lawyer, not Obama, who wrote the letter. That, along with the letter being self-serving, does decrease the importance of the statements - but again, they are reported in the press. I thought about summarizing this rather than quoting it, but it's tricky. What would you call the claims - allegations of personal problems? Erratic behavior? A legal claim against him? Any attempt to summarize such things runs the risk of downplaying or misrepresenting it. Sometimes you just have to let the quote speak for itself. The statement "His defenders argue his removal was politically motivated" is certainly a summary, and could easily be sourced - that's the gist of the controversy. The rest of that sentence does look like fluff, and you're right that offering an unreliable source's opinion is not too helpful. I'm not sure what your point is about the letter in defense of Walpin. It's interesting that such a letter was written to congress, and relevant - but other than saying that they defended him I think any attempt to validate the contents of the letter looks like fluff. We should characterize the relationship between Obama and Kevin Johnson as most of the reliable sources do. The claim that there is a relationship and that Obama was protecting it is crucial here, but if "friend" is not the best way to describe it we should find what is. You are also right that they did not repay half the money. They agreed to a settlement of the allegations that equaled half the money. What all this has to do with a summary style article about the presidency is that it is a short (5 sentences, could perhaps be 2-3) explanation of a significant but not earth-shattering event in the course of the presidency that held the attention of the public and journalists for a week or two. Determining which events are notable is their decision, not ours. We don't write history, we just report what others have written. But as with coverage of the letter, I can understand why. There's an allegation that Obama was playing politics by firing a minor political rival who was digging up some uncomfortable truths. Similar but more serious allegations were raised over the Bush administration firing federal prosecutors who did not do the administration's bidding. So people were watching out for that issue. It was one of the Obama administration's first firings, so that is of note. Further, somewhere in there was an allegation that Walpin was playing politics himself, misusing his position to try to undermine the president. Wikidemon (talk) 01:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to depart from my normally calm and cordial self to respond to this unnecessary and pompous attempt to pick a fight with me. And, I'll probably do it less diplomatically and with less class than Wikidemon, but frankly, you have just gone and pissed me off, and I am only required to assume good faith for so long. For the record, I have never met Grundle and I don't carry anyone's bags. I think for myself, and call things as I see them. So, Newross, to think that you can try to call me out and accuse me of NPOV violations (and "blatant" ones, at that) is irresponsible, pathetic and frankly a sure sign that your arguement is running out of substance. To suggest that I am being disruptive is equally, well, stupid. Deleting sourced material because you determine, in your unilateral wisdom, that it is a "blatant" violation of anything flies in the face of the collaboration we are seeking here. Go pout somewhere else if you can't contribute constructively and devoid of whiney-ness. I suggest you get your ass into the game and try to improve the article, rather than screaming at the top of your shrill voice about how another well-intentioned editor is being "disruptive" and POV. Now, can we get back to editing the article here without the lame attempts to e-bully me, Grundle, and Wikidemon? QueenofBattle (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Newross's comments about Grundle were out of place, and I suggest he strike them. But his analysis of the content seems sound -- the section as it stands reeks of WP:SYNTH, and is not consistent with the events. The matter made a small splash in the press, but is by now largely forgotten outside the WND axis. Perhaps if Walpin's suit sticks, there might be something worth including, but not now. PhGustaf (talk) 06:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If someone thinks my suggested wording is not good, then I wish they would suggest better wording, instead of removing the content. Obama campaigned to have the most transparent administration ever. Therefore, this issue is relevant. The article should mention that 1) Walpin accused Johnson of improperly using government funds for school board political activities. 2) Johnson gave back half the money. 3) Afterward, Obama fired Walpin. 4) The original firing did not have a 30 day advance notice, or an explanation, both of which were required by a law that Obama himself had voted for while Senator. 4) The relationship between Johnson and Obama. 5) Obama's claim that Walpin was incoherent. 6) The bipartisian letter from 145 prominent people claiming that Walpin was not incoherent; and 7) Walpin's lawsuit against Obama. What is the point of the article having a transparency section, if it doesn't mention one of Obama's most non-transparent actions, which were against a government employee who was doing his job of exposing misuse of tax dollars? Grundle2600 (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is an article from ABC News with a timeline of the events. It has now been about six weeks since the firing. If the lawsuit reaches a significantly high enough court, the lawsuit will deserve its own wikipedia article, and perhaps Gerald Walpin Firing Controversy could be undeleted. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If it isn't worthy enough to be delved into great detail on Walpin's own page, then it certainly isn't worthy of any mention here. Just more piling-on, coatrack criticism...and you admit that you have an ax to grind here by pointing out things like "Obama campaigned to have the most transparent administration ever"...that is unsuitable for the article. Tarc (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Tarc, it's very much worth mentioning in the Gerald Walpin article. You have still not answered my questions about why it should not be in that article. You keep saying that you answered my questions, but when I keep asking you to please quote your alleged answers, you never do quote them, because, in fact, you did not answer them. Here are my questions for you again: 1) Please explain why you think there's no "controversy" in the fact that Obama fired Walpin after Walpin accused one of Obama's freinds of corruption. 2) Please explain why you think there's no "controversy" in the fact that Obama justified firing Walpin by accusing Walpin of being incoherent, but then more than 100 prominent people signed a bipartisian petition saying that Obama's accusations against Walpin were false. 3) Please explain why you think The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The Seattle Times, The Chicago Tribune, The Miami Herald, Politico, The San Francisco Chronicle, ABC News, U.S. News & World Report, The Altanta Journal Constitution, Brietbart, Associated Press Salon, and the Wall St. Journal are not "reliable" sources. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Tarc, you said, "you have an ax to grind here by pointing out things like 'Obama campaigned to have the most transparent administration ever'...that is unsuitable for the article." Why would something that Obama said about transparency be "unsuitalbe" for the section on transparency? whitehouse.gov states, "President Obama has committed to making his administration the most open and transparent in history." How is that "unsuitable" for the section of the article on tranparency? Grundle2600 (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Because it is you with the accusation/assumption that the Walpin affair runs counter to the transparency commitment, not reliable sources; the RS you cite merely make note of the firing, and do make it out to be the hysterical conspiracy that you think they do. What you wish to do here is the very definition of synthesis, and is the reason why you have failed, continue to fail, and always will fail to get your way on this particular issue. I hope that clears up some things for you. Tarc (talk) 00:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

