Talk:Political positions of Barack Obama/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Opening Discussion on this Article to be Deleted

I have opened a discussion for this article to be deleted at [AfD discussion page]. Essentially, I think this topic should be handled at Barak Obama Presidential Campaign 2008 or possibly at a Barak Obama (section Political Positions). --Manawyddan (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Various abortion-related edits

I made a few corrections and additions to the section, "Abortion and contraception," including the following:

1. However, throughout the course of his candidacy, Obama has avoided labelling himself as either pro-life or pro-choice. -- Removed this sentence; it is factually incorrect. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3_mqxFmPlU

2. Throughout much of the campaign, Obama had managed to maintain the middle ground on the issue. -- Removed this sentence; violates NPOV policy.

3. Obama opposed the Induced Infant Liability Act. Added information to this sentence clarifying that it was in the Illinois state legislature, and briefly described the purpose of the act. New version: "In the Illinois state legislature, Obama opposed the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have extended legal protection to infants born alive after a failed attempt at an induced abortion."

4. Obama is reported to have opposed it because of technical language that might have interfered with a woman's right to choose and because Illinois law already required medical care in such situations. -- The second part of the sentence presents Obama's position as factual and undisputed, so I clarified that it had, indeed, been disputed, with a link to one such opinion which provided an explanation.

5. woman's right to choose -- Opinion-based term; replaced with "abortion's legal status."

6. Clarified that he said he would support banning some late-term abortions, as long as the woman's mental and physical health were not in question.

7. Cited his endorsements by NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood, consistent with his pro-choice policy.

User The Magnificent Clean-keeper reverted the edits in question, with "POV edit" given as reasoning. I contended they were all factual and consistent with NPOV policy, so I restored them. User Tvoz again reverts my edits and insists I take this to the talk page, so, if anyone could provide information as to which edits are incorrect/biased/unsubstantiated/otherwise controversial, it would be appreciated. Thanks. -- Brandon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.196.97.194 (talk) 03:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm with the anon on this one, terms like "a woman's right to choose" are loaded. - Schrandit (talk) 04:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not enough. This article is under Obama article probation, meaning that major edits should be discussed and consensus reached before making them. If edits have been reverted by two editors, that means that this matter needs to be discussed, and other editors weigh in, and consensus reached. Just because you agree, doesn't mean you should have reverted the edit. I'm putting it back where it was, and suggest that arguments be made about why the wording should be in or not, discussion, then edit as agreed.. Tvoz/talk 05:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. The current wording contains highly POV language and is not necessarily factual. The proposed change uses neutral terms and is factually accurate. Anyone object? - Schrandit (talk) 05:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

As a process matter, indeed so. Although this[1] does not seem like a terribly major change in the article, and I don't really see either version as an NPOV problem.Wikidemon (talk) 05:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

So would you support the proposed changes? - Schrandit (talk) 07:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Although I disagree that "a woman's right to choose" is a loaded term, I fully support the proposed new wording here. I also fully endorse the policy of seeking consensus for potentially-contentious changes on this talk page before implementing them. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) The new wording is better, and I'm not sure how the prior stuff got in there. "maintain the middle ground"? Sorry, but that was a complete falsehood. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright then, with that in mind I'll revert to the newer wording. Sorry if I disrupted the vetting process for changes to the material. - Schrandit (talk) 00:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, it looks like this is back up for dispute again. Any reason that the introductory sentence is objectionable? I really don't see how the term "a woman's right to choose" isn't POV. - Schrandit (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I said the same thing in my comment above. I endorse your revised wording. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

What I removed was this, a portion of the overall edit. I think we can do without overly-wordy "born alive after a failed attempt at an induced abortion", especially as the whole "born alive" phrasing is a particular POV of anti-abortionists. Also, "he asserted Illinois law already required medical care in such situations " (bold is Schrandit's addition). No, it it not an assertion, it is a plain matter of reading what Illinois law actually says. Obama was reciting what the law says, it is not a matter of opinion. The National Review is hardly a reliable source as to the matter; their bias is abundantly clear. Tarc (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

In Neutrally worded language, how would you describe what happens to children who are born despite attempts at late term abortion? I think the above language is about as accurate as one can get to the truth and I'm not really sure how else one would describe an infant "born alive". Per his assertion, can you find a source to back that claim? I'll change the unchallenged language back. - Schrandit (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Your anti-abortion push around the Wikipedia is quite clear, going by your edit history. It isn't gonig to fly here, however. Tarc (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

We all have our points of view, I'm pretty open about mine. We follow the rules and talk things out to come to the closest version of the verifiable truth we can cobble together. I'm not pretending to come at this issue without preconceptions but I think my requests were reasonable. - Schrandit (talk) 03:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Referring to opponents label "born alive" abortions: Could we add this statement Obama stated in 2001:

“If we’re placing the burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as – as is necessary to try and keep that child alive, then we’re probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality.”

http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf

BTW – I note that there is labeling going on here thus I want to be clear upfront I am pro-abortion.
--OxAO (talk) 02:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed from article

Obama's widely reported on education policy regarding opportunity scholarships has been removed from the article [2]. Where in the encyclopedia would it be appropriate to include this notable content? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

How about Wikinews? In any case, it is not a political position so it doesn't belong here. In fact, this isn't even the right place to pose that question. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, Scjessey. Are you arguing that actions the Obama administration takes regarding it's declared political positions does not belong in an article on Obama's Political Positions? Then you better get to editing the Iraq section, because it does just that. Information on what the administration DOES regarding its political positions is as pertintent as the positions themselves.--Manawyddan (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say yes, that one should not try to infer political positions from acts of governance. The voucher thing is an event, not a position. As for placement, assuming it is notable (looks like it is), it might fit in an article about the program, the bill or regulation that enabled it, an article about education in the District of Columbia, or something specific like that. It does not seem to be noteworthy in proportion to the overall weight of Obama's presidency or political outlook so I wouldn't include it in the Obama summary articles. But see our earlier discussion - I really wish there were a timeline or some better way to jump quickly to a chronicle of all of Obama's acts as President. Wikidemon (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

So, would you say that the details of Obama's decision to draw down troops in Iraq to 50,000 should not be included here, and only his declared positions during the campaign regarding draw-downs should be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manawyddan (talk • contribs) 04:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what specifically you are referring to. If it is a plan, proposal, position, etc., and suitably sourced as such, it makes some sense to work that in. If it's simply an act, with no sourcing as to how that relates to what his position is on the subject, then there is no basis for including it. That is as true for Iraq as it is for an education policy. There are certainly more central places to include Iraq troop drawdown material, e.g. the article about the war, or the presidency article. However, on the face of it the Iraq war issue seems closer to a cognizable and important policy of Obama', whereas the school voucher issue is a relatively small issue much farther afield from major policy questions, and only hints of a partisan issue that has been getting relatively less attention recently, namely school vouchers. Wikidemon (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

1) All positions in politics are partisan. 2) www.barackobama.com explicitly states that Barack Obama does not support vouchers. The stated policy of the administration was to totally defund the D.C. voucher program. Under POLTICAL pressure by D.C. Democratic politicians and protesting parents who almost certainly voted for Obama, his modified position is to fund the program for the next 12 years until those currently in it have graduated. 3) I don't understand why the line shoud be drawn on how "big" an issue is considered to be.

I think the disagreement here comes down to "what is the difference between a POLITICAL POSITION and a POLICY?" The answer strikes me as quite simple. Candidates and private citizens have political positions. Elected executives have policies. If we are only going to cover political positions here, then the article should be retitled "Poltical Positions of Barack Obama in the 2008 Presidental Election". But then, if we do that we are stepping on the 2008 Presidential Election article. This article is either a) utterly redundant and should be excised, or b) it has a chance to be something useful and not accomplished elsewhere: a middle ground between Obama's political positioning in the campaign and executive policies that documents how Barack Obama's campaign positions affected his policy decisions and how (and to the degree) his policies carried through on his positions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manawyddan (talk • contribs) 13:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we agree. I was just heading towards a, and you're heading towards b. Also, I might be alone in this but I would add "party platforms", "actions", "campaign promises", and a few other things that are related but not quite the same thing as a political position. To jumble them all together can confuse them. Wikidemon (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a really good idea. But do we need a section called "party platforms"? I mean platforms rarely conform to the positions of the presidential candidate, even incumbent candidates. I'm still open to a), although I was enthusiastic about b). I'll settle for whichever is more likely to happen. --Manawyddan (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Obama has stated that if it were proven that vouchers worked, he would be in favor or them.

Therefore, I propose that this be added to the article:

Regarding school vouchers, in February 2008, Obama said, "If there was any argument for vouchers it was, all right, let's see if this experiment works, and then if it does, whatever my preconceptions, my attitude is you do what works for the kids." However, in March 2009, Obama signed legislation which brought an end to a successful voucher program for nearly 2,000 students in Washington D.C. Although the Washington D.C. public school district spends nearly $13,500 per student, and the vouchers for private schools were only $7,500 per student , a federal study of the voucher program concluded that the voucher program was a significant success at providing students with a better education than that of the city's public schools.