When Obama was Senator, he voted for a law that required an explanation and 30 days advance notice before firing an inspector general. When President Obama first fired Walpin, there was no advance 30 day notification, and there was no explanation. Those things were only added later on, after the press reported on it. That is a direct violation of transparency. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Er, yes, there was notification, [27] The president notified Congress on June 11th that Walpin was being terminated, said termination to take effect 30 days from that date. Why are you even arguing any of this if you are unaware of he basic facts of the matter? Tarc (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Recovery.org says government paid $1,191,200 for two pounds of sliced ham

Here is the link to recovery.org with the information, and here is a third party source in case a third party source needs to cited be in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there's an interesting story in here somewhere, but until a third party tells it and connects it somehow to Obama there's nothing for us to do here. And, obviously, americanthinker.com is not a reliable source. PhGustaf (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hotair, WND, americanthinker, grasping at straws, move along. Tarc (talk) 02:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I heard something about this on CNN and they reported that the 1 million paid was for sliced ham for soup kitchens, food banks, and other organizations that feed the needy. Brothejr (talk) 09:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I later heard it too, and that it was for many two pound units. It's too bad the people who run the recovery.org website didn't include that information. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It is equally too bad that nutty right-wing blogs interpreted the lack of information in an "OMG GOV'T WASTE" manner. Tarc (talk) 23:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No. They assumed the article was accurate. How were they supposed to know that facts were omitted? Grundle2600 (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You know what they say about assume. Tarc (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act

Obama signed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which bans flavored cigarettes, but makes an exception for menthol flavor. Perhaps one sentence on this could be added to this article, right after the part that already mentions his raising of the cigarette tax. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

This article from the Washington Times says that the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is demanding that the Justice Department explain why it dismissed the voter intimidation charges charges that it had filed against the New Black Panther Party. The commission suggested that the dismissal could encourage other hate groups to behave the same way, and that if the Ku Klux Klan had done the same thing the charges would probably not have been dropped, and that the same rules should apply to everyone. This should be mentioned in this article. Also, as I mentioned in the talk page archive, the voter intimidation was recorded on videotape, and the prosecution had been going very successfully. To just drop such a successful prosecution after months of hard work, and not explaining why, is very notable, and should be in this article. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The article does not even mention President Obama, so why would it be included in an article about the Presdency of Barack Obama? Carlo (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This wikipedia article is not about Obama - it's about his presidency. And as part of his presidency, Obama is the person who appointed the person who decided to drop the charges. That's why it's relevant. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Grundle, we know that you're biased and don't like Obama, and that's okay, but can't you at least TRY to be honestly neutral for the sake of the article? Carlo (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Please suggest how this information could be added to the article in a neutral way. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

White House Move to Collect 'Fishy' Info May Be Illegal, Critics Say

Souce This should be in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It's an interesting article for sure, but what are you proposing should be in the article from there? The fact that there are presidential staffers urging supporters to keep an eye out for perceived anti-Obama propaganda and report it to them might be noteworthy if it's a real program that persists and means something. If it's just a bad idea that got posted on a blog and gets shut down quickly out of legality / privacy / or public relations concerns, then it's probably no more than a blip (but might belong in some child article at the level of, say, online communications strategy of the Obama administration. I don't think Fox quoting its own analyst and then unnamed "experts" who speculate about the legality of the program is very useful, I'd like to see something stronger than that. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Obama book #1 on New York Times bestsellet list.

Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies by Michelle Malkin is #1 on the New York Times Hardcover Nonfiction bestseller list. This should be mentioned in the transparency section of this article. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Totally irrelevant to this article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The book is about Obama's presidency (the subject of this article), and it's the biggest hardback nonfiction seller of the week. That's relevant. It deserves one sentence in the transparency section. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

A partisan book needs more than just being a bestseller to be mentioned here. It needs (non-partisan) RS's commenting on this book showing it's importance to this article. And I doubt the nonfiction part even so I didn't read it, at least yet (which is hard anyway with all the books and other published "stuff" trying to "swallow".--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• This book belongs on Michelle Malkin's article, and that's it. Attempting to shoehorn it into several Obama articles does not look good. UnitAnode 03:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It's conceivable that this could be used as a source for the article, though only to reflect certain right-wing views of Obama's administration (which we'll ultimately want to discuss). It's not a "reliable" source in general though, no more than a fiercely partisan left-wing book would be.

Discussion of the book itself does not belong in the article at this point—political manifestos often make it to number one on the bestseller list so that ain't no thing. Hegemony or Survival criticized Bush administration foreign policy and was number one on Amazon's paperback list for awhile in 2006, yet you'll find no mention of it in the article text of Presidency of George W. Bush, as is wholly appropriate. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The New York Times citation of it being a bestseller is notable. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

To be more precise, being on the NYT bestseller list is conclusive evidence that the book itself is notable. That suggests that the book deserves its own article (which it has) and should be mentioned in the bibliography section of the author's article (it is). The question of where else, if anywhere, to mention the book follows the usual rules of Wikipedia content which, though not hard and fast, would require that it be relevant to the subject of the article, of sufficient significance (as cited to reliable sources) to the subject to be worth mentioning for WP:WEIGHT concerns, better said there than somewhere else, and a number of other things. As a relevancy and weight matter, the fact that Obama has had another book impugning his character written by an unabashedly anti-Obama political operative is not cited as affecting the course of the presidency (the subject of this article). As far as I know, ever president has been accused of corruption repeatedly throughout his administration by the opposing political party. It is only when those accusations have an affect (Watergate comes to mind) that an individual piece of prose can be said to make much of a difference. Wikidemon (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The amazon.com bestseller list is not notable - but the New York Times bestseller list is notable. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all that's simply not true (for example Amazon sales ranks are routinely reported by reliable sources like the New York Times), but more importantly you're missing the point that popular books about a president (whether popular or negative) generally will not need to be mentioned in articles about their presidencies. By the end of his 4 or 8 years there will be a bunch of Obama books that made it to bestseller lists and even to number one—are we going to give them all a sentence? Obviously not. Currently we do not mention any specific books in the text of this article which seems about right. As I said above, there may be a place for some of the specific criticisms advanced by Malkin in the book if they can be used as an example of far right critiques of the administration. But that would need discussing first. Also please be careful not to split other editor's comments. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. I am convinced by all of your arguments that the book should not be mentioned in this article. Thank you for explaining why. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Offshore drilling

This article currently states, "On February 10, 2009, Obama overturned a Bush administration policy that had opened up a five-year period of offshore drilling for oil and gas near both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts."

In the name of balance and NPOV, this new information about Obama giving a $2 billion loan for offshore drilling should be added to the article.

Grundle2600 (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Grundle, right above this is one of a series of your statements that you can be convinced by specific, informative responses. Why, however, do you expect us to keep giving you the same specific, informative responses? When an "article" begins with the credit "Posted by...", that's your indication that your source is a blog and not an article. You are entitled to make suggestions within Wikipedia's guidelines and standards. You are not entitled to post blog links here with the expectation that other editors will do your research for you. Wikipedia is not here to break news, to gossip about blog posts, to create dissonance, or to promote our favorite bloggers and partisans. We are here to discern when reliably sourced reports meet the thresholds for article inclusion set by Wikipedia in the encyclopedic tradition, and when you introduce a suggestion—any suggestion—with an opinion piece or a blog post you are essentially mocking this process you claim to want to be a part of, and toying with editors who have been patient and informative to you.

You have been told in the past that opinion pieces and blog posts are not reliable sources of notable information, and yet you continue to arrive here unprepared to participate in the way that you have previously stated you understand the need for here. Instead you bombard us with links and synthesis. Not only is the piece you cite a blog, but it itself cites an opinion piece and a website with the word "pundit" in the title. Did you click on those links to see what this blogger's sources were? If you have a desire to participate in Obama articles despite past issues, why would you not be doing so in at least the spirit if not the letter of following Wikipedia's editorial guidelines? The effect of this participation—writing of your acquiescence at the end of many episodes, yet returning in the same way to the same old plot with each new appearance—is only perpetuating the editorial irresponsibility and the Obama-slamming slant inherent in your earlier problems here. Abrazame (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Blogs from reliable sources are allowable, but perhaps that isn't one of them? Here is the same info from the Wall St. Journal - it's an editorial, but it's still reliable. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Please stop wasting our time. You know full well what constitutes a reliable source for factual information (no blogs, no editorials). At this point, you're just being disruptive. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Play nice guys! But yes, personal blogs and newspaper editorials are not reliable sources. There's some more nuance to it, but that's a good place to start. Once sources are found, we only have so much room in this article but there may be a sub-article about these specific oil fields or efforts. Wikidemon (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Assume good faith does not mean ignore bad faith. Grundle is topic-banned from editing these articles and so prefers to waste time repeatedly feigning unfamiliarity with WP:RS on the talk pages (apparently in order to use these pages as a repository for various partisan links and quotes). Tying up the talk pages with daily suggestions to add clearly inappropriate material really is just a disruption and I'm not going to pretend that Grundle is new to this or genuinely doesn't understand. He's managed to hijack this and several other talk pages with this nonsense (each time pretending it's the first time he's ever heard of RS). I would prefer rolling up this entire thread (why is there a references section on a talk page anyway?) and letting the editors get back to discussing the article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather not talk about editors here on the article talk page, which is why I said it in such an abbreviated way, but... I kind of like Grundle2600 as a fellow editor. He's friendly and agreeable, and he listens if you say something. He just seems to have a good faith skepticism about Obama, which he expresses by proposing sources that are never going to fly here. He's made some good contributions too. Topic ban or no, bad ideas are unlikely to get into the article, and he only wastes your time if you let him. A simple "no" would suffice most of the time, and if you don't even want to do that I'm sure someone else would jump in. Let me say this differently. I think it's just as easy to say "no" in a friendly way than a harsh way, and I don't think harshness is going to get most editors to back down any faster than patience. I'm cool with closing the thread. Maybe we should just give Grundle his own section of the talk page to make his comments. You might want to be bold in the future and move them all to a common place, under a common heading like "proposed sources" or "proposed additions". Wikidemon (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Give him his own section on the talk page? What on earth are you talking about? This isn't blogspot. This page is for discussing legitimate changes to the article, not amassing a coatrack of anti-Obama editorials. He can use his own user page for that if he likes. And yes, it does waste our time, especially given your rather bizarre assertion above that anything he proposes, if it is not objected to each and every time, must by default be inserted into the article (which is a fairly erroneous interpretation of consensus). Frankly, I'm running out of patience for such games and I'm clearly not the only one. My interest here is not to attack another editor (whatever their level of contribution) it is to return this page to its intended purpose. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon, thank you for your kinds words. I have created my own section of the talk page. This is the 12th subsection in it. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) I wrote this a couple days ago and neglected to post it. Here is my response of the other day> Wikidemon, I'm not surprised that you haven't noticed it, your often keen editorial judgement hazy with collegial affection, but Grundle already has his own section of this talk page. Indeed, at the moment, it's the entire bloody page. Did you read my first post here? He does not "listen if you say something." We have all said ad infinitum that blog posts and Op/Eds are not reliable sources for the Presidency article yet nearly every one of his suggestions has these as one if not the lead-off cited source. I'm not trying to round up a posse to scalp the guy, I'm trying to understand why a topic-banned editor would make no effort to properly present his suggestions unless it's his conscious intention to make this page what he's made of it, a collection of links to blogs and Op/Eds from Obama haters. For you to explicitly condone such a thing staggers me. I respect healthy skepticism. That's not what we have here, we have a Libertarian partisan. This is a free country and I respect Libertarian partisans too. Yet whatever one's political motivation, we all have to use the same editorial judgement. Regardless of sanguine denouements here and there, Grundle's actions—his continual blog and Op/Ed sourcing of often preposterous suggestions—are showing us that he has none, none whatsoever.