Grundle2600 (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Protip; whenever you begin to formulate an addition of the form "Obama said...(source1), however Obama did...(source2)", you've washed ashore on the Isle of Synth. Paddle away, quickly. Tarc (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Projected tax revenues from Obama's tax increases

The article said that Obama's tax increases would lead to increased tax revenue. In the name of balance, I have added other sources which claim that such tax increases would create incentives that would cause people to alter their behavior in ways that would lead to tax revenues going down, not up. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It's all rather impertinent because it seems to concern early campaign era tax policy, which has little to do with what happens after he is elected. Also, these changes[3] are POV for sure (arguing that Obama said X, "although he had been told" Y", especially when Y is a controversial economic claim. I continue to think the entire article is mis-focused, but getting into arguments and editorials against Obama's positions goes even farther afield. Wikidemon (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The information that Obama was given is relevant, because it shows that he's more interested in punishing success than he is in raising tax revenues. If he really wanted to raise tax revenues, he would cut the capital gains tax. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of this article is to describe Obama's political positions. Your opinion of those positions is irrelevant. This been explained to you dozens of times in the past. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidemon that it hardly matters what Obama promised anymore and editorializing about the presuppositions of his promises is only compounding the problem. On the other hand, Obama *does* have an established political position from the campaign regarding the raising of taxes and the resulting revenue. When asked about whether it would be better to cut taxes in order to raise more revenue, he said that raising them on the upper income brackets was preferable anyway because it is more fair. Perhaps a subsection could be added for this.Manawyddan (talk) 04:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Insistence on a story about a deserter

Since Boyd Reimer (talk · contribs) appears to be ready and willing to edit war over it, let's get some more opinions. Is a story about an Iraq War deserter relevant to an article about the political positions of Barack Obama? This user claims that it is since it happened during Obama's term of office. A rationale which I find to be a bit weak, as it simply isn't a political matter. Thoughts? Tarc (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Tarc, for initiating this discussion. I, too, would like some other opinions on this matter.

The root word of “political” is “policy.”

Policy (ie “politics”) is carried out through actions. Therefore actions dictate what is, or isn’t, a “political (policy) matter.”

Both the charge and the conviction of Clifford Cornell occurred over a month after Obama became Commander in Chief of the Military that did the charging and the convicting.

In fact, just four days after that Obama-governed military charged Cornell with desertion for refusing to fight in the war in Iraq, Obama made a speech about exactly that war, and said, “I want all of you to know that there is no higher honor or greater responsibility than serving as your Commander-in-Chief.” By stating that, Obama was acknowledging his policy-making role in the military in the prominent second paragraph of that Iraq War speech. See http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/us/politics/27obama-text.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1

I agree that Obama has made a commitment to end the war in Iraq. But that is a political position of the future. No one knows the future. But we do know the past. The past shows us that he intends to punish conscientious objectors to that war until the date comes that he set for ending it.

This is a significant clarification in policy because it shows that he does not think that it is a “dumb war” until the date comes that he set for ending it. This clarifies the statement he made on Oct. 2, 2002, about the war in Iraq, in which he said, “What I am opposed to is a dumb war.” See http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88988093

The charge, conviction, and indeed the sentencing, of Clifford Cornell are a clarification of that statement. Clarification is what Wikipedia is all about, as I understand it.

As Commander in Chief of a military that sentenced Cornell to one year in prison, Obama has assumed ultimate political responsibility for declaring the Iraq war “not dumb” until he ends it in 2010. This is informative to Wikipedia readers who assumed that Obama may have thought the Iraq war was “dumb” in the present—as opposed to “dumb” only after Aug 31, 2010.

If the military, of which Obama is Chief, had turned a blind eye to Clifford Cornell, then there would be no policy set. But the acts of charging, convicting, and sentencing to one year in prison are all very strong “active” acts of policy. They are not passive, nor neutral acts. They are policy-setting, and therefore they establish a political position.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

In order to make it easier to refer to the facts, I have included my contribution below:

During the first few months Obama was Commander in Chief of the United States Military, it charged and convicted U.S. soldier Clifford Cornell of desertion, and sentenced him to one year in prison for refusing to participate in the Iraq War. The charge occurred February 23, 2009, (in Obama's second month), and the conviction occurred April 24, 2009.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

However, the problem is that this article is on the political positions of Barack Obama, not his actions. It's understandable that you may not like Obama or you may not like some of his actions. That is understandable. Yet, this talk page, and even Wikipedia itself, is not the place to debate these issues per WP:NOTFORUM. I suggest, that instead of arguing this issue, focus instead on the content and how to improve this specific article. If you feel that this issue/topic should be placed in Wikipedia, then it should first be discussed at this talk page: talk:Presidency of Barack Obama where it is more appropriate then here in the political positions article. Brothejr (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for you comments. It appears that you are saying that "actions" and "positions" are completely divorced from each other. On the other hand, I see them as one and the same.

I am curious: Are there any other Wikipedia editors out there who see "actions" and "political positions" as completely divorced from each other? If Wikipedia is dominated by people who take that position so strongly that they jump to quickly delete a well referenced contribution (within 5 minutes--and in teams of three experienced editors), then perhaps I have placed false hopes in Wikipedia.