I don't have to reach outside of this topic for example. I point out to Grundle that his unreliable blog article is sourced to an editorial. Grundle turns around and responds that he's got another article supporting his suggestion, the exact same editorial. What part of that is listening, Wikidemon? Given that, where in this discussion would your simple "no" come in? He presses his point until he's sure two or three others have clicked on his links and read his bloggers and editorialists better than he has. I don't doubt that Grundle will arrive here and thank you, saying he respects your judgement in this matter, dazzling you with his agreeableness and seeming to make your point for you. What I do doubt is that Grundle will now learn this most fundamental lesson of encyclopedia writing, and forever after refrain from using blogs, Op/Eds and who knows what other unreliable sources (always with his or their synthesis) for things he'd like to add or remove or mitigate.

There is a particular editorial, written by John McCain's disgraced former economic advisor Phil Gramm a month or so before the election, which Grundle used a few months ago to source some synthesis of malaise about the administration's handling of the economy. I not only pointed out the RS violation in using an editorial in general, and I not only pointed out that someone's prognostications around September/October 2008 have no relevancy to the actions of the Obama administration in March or May or July 2009, but I spelled out who Gramm was (as well as the partisan co-writer) and put the piece in context. Since then I've seen Grundle use the exact same late-fall Gramm editorial as a source for two other "suggestions", including one where it was his primary citation. Why? Gramm isn't even acceptable as an example of a difference of opinion considering the backstory, not to mention the fact that the economy grew staggeringly worse in October and November and even a rational, reasoned, unsensational and nonpartisan musing would not apply to a completely different economic reality at a later date.

Your willingness to live in denial of the repeated, clear-eyed infractions of letter and spirit of editorial sourcing, to again name only one issue, because you "kind of like" him and find him "friendly" smacks of Grundle's own statement recently upon learning that a fellow editor on this page was also a Libertarian. Grundle stated that he would be more inclined to consider this Libertarian's editorial guidance. It isn't friendship or political commiseration that should guide our responses here, it's whether one's points have merit and whether delinquent participants are willing to learn the most basic guidelines of sourcing on such a notable topic as the presidency, or if they wish to remain delinquents.

It seems to me that Grundle might indeed be harmless to this talk page if he were to accept simple Wikipedia RS guidelines. His refusal to do that after dozens of times being instructed about RS policy strikes me that harmless isn't what he means to be. If Grundle is merely negligent, it has become malicious to persist in that negligence, and irresponsible for us to enable it. It borders on vandalism at this page, purposely besmirching the "A-side"—the article—by backing it with a running tally of every lousy partisan blog hack out there on its "B-side". As we've seen with the birthers, with the tea-baggers, with the town hallers hollering about "Death panels" et al, it isn't about whether or not something is rational or factual, it's simply about causing a dissonant death of a thousand absurd cuts. This talk page is not intended to be a compilation of such obscurantics, pun intended, of the article's subject; it's intended to be a sincere and constructive conversation about improving what is already in the article and adding truly substantive and well-thought-out, properly sourced and appropriately weighted new material when the impact of that material and some relevance to the Presidency becomes clear. Frankly, it's almost offensive to realize that the "guys" you're instructing to play nice are the responsible editors whose patience with this repetitive assault on this page has finally worn thin, and that your "guys" does not include the one waging the outwardly clueless assault.

I used the word "tabloid" in a previous thread on this page, and Grundle somehow misinterpreted that I meant the AP was a tabloid. I meant that with Grundle plastering anything with a whiff of breaking scandal here, "every bit of dissonance he can Google", I think was a previous phrase of mine, it is this page which becomes a tabloid, actually a place to come and view Grundle's endless parade, regardless of the fact that virtually all of it is patently unfit for the article. Indeed, he should have his own blog, but it should be elsewhere; and if, Wikidemon, you are amicably willing to dispense your "simple nos" along with whatever further explanation Grundle presses you for, perhaps that could transpire in e-mails between the two of you. It doesn't seem such a relentless publication of blog and Op/Ed links to starting-block detractors belongs anywhere at Wikipedia. This is an inappropriate commandeering of talk page space to push a collection of personal partisan synthesis, and has to stop. Respectfully, Abrazame (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if my source isn't the best, it's still important that people be aware of the topic in case they come across a better source. The Wall St. Journal would not lie. Even if the editorial can't be used in this article, it's still a starting point for learning about the topic, and for being aware of other sources that might cite it. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Court Orders Fed to Disclose Emergency Bank Loans

Bloomberg News reports, "The Federal Reserve must for the first time identify the companies in its emergency lending programs after losing a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit... Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, who led the biggest expansion of the central bank’s power in its 95-year history, was nominated to a second term today by President Barack Obama... Obama promised a new era of government openness when he took office in January, issuing a statement telling agencies 'to adopt a presumption in favor of disclosure' in responding to requests under FOIA."

This is relevant to the Transparency section of this article, because if Obama had kept his promise to honor these kind of Freedom of Information requests, there would have been no need to file a lawsuit.

I'm not saying it should be added right now. But perhaps it should in the future. The article says the lawsuit is called Bloomberg LP v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, which may one day deserve its own article.

Grundle2600 (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Grundle, it's hard to get mad at you because you're so consistently amiable. But surely you know by now that what's essentially a blog post about a lawsuit, posted by a party to the lawsuit, is not a reliable source. PhGustaf (talk) 22:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your compliment. If that source isn't reliable, I still think it's worth mentioning on the talk page so people can at least be on the lookout for better sources. In the meantime, pcmag.com, which I think is a reliable source, reports that the ACLU has filed a lawsuit over the rejection of a different Freedom of Information request. Although the original request for the information was filed under Obama's presidency, the event that eventually led to the request for information happened when Bush was still President. So the only part of this that's relevant to this article is the rejection of the request for information. Perhaps at some point in the future, that could be added to the transparency section of this article. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Cybersecurity Act of 2009

Cybersecurity Act of 2009 might be notable enough to deserve its own article. thomas.loc.gov has the text.

cnet.com reports that the bill, "... appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency...." and that "... If your company is deemed 'critical,' a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network."

Mother Jones has an editorial about the threat the bill poses to civil liberties.

Grundle2600 (talk) 04:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The Atlantic and Fox News also have articles on it. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Grundle's Playpen

One unfortunate artifact of Grundle having his own territory is that it defeats the archive engine. There are threads up there over two months old. PhGustaf (talk) 04:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This is my last post in this section of the talk page. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

August 28, 2009 DEA Arrests Medical Marijuana Grower in California

Reason magazine reports, "Last week, the Drug War Chronicle reports, the Drug Enforcement Administration made its first arrests related to medical marijuana since Attorney General Eric Holder promised not to prosecute people who are complying with state law." Grundle2600 (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Didn't we just talk about this a couple weeks ago? Is there anything that ties this specifically to Obama rather than any of his staff? I think this is an important issue for its own subject and article, but to belong here we would need reliable sourcing that says it has to do with Obama. Realistically, I doubt that Obama is strongly anti-drug as a criminal issue, given that he has used drugs in his days. But he is not pro-drug in the sense of encouraging usage. He has much bigger issues to deal with, and I doubt he would want to expend political capital, as they say, defending drug traffickers, even those who claim to do it for legitimate medical reasons. He's got health care, economy bail out, lots of other things. So it's not surprising that these more controversial small issues go to the back burner. My specific concern here is that it's not clear that Obama is supporting this program as a matter of his presidency, but rather that business as usual means that the Justice Department continues to investigate and prosecute drug sellers. Wikidemon (talk) 06:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did raise this subject a few weeks ago. But PhGustaf, in a section of the talk page titled "Grundle's Playpen," complained that every time I updated that section of the talk page, it prevented it from being automatically archived. So I promised that I would stop posting in that section, and I created this new section for new information on the topic, so the old section could be archived. This is a huge issue - on March 27, 2009, The New York Times reported that during an online chat with Obama, "after 3.6 million votes were cast, one of the top questions turned out to be a query on whether legalizing marijuana might stimulate the economy." So this is a big issue. This is directly related to Obama, because if he wanted to, he could issue an executive order to end the DEA raids. And even when it involves his staff, it still has to do with him, because he appoints his staff, and he is the boss of the federal government. Furthermore, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, in May 2008, Obama campaign spokesperson Ben LaBolt said that Obama would end DEA raids on medical marijuana in states where it's legal. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Not to downplay the serious, legitimate medical question, it's also a big issue among stoners, methinks. I think where we left it is that we don't have sourcing directly tying this to Obama. Your reasoning is all well and good, and may be right, but we do need sources making that connection - we aren't allowed to connect the dots ourselves: see WP:SYNTH. To illustrate, if one source says that Bob enjoys playing with Nerf balls, and another source says that Nerf balls are made of polyurethane, we cannot say without a source that Bob enjoys playing with polyuethane balls. The reasons for this are subtle and varied, and you would have to look at the SYNTH policy to see why. My guess is that there may be sources out there, and if there are, they will probably say that Obama does not want his name associated with marijuana because it is not an overwhelmingly popular cause. Promoting it will cost him support among people he needs on health care and economic policy, and he does not have the political capital to spare by getting behind an issue that will cost him more votes than it will gain him. At the same time he doesn't want to publicly say he's dropping the issue because that would cost him support on the pro-pot side. So probably he is deliberately avoiding the issue, which is why all you see are his underlings dealing with it. Again, there may be a reliable source that analyzes it from this angle. Other sources are likely to be speculative, or disgruntled editorials from pro-medical marijuana activists who feel he has broken a campaign promise, and those aren't going to be reliable per Wikipedia. Wikidemon (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This wikipedia article isn't about Obama per se - it's about his presidency, which includes the actions of the people whom he has nominated, and the agencies that he controls. I disagree with your claim that actvists "feel" that Obama has broken his promise. It is a fact, not an opinion, that Obama's spokeperson said that Obama would stop the DEA raids in states where it is legal. And it is a fact, not an opinion, that the raids are still going on in California, a state where it is legal. So this is not about how anyone "feels." This is about verifiable, objective facts. If Obama had intended to keep his promise, he would have stopped the raids with one simple executive order. It is a fact that Obama broke his promise. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You have an interesting point about the article focus. However, if this article were truly about every thing that happens in the Obama administration including all the acts of the executive branch it would be a very long article indeed, and we would have to change its focus considerably. I think we're all having trouble figuring out how to organize this, so maybe people can come up with a better way before the end of the administration :) Last time this specific item came up there were arguments brought regarding why this is not breaking a promise - arguable positions are not facts as such. They're opinions. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Obama bans Honduran citizens from entering the U.S.