Please notice that my contribution contains nothing about "liking" or "disliking" anyone. It is simply a contribution of facts. Boyd Reimer (talk) 21:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not use this page to complain about other editors or the state of Wikipedia. The talk page is for discussing within reason proposals for improving the article. See WP:TALK for guidelines on use of talk pages. This article is about political positions. There is another article that covers the presidency overall. However, the material you are proposing does not appear to involve Obama to any significant degree, except by your own personal reasoning. Please review WP:WEIGHT regarding the need in a summary article such as this to cover issues if at all only in proportion to their relative importance. Further, please review WP:SYNTH regarding placing content on a page that the sources do not directly attribute to the subject of the article. There may be an article on the individual in question, in which case that would be the appropriate place to add content relating to the incident.Wikidemon (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

If an organization can jail someone for a year without the head of that organization having any control over that jailing, then that organization is, by definition, "out of control." (ie out of the control of its head) This is pure logic.

Yet Obama stated in his speech that he is proud to be the head of that organization....that is (logically) not in his control.

Logically speaking, he can't have it both ways: He logically has only two options: Either he is proud of being head of an organization which is out of his control, or he must accept, as his "political position" the actions of that organization--especially actions as strong as jailing someone for a year for conscientiously objecting to a war which was a central issue in his election campaign of "political positions." Boyd Reimer (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This is veering off into the absurd. A soldier was convicted for desertion by the USMJ. Standard practice. That is all there is to the story. You appear to believe that this sets up a conflict between Obama's anti-war position and his being CiC when a deserter was sentenced. That supposition is not supported by the sources though, which is why WP:SYNTH was shown to you earlier. We cannot take sources and apply our own distillation. Tarc (talk) 12:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If President Ford can end a war and declare a clemency for deserters from that war, then, why can’t President Obama? The only reason I can think of is that it's Obama's "political position" to allow the USMJ to imprison conscientious objectors to the Iraq war: Here is a quote from Michael Shaffer, a deserter from the Vietnam War: “After six months in the Army, my application for CO status was denied and I was told that I would be going to Vietnam. I refused to draw my weapon and was ordered court-martialed. On Labour Day 1970 I was able to escape and cross into Canada....During President Ford’s Clemency Program in 1975, I went to Fort Dix seeking the “Undesirable Discharge” offered to deserters who turned themselves in. The Army decided that I wasn’t eligible and court-martial proceedings were resumed. With help from the ACLU, I was released and two years later a Federal Court ordered the Army to discharge me Honourably as a Conscientious Objector” See http://www.letthemstay.ca/michael_shaffer.htm Boyd Reimer (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The question is not whether Obama has the authority to change the army's policies on conscientious objection and desertion. The question is whether any reliable sources have treated this issue as a political matter (as opposed to a matter of military justice) and noted Obama's responsibility for it. As far as I can tell, the sources you provide do not treat this incident as a political matter, nor do they note Obama's responsibility. (The Edmonton Sun link is dead, so I can't check that one.) But no matter how sound your logic may be, it's original synthesis unless a reliable third party has made the same connection.

By contrast, the military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay are both a matter of military justice and a political issue, because they have been widely discussed in a political context, and Obama has been criticized both from the right and the left for his Guantanamo policies. Obama and his spokespeople have addressed the military tribunals on mulitple occasions. Has the president or any Administration representative addressed this specific case, or the issue of military desertion on the grounds of conscientious objection? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Josiah, in order to address the military tribunals here, you will have to beat back those who say what Obama *does* as president is irrelevant to his "political positions". If you attempt to post Obama's policy actions regarding Gitmo you will find it necessary to mention what he promised previously. And certain contributors here feel very strongly that what is promised is all that matters. If you proceed in this fashion, you will likely face an edit war from those who will claim that you are engaging in WP:SYNTH.

I agree with you, FWIW, not because Gitmo has been discussed in a political context but because the actions of an executive are his political positions. Boyd Reimer is wrong, because he is ascribing a non-action as a policy position, even though Obama (to my knowledge) has never taken a position regarding deserters. If he had taken a position, it is probably the opposite of pardoning them, since he is currently engaged in a GWB-like Surge in Afghanistan.Manawyddan (talk) 07:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Manawyddan.

You say that “Obama (to my knowledge) has never taken a position regarding deserters” I should point out that Clifford Cornell was jailed for deserting a specific war, the War in Iraq

The fact that Obama claims to be honoured to be Commander in Chief of the US military means to me that his position is the same as the Military’s position until he states otherwise. Imagine if Obama, in his Iraq war speech of Feb 27, 2009, had said the following: “I feel honoured to be your head even though your actions don’t reflect my position.” Does that sound right?

Would anyone go so far as to say that Obama is not responsible for the actions of an organization of which he is the head? What is the difference between “being responsible for the actions of your organization” and “holding the same position as your organization?” Not much, as far as I can see.