examiner.com reports, "The Obama Administration has decided to block travel by the people of Honduras to the United States to punish their country for its Supreme Court's refusal to back the return to power of Honduras’s ex-president and would-be dictator, Manuel Zelaya, who is backed by left-wing Latin American dictators like Castro and Chavez. The Obama Administration is now blocking the issuance of nearly all visas, meaning that a Honduran grandma who wants to visit her grandkids in the United States can’t."

state.gov states, "... we are suspending non-emergency, non-immigrant visa services in the consular section of our embassy in Honduras, effective August 26..."

Grundle2600 (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Grundle, people might take your suggestions a bit more seriously if you chose sources that weren't full of ranting, partisan hysterics. U.S. to reduce visa services in Honduras is leagues better. Tarc (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, you're just being disruptive to make a WP:POINT now. Don't pretend that it hasn't already been explained to you that an editorial is not a WP:RS. This sort of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior is exactly what got you topic-banned in the first place. You've wasted enough of our time, I guess we have to take this back to an administrative level. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

state.gov is a government website, not an editorial. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Lifts Almost All Curbs on Family Visits to Cuba

This really warms my libertarian, Ron Paul voting heart. The Washington Post reported: "The Treasury Department formally lifted nearly all U.S. restrictions on family travel to Cuba on Thursday, along with limits on how much money families can send to relatives on the island. The department also eased regulations prohibiting U.S. telecommunications and satellite linkages between the United States and Cuba and licensing requirements for visitors engaged in agricultural and medical sales... The amendments expanded the definition of 'close relatives' -- previously limited to parents, spouses and children -- and said there would be 'no limits' on the frequency or duration of their visits to Cuba. Virtually all restrictions on money sent to Cuban family members were lifted." This information is notable, and it should be in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Polling data

That section is getting very long and disorganized, and there doesn't seem to be any real standard for which polls are mentioned or explained, and which are not. More numbers does not necessarily mean more wisdom here, and the section length is out of all proportion to the importance of polls to the presidency (though to be fair, there is a dearth of other content, perhaps due to an editing logjam and some uncertainty over how to summarize things so early into the presidency). Why not cut the entire section down to a couple sentences, and accompany it with a chart (there already is one, painstakingly prepared) that shows the polling results over time? - Wikidemon (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a chart showing the results over time is the best way to do this. Rasmussen Reports has a chart at this link. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

White House Discloses 10 More Ethics Waivers for Administration Officials

Since the article already cites some ethics waivers, these new 10 from ABC News should be added to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Not notable. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is notable, because the previous waivers are already cited in the article. To mention the earlier ones but not these new ones wrongly implies that the number of waivers is less than what it really is. The article should state the updated, correct number of waivers, not the old, outdated number. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That seems straightforward and uncontroversial given that we already go into detail on the first three waivers. I've updated the paragraph[28] to reflect that there are now ten more, without enumerating them. I've condensed the way the original three were described without I hope removing any information, so that this doesn't get unduly long. One thing that might be helpful is to describe the context of these waivers. Is it a brand new thing that former lobbyists cannot serve, and/or that there are waivers? Or is this an extension of a previous, perhaps more limited scheme? Wikidemon (talk) 03:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the article. I agree with you that there's no need to name the 10 individually. It was Obama's original idea not to have lobbyists serve - it was one of his campaign promises. Past presidents never had such a policy. Grundle2600 (talk) 07:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Claim that Obama's czars are unconstitutional

Senator Robert Byrd, CBS News, huffingtonpost, The Hill, and Politico have all raised the issue of the claim that Obama's czars are unconstitutional, because there is no Congressional law that created any of the czar positions, and also, because the specific people appointed as czars do not have the approval of the Senate. This deserves at least one sentence in this article. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