Therefore, in a way, my information about the one year imprisonment of Clifford Cornell is a truism. You might ask, “why bother posting a truism on Wikipedia?” The reason: to clarify Obama’s position as stated in the important first paragraph of the entire article (not just the section on Iraq). That first paragraph speaks of a policy which will “end the war in Iraq.” Clifford Cornell was a deserter from a specific war: the War in Iraq.

Clarification is one of the main functions of any encyclopaedia- especially clarification about the introductory paragraph of an entire article. Boyd Reimer (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, at this point people are just repeating their arguments. In case it wasn't clear before, I object to inclusion of any of this in any form, due to lack of sourcing, relevance, weight, NPOV policy, and SYNTH. Each of those is a formidable barrier, and I do not see the remotest possibility of it getting into the article unless there is strong, reliable, neutral sourcing that indicates that this is a major position of Obama's. There probably won't be because it probably isn't. Although the leader of any organization is to some extent responsible for every act of the organization, every act of the organization does not make it into the biography, for reasons that should be obvious. You can pick up the newspaper every day and perhaps 5-10% of the news copy is about something done by the executive branch of the American federal government. If we put all of it into the article, the article would have tens of thousands of sections, and would not tell the reader in any useful way about Obama's political positions. Wikidemon (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, to add onto what wikidemon said: this discussion is veering off into personal debates over Obama, war, and deserters. Let me remind everyone that this talk page is not the place for these types of discussions per WP:NOTFORUM, WP:SOAP, and WP:TALK. Please keep discussions on the content within this article and specifically content to add this article. Brothejr (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

When Is It SYNTH

The Political positions of George W. Bush article says "George W. Bush's political positions have been expressed in public statements, and through his actions as President of the United States." So, if Pres Obama's stated position and his actual policies don't precisely merge, is it SYNTH to mention them both? If not, which should be the preferred position?Manawyddan (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

An editor can't say "2 + 2 = 4". He needs a reliable source for the "4". PhGustaf (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Manawyddan - thank you for pointing that out. When I added the quote of Obama's campaign promise to stop DEA raids on states that legalized medical marijuana, no one objected. But when I later added that the raids were still continuing after Obama's inauguration, and a quote from a Democratic member of Congress asking Obama to clarify his position, someone else erased it. When a politician says he takes one side on an issue, and his actions are in support of the other side, the article should mention both. The fact that the Bush article and the Obama article are being treated differently is quite interesting. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Beyond the all important "If you have a problem with how things are done on the GWB article, take it up there, not here, otherwise stop whining about it" reminder, how one handles rhetoric vs. actions is always going to be a difficult issue. One of the areas where Grundle2600 got into trouble was with the use of words like "However" when expressing the differences between Obama's rhetoric and his actions, which tends to create a false dichotomy by highlighting the differences. There is also going to be situations where an action complies with one bit of rhetoric while also violating another. An example of this would be the "cigarette tax" that Grundle tried to push in earlier as showing that obama violated his "No new taxes for anyone making less than 250k". Even though Obama was talking about payroll taxes, some have interpreted that as being no taxes at all and as a result, when Obama signed the bill that raised cigarette taxes, they pointed at that tax and did the hand waving and complaining about Obama violating his campaign promise. However, even if he did violate the no new taxes promise, the raising of the cigarette tax is in compliance with his promise to lower health care costs. The higher a pack of smokes cost, the less people smoke, the less likely they are to get lung cancer and the other health care issues they incur, thus reducing health care costs, etc. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I don't have any problem with the Bush article. It's the Obama article that I have a problem with, for not being as honest about hypocrisy as the Bush article is. Secondly, on the cigarette tax thing, no one has ever cited proof that Obama was only talking about income taxes. Third, when Associated Press quoted Obama's promise not to raise taxes on people making less than $250,000, it was the same article that suggested that by raising the cigarette tax, Obama may have been breaking his promise. Fourth, I think it's open to interpretation if Obama broke his promise or not, and I just wanted the readers to have all the facts so they could make up their own mind. Fifth, I eventually cited a single source that pointed out Obama's hypocrisy on the marijuana thing, so there was no need to use the word "however."

This is what I had added to the Political positions of Barack Obama article. Please note that it's all from one article, so there is no synthesis:

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."

And this is what I wanted in the Presidency of Barack Obama article:

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, your claim that he was only talking about income taxes is exactly the opposite of what the source states.

Grundle2600 (talk) 21:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we should use that statement in the Bush article (which has been in existence many years longer than the Obama article) as an example of how to write the Obama article. Since it's OK for the Bush article to include actions as well as words, then it's also OK for the Obama article to mention actions as well as words. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems very reasonable. The some might be needed to be directly attributed to avoid a Who? tag.--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

consistency on wikipedia topics has always been a huge problem. for the love of god people, If the article of the president you hate isn't held to the same standard of the one you love and you don't fight to get them consistent then you are worthless as an editor.--71.82.133.21 (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't "love" Bush. I voted for Harry Browne for President in 2000, and Michael Badnarik in 2004. And I don't love McCain either - I voted for Ron Paul in 2008. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Split?

This article is now 160 internets kb long. I propose that its three main sections be split off into Economic, Foreign and Social political positions of Barack Obama, with a precis of each left here. What say you? Totnesmartin (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely getting heavy and if not now, within the next 6 months will need to be split. Another possibility (as the majority of the article concerns campaign positions) is to split it into the campaign positions versus the presidential policies. This might make more sense as we've kind of meshed two different subjects here under the umbrella of "political positions." --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a possibility - then one of the articles would be permanently stable, and one would grow, perhaps to split next year as you say. But it would mean two articles, both still very big. Let's see what other people think before we rush into this. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is unbalanced.

Closing as moot
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) 17:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Again, a fundamentally flawed interpretation of WP:NPOV. Tarc (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC) And it's perhaps unwise to approach wikipedia editing with a "plan". If your plan involves a return to your old posting modus, your return from your ban is likely to be short. PhGustaf (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Tarc, wikipedia's NPOV policy is stated very clearly, and my understanding of it is accurate. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC) PhGustaf, if Obama expresses two differing positions on an issue, why do you think the article should only mention one and not the other? Grundle2600 (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC) No, I'm right!!!! (just kidding, I haven't even said anything yet) Anyway, I think the main problem with the article is that it's at a deadlock, because every single change gets a lot of scrutiny and discussion, so we can't keep the article updated as fast as events are occurring. It's outdated. Secondarily, I think that the structure of the article is flawed, which only makes it harder. I mentioned this a few times months ago. That when Obama says or does something, is it a "position", an "opinion", a "belief", a "policy goal", a "promise", a Presidential "act", etc? The word "position" is kind of murky and nonspecific. So the whole premise of the article is a bit off. Perhaps candidates for office can be said to have "positions", i.e. formally stated principles, credos, or indications of approval or disapproval of given issues, plans, and laws. But once someone is in office, what really counts is what they do, what they say, and how they operate, not what they formally say as their position on things. Wikidemon (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC) That's why I think the article should cite their words and their actions. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Reason magazine is a reliable source.

Closing as moot
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Chicago Tribune said that Reason magazine is one of the 50 best magazines. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC) You know full well that opinion articles are not reliable sources for anything other than the opinions of their author. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