By the letter it's not unconstitutional, and all of those sources are talking about Byrd, not offering their own opinion. Grsz¹¹ 21:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether it's constitutional or not is debatable. Based on the text of the Constitution, Byrd has a very good argument in favor of his side, because the czars have never been approved by the legislative branch, as it required by the Constitution: The U.S. Constitution states, "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments." Grundle2600 (talk) 11:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Democratic Senator Russ Feingold has expressed the same concerns. Source: thehill.com Grundle2600 (talk) 11:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

"Czars" have been around since atleast Roosevelt, and they've always been viewed with that same concern. This is no more notable. Now, if they took action to start removing them, that would be a different issue. Grsz¹¹ 04:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Even considering he is not the first president to use czars, how about the fact he is supposed to be so transparent, yet somehow a self avowed communist ends up in his czar list? And nobody mentioned this to the public? Or how about Holder's brother, our Health czar, who believes in sterilization and selective breeding? I know wikipedia is obviously on the verge of liberal and socialist, but again no mention of any of this. Is it that either a.)wikipedia doesnt find these things to be issues/important to the public or b.) wiki doesnt want the public to know so their BOY obama doesnt look bad?

Poll Numbers

The Apporval rating section is a nightmare. The numbers contradict each other... The LA times reported value is 82%; but further down in that section it references his initial approval of 76%(obviously a different source). Either the polling needs to be from one source(e.g. Gallup) or it needs to be reworded more clearly such that the text is less contradictory.

Dont know when this was written, but his numbers now (9/21/09) are close to 50 now. His numbers on most issues (8/10 i think) are under 50% approval

I concur... It really needs some T.L.C. 68.187.219.254 (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is unbalanced.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view states, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors."

In cases where Obama has taken one position on an issue, and then later taken the opposite position, NPOV requires that the article cite both positions. To cite one position without citing the other, violates NPOV. I have cited examples of this in the talk page (some of which is now archived).

I plan to fix this problem as a way to improve the article. The wikipedia policy that I just quoted says that this is "non-negotiable."

Grundle2600 (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Grundle, do you have specifics for the rest of us, or is this just your heads up that you will be making these edits when your restrictions expire? Grsz¹¹ 17:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Here are the things that I am considering to possibly, maybe, eventually, at some point in time, add to this article. But I do not want to start an edit war, or upset anyone, or violate any rules, or get blocked or banned again:

Cabinet

On April 20, 2009, Obama convened his Cabinet for the first time, and ordered them to reduce the $3.5 trillion federal budget by $100 million.

Economy

Obama fired the CEO of General Motors and had the government take 60.8% ownership of the company. During the Chrysler bankruptcy, Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock accused Obama of violating the Fifth Amendment and more than 150 years of bankruptcy law by treating secured creditors worse than unsecured creditors.

Environment

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

Notable non-Cabinet positions

In September 2009, Obama's green czar Van Jones resigned after conservatives pointed out that he was a self described "communist" and had blamed George W. Bush for the September 11 attacks.

In February 2009, U.S. Senator Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) expressed concern that Obama's czars might violate the U.S. Constitution, because they were not approved by the U.S. Senate. U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) expressed a similar concern in September 2009.

Transparency

In May 2009, the Obama administration dismissed charges that had been filed by the Bush administration against members of the New Black Panther Party who had been videotaped intimidating voters and brandishing a police-style baton at a Philadelphia polling station during the November 2008 election. In August 2009, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights demanded that the Justice Department explain why it dismissed the charges.

In June 2009, Obama fired Inspector General Gerald Walpin, after Walpin accused Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson, an Obama supporter, of misuse of AmeriCorps funding to pay for school-board political activities. In a letter to Congress, the White House said that Walpin was fired because he was "confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve." A bipartisan group of 145 current and former public officials, attorneys, and legal scholars signed a letter that was sent to the White House, which defended Walpin, said the criticisms of him were not true, and said that his firing was politically motivated.

In June 2009, the ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to see documents related to laptop searches.

In July 2009, White House reporter Helen Thomas criticized the Obama administration for what she considered to be a lack of transparency.

In August 2009, Manhattan Chief U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska ruled against the Federal Reserve in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, and ordered the organization to identify the companies in its emergency lending programs.

< Sigh >

Here we go. Please don't go on an editing spree here, Grundle. It will not end well for you, and is counterproductive. UnitAnode 23:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that virtually all of these topics have already been discussed here with you—many during your topic ban—should we take this post as your announcement that you intend to ignore those talk page discussions when that ban ends? This is how you're anticipating your approach to editing at this page going forward? By machine-gunning half a dozen retired topics at once? I'm not sure I understand the point of reposting links to things you're "possibly, maybe, eventually, at some point in time" going to edit. Surely this doesn't mean that these are the only topics you intend to edit. And clearly you're not going to tackle it all at once. So basically, you're admitting that you're just spamming this page with links again, regardless of actual editorial intent and in disregard of talk page discussions that have refuted problems with synthesis, notability, weight, sourcing, and/or faulty logic inherent in your suggested additions. Abrazame (talk) 02:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

UnitAnode, thanks again for the excellent advice. I agree with you. I will start out small, with one edit. It will be something so good that if anyone erases it, it will be obvious that their erasing of it violates NPOV. Then I'll eventually add another. And another. I am very interested in the policy that NPOV requires all points of view to be included, and that it is not open for negotiation. Grundle2600 (talk) 05:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Abrazame, I am just planning to follow the NPOV policy that requires all points of view to be included. I enjoy editing many different kinds of articles, as is evident on the list of articles that I started on my userpage. Grundle2600 (talk) 05:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Obama administration orders critics of its proposed health care reform to be silent.