DEA Raid

Close as stale (4+ months old)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There seems to be some quick editing on this - latest version is here.[4] I don't support this as presently worded. The edit summaries seem to suggest that this is introduced as evidence of "flip flopping" or actions contradicting words. It is not for us to make those claims, and the source does not tie this raid to Obama's drug policy (but rather the announcement last week that such raids would not happen). Introducing the sentence with the word "however" is a clue that we're performing SYNTH and creating POV here. See WP:AVOID#However, although, whereas, despite. Further, there is usually no contradiction between believing a criminal law should be changed, and enforcing the current law as long as it remains on the books. If city council decides to increase the speed limit from 30 to 50 miles per hour on a road, the cops will give out tickets for cars going 40 until the signs are changed. Even if one could find reliable secondary sourcing, that is not the subject of the article. So there is a weight and relevancy issue here. The subject here is what Obama's political positions are, not characterization of Obama as being hypocritical, indecisive, contradictory, or whatever. In an article on medical marijuana in California, or the federal drug policy, this one raid might deserve a brief mention. If we do decide that this is important enough to include, a neutral way to say it would go something like "In June, 2008 the DEA announced that it would no longer lead raids against medical marijuana dispensaries. A clinic in San Francisco was raided the next week" (after which, no raids were performed for x years? or "a series of raids were conducted over the next month" or whatever the future brings - this should be updated when we know more). Wikidemon (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Wikidemon (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC) As an alternative to these edits by Grundle2600 and Dr.enh: 19:13, 10 May 2009 Grundle2600 (talk | contribs) (→Marijuana decriminalization and medical marijuana: Reason magazine claims that a news article in the San Francisco Chronicle proves that Obama has not kept his promise to stop the DEA raids) 01:37, 16 June 2009 Grundle2600 (talk | contribs) (→Marijuana decriminalization and medical marijuana: I'm the one who created this section. Now I'm adding this new info for balance, to show that Obama has flip flopped.) 04:05, 16 June 2009 Grundle2600 (talk | contribs) (→Marijuana decriminalization and medical marijuana: Maurice Hinchey (D-New York) asked Obama to clarify his statements, because the DEA conducted a raid after Obama said they would stop) 18:41, 16 June 2009 Dr.enh (talk | contribs) (→Marijuana decriminalization and medical marijuana: actions contradict words) I substituted: 19:25, 16 June 2009 Newross (talk | contribs) (→Marijuana decriminalization and medical marijuana: remove misleading, out-of-context statement; restore statement of official policy; restore four of six references supplying context) On March 26, 2009, Obama administration U.S. Department of Justice spokesman Matthew Miller said the Department's official policy is: "We will not prioritize federal resources to target medical marijuana facilities unless they are violating state and federal law." "We're not enforcing state law," Miller said. "We're enforcing federal law, but only for those facilities that violate both state and federal law," he added. Miller said the new policy was a significant departure from the Bush administration, which went after dispensaries that did comply with state law.[5][6][7][8] But even this is an Obama administration U.S. Department of Justice policy—not a political position personally articulated by and sourced to Obama—and so, like Grundle2600 and Dr.enh's DEA raid WP:SYNTHESIS, does not really belong in this article. Newross (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC) The criticisms of my edit are flawed readings of Wikipedia policy. "However" is appropriate and not POV. Structures where two alternatives are contrasted are more likely to have this problem than situations where the word is used to emphasize a notable change. (From WP:AVOID#However, although, whereas, despite, bolding is mine.) Saying X, then doing not X, and then saying X are notable changes. There was no WP:SYNTHESIS in my contritution. I did not say, A(cited) and B(cited), therefore C(not cited). I said, A(cited) and not A cited. No synthesis. Obama's stated policy: his administration will not enforce these laws. Obama's currect, actual policy: his administration is enforcing these laws. To quote Scjessey 02:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC) above on this talk page: the scope of this article is "Political positions of Barack Obama - for political statements and actions made during his entire political career, including stuff while he was not holding public office" (my bolding). The current wording is biased, in that it fails to include the actions of Obama's administration. --Dr.enh (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Do you have a reliable source that says that Obama has a current active policy of enforcing the marijuana laws, that Obama has stated a policy position not to enforce these laws, and that the two are in contradiction (or are in any way related)? If you don't find that all in the same source, it's synthesis. Wikidemon (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC) I did find this pretty easily: "President Obama, who had pledged to back off federal raids on medical marijuana users and sellers...despite some Drug Enforcement Agency raids that were conducted soon after Obama transitioned into office.". I assume more digging would yield more of the same. - Schrandit (talk) 06:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC) It's relevant that a U.S. House member who supported Obama's original statements has expressed concern over the ongoing raids, and gave Obama an official written request for him to clarify his position on the subject, so I have added this 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 the subject. 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) 02:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC) This article is not going to become your personal laundry list of "Obama did this, but some people say that happened, "Obama said this, but some people say he did that instead" criticisms. It is simply not going to happen, grundle, and until you understand the why's and the how's of editing policy, this is is just going to run on and on in endless frustration. Look at Political positions of George W. Bush for example. The Iraq war is arguably the most divisive position the man took in his 8 years in office. All it gives is a blurb about what he did and why he did it. I'd be just as opposed to a parade of lefties cramming stuff in there about yellowcake, the Surge, or al-Qaeda as I am opposed to...pretty much everything you've done here. Tarc (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC) I'm confused by this stance, Tarc. Hasn't it been agreed that a Political Positions article has nothing to do with actual actions of Pres Obama, and only to do with declarations of position? You bring up a good point with the George Bush Political positions of George W. Bush article. It says "George W. Bush's political positions have been expressed in public statements, and through his actions as President of the United States." So, if Pres Obama's stated position and his actual policies don't merge, is it SYNTH to mention them both? If not, which should be the preferred position? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manawyddan (talk • contribs) 20:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC) I think we should use that statement in the Bush article (which has been in existence many years longer than the Obama article) as an example of how to write the Obama article. Since it's OK for the Bush article to include actions as well as words, then it's also OK for the Obama article to mention actions as well as words. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Another DEA raid

Closing as moot
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) 06:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC) In May 2008, Obama campaign spokesperson Ben LaBolt said that Obama would end DEA raids on medical marijuana in states where it's legal. Source: San Francisco Chronicle Grundle2600 (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC) This discussion is continued on the section of this talk page called, "Medical marijuana." Grundle2600 (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Health care