Politico just reported that after one health insurance company mailed its customers a flyer that was critical of Obama's proposed health care reform, the government sent a letter to health insurance companies ordering them to "to end immediately all such mailings to beneficiaries and to remove any related materials directed to Medicare enrollees from your website." Grundle2600 (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

thehill.com has also reported on this. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it is great that you're excited about editing this (and other related) articles again. Why not post suggested additions/changes/deletions to the article in the form of proposed text (even in rough form), rather than links to news articles (or blogs, which I don't believe are [[WP:RS|reliable sources)? Thanks, --4wajzkd02 (talk)

I have proposed text some times, but I don't do it every time. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Coolness. My point was only that we could discuss changes more effectively if you did so, or even noted how you'd like to see the article change in broad terms. My reason for stating this is that I found The Politico link in particular to be interesting, but wasn't sure how you thought the information would fit into this article - what are your thoughts? If not already there, I think this issue might fit better in the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 article. Regards, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Grundle, please tell in all of this time you've atleast read WP:NOTNEWS. Besides, both of those are from blogs. Grsz¹¹ 03:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

National Endowment for the Arts communications director Yosi Sergant resigns

ABC News just reported, "Embattled former National Endowment for the Arts communications director Yosi Sergant is out of a job. Late this afternoon, the NEA released a short statement saying, 'This afternoon Yosi Sergant submitted his resignation from the National Endowment for the Arts. His resignation has been accepted and is effective immediately.' The agency provided no further details. Sergant had been under scrutiny after leading a controversial conference call on August 10, where he encouraged artists to create work to promote the Obama administration's agenda. Sergant was initially removed from his post as communications director, but continued to work at the NEA." Grundle2600 (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Grundle, please tell in all of this time you've atleast read WP:NOTNEWS. Grsz¹¹ 03:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I added the ABC link to the Yosi Sergant article, but it doesn't seem worth mentioning here. Tarc (talk) 12:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Blogs & Op-Eds are not reliable sources

Per WP:BRD, I reverted one recent edit to the article. The reason? 2 of 3 citations were (a) a blog and (b) an OpEd, which fail WP:RS. The third was from The Politico, which I think is OK in terms of WP:RS, but redacting 2/3rds of the change and leaving that once sentence in left the article non-sensical.

Similarly, one of the citations in this edit is a blog, and hence not reliable. I did not undo that addition, but the blog citation must be replaced with a reliable source or that part of the addition removed.

I suggest the author of those edits either re-add the text with appropriate sources, or discuss here. Thanks. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Blogs from mainstream news sources are allowable as reliable sources. More and more often, the word "blog" appears on news articles on their websites. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Cite, please. And what about OpEds? The policy seems to contradict your assertion. --4wajzkd02 (talk)

Since are you OK with my using The Politico in that instance, I think that info should be put back in the article. Even if it's all by itself, it's still notable and relevant. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You haven't learnt a thing, have you? How long is it ago that you topic ban ended? A few hours? And it all starts again. Please discuss changes here first. Thank you SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 17:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you look for WP:RS for the other two points, and add the whole thing back when you find them? WP is not a collection of information, nor is it a news source. Adding just that fragment in doesn't add to the article, rather it seems WP:POV pushing, i.e., "let's dredge up every negative fact I can find with a WP:RS and just tack it into the article", which I assume you don't mean. Weave the same information into the article with appropriate text and reliable citations, without violating WP:UNDUE, et voila, you have an improved encyclopedia. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

4wajzkd02, the fact that you only erased a little bit, and that you also suggested that it could be added back later with better sources, well, you seem to be a lot different from the other people who just go and arbitrarily erase everything that I add. Thank you for that, and for your good advice. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You are most welcome, Sir. When I first made the foray into editing political articles, I was a bit intimidated by some of the edit warring and other less than pleasant behaviors in them. A nice editor told me to "not let anyone chase you away from editing any article you like". I say the same to you. I'll just add that you should consider slowing down a bit, now that you've made some quick edits, and see if you can't find a way to re-add everything you want but in a way that fits WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. Keep smiling! --4wajzkd02 (talk)

I'm not sure how to proceed from here. It would be good to add a few things so the article doesn't remain stuck in April, 2009. Grundle's proposed text regarding Van Jones and the czars needs better sourcing and some wording changes but it's basically okay, balanced, of the right length, etc. Firing the president of GM is worth including. I've argued against some of the other things before and remain unconvinced: the "going against bankruptcy law" isn't really the best way to say it, and probably belongs in its own article. Helen Thomas' comment is interesting but not significant enough to include here. And the whole black panther voter intimidation lawsuit dismissal thing is a minor incident tied to a low level justice department official, not worth repeating here. Just my two cents. Back to Van Jones, I would probably point out very briefly the intermediate role of Glen Beck or the conservative media more generally but without editorializing, saying that Van Jones resigned after a controversy that occurred after the conservative press mentioned past claims of being a communist and highlighted his calling Republicans assholes, etc. The "czar" thing is tied to that and politically motivated of course, but it's actually a rather important question of the president's administrative discretion. It may go nowhere but it could be a moderately important issue of the presidency. We'll see what Congress does. Wikidemon (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon, thank you for judging each of those things on its own merits, instead of just blindly wanting to erase everything. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)