Closing as moot
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
According to breitbart, in 2007, Obama said that his plan would eliminate private health insurance. In 2009, he said that his critics who claimed that his plan would eliminate private health insurance were wrong. This should be included in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC) Jerry picked snippets don't mean shit. (excuse my french but the latter is my favorite phrase). Are there any WP:RS's that picked it up? If the answer is "yes" please provide them; If the answer is "no" forget about it.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC) Breitbart is a legitimate source. The quotes are accurate - they even have a video of Obama saying it. They did not "cherry pick" anything. The information is relevant and well sourced, and should be included in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Politico has this new article on this topic, which quotes Obama as having said, "I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be, potentially, some transition process: I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out." That's a very reliable source, and it's very relevant, so it should be included in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC) Sorry, still nope. Heck, if you actually read the article you would have read that article, you would have read that the statement is being called a misstatement and is actually refuting the statement. Brothejr (talk) 13:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC) It is a verifiable fact, from reliable sources, that Obama said those words. There's even a video of him saying those words. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC) And there are videos, statements, and responses that says he doesn't believe it anymore. This is mainly a game of dirt digging to provide more fuel for a political fire. We are not here to fuel various lobbying groups fight against health care reform nor do we report every little bit of dirt on the president. We are also not here to publish "The Truth". On a final note: this dirt digging of yours Grundle2600 is getting a bit old. Every time you try to bring up some "new" piece of dirt on Obama, weakens your argument and causes us to ignore you more. Please take that as a helpful hint. Brothejr (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC) They aren't saying that he "doesn't believe it anymore" - they are saying that he never said it in the first place. Since he did say it at one time, and since it was quoted by politico, and since there is video evidence of it cited by breitbart, it should be added to this article. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC) This is an article about Obama's political positions. The evidence from breitbart and politico shows that Obama said those exact words regarding a political position. Therefore, the statement should be in the article. Wikipedia:NPOV 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... The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with the conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic found in reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic, each must be presented fairly... all of the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, and not just the most popular. An article should not assert that the most popular view is the correct one, nor should this be implied by mentioning some views only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions... Wikipedia is filled with reliably sourced non-neutral statements, so the elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy solely on the grounds that it is "POV". Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but should not endorse any particular point of view. Instead, articles should provide background on who believes what, and why, and on which points of view are more popular. Detailed articles will often contain evaluations of each viewpoint, but these, too, must studiously refrain from taking sides... All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence... Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves... When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion..." Grundle2600 (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC) I'd have to say the only problem here is your own POV and how it seems you have issues separating your own bias from editing neutrally. NPOV does not mean we must go and counter every good thing with every bad thing. The one portion of NPOV you are forgetting is the issue of weight. We cannot give more weight to a negative view/criticism/etc then is portrayed in the mainstream media. Brothejr (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC) I'm asking for a few short quotes to be included in the article, not a 20 page essay. When a politician cites two opposing positions on an issue, the article should cite both. To cite one but not the other is a violation of NPOV. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC) This discussion is continued in the section of this talk page titled, "Politico and Breitbart are reliable sources." Grundle2600 (talk) 11:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Paying females staffers less than males assertion.

Input desired on Hallett87 (talk · contribs) and this user's many attempts to get this, IMO, distorted factoid into the article, i.e. [9]. User is already at 3RR at the moment, but let's see if maybe this can provide a solution first. Tarc (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a distorted factoid; the reference itself indicated that the matter was not important. Hallet87 has not been forthcoming with edit summaries or talk contributions, which is a bad sign. Let's wait till he digests the warnings you and wikidemon left for him. PhGustaf (talk) 18:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me what about the post you found to be distorting of the facts. User:hallett87

Your post said the issue had "attracted some controversy" when it hadn't. In fact, a main point of the article you first cited was that the pay differential was a matter of title and seniority rather than sex discrimination, and that a representative of NOW supported this point. There is no controversy involved that except that which you've created yourself. PhGustaf (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

So clearly you do not dispute that the core of what I was saying is true. If I posted a link to a video where a person who introduced Sarah Palin at a rally criticized Obama for this issue, would that be sufficient evidence for you that Obama attracted controversy? User:Hallett87

That some staffers who happen to be male make more money than staffers who happen to be female? No, that is not the dispute. The dispute is you giving spin to an issue and claiming controversy where there is none to be seen, which is called synthesis around here. And no, political opponent's stump speeches would not be worthy additions to the article. Tarc (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

FACT: Barack Obama paid women on his senate staff less than the men on his senate staff. FACT: Barack Obama had more men in senior positions on his senate staff than women. FACT: Barack Obama was criticized for this. None of this is disputed. Maybe the pay discrepancies are legitimate, maybe they are not. That is not the point. The point is the pay discrepancies exist and it did create some controversy. Also, the entire point of the second article was to criticize Obama on this issue. It was clear because the author clearly stated that equal pay begins at home. So please tell me what your problem with the second article was. hallett87

And sometimes a man is hired for a position instead of a woman. Does that automatically make it a sexist decision? No. Again, you appear to be creating a "controversy" where there is none to be had. The article you cite is an OpEd, which does not qualify as as reliable source. Tarc (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This all looks like soapboxing on an issue that has little to do with Obama, is not a "political position", and is best discussed on some other page relating to gender pay disparity. One could probably find tens of thousands of people and organizations in the US that have been criticized on the subject, and we don't need to repeat this criticism tens of thousands of times. It's a complex issue having to do with the lingering effects of historical discrimination, the composition of the workplace, availability of candidates, and in some cases, the career choices made by people of different sexes. None of that is specific to Obama. Off-Wikipedia, those who are criticizing Obama on this score are doing so for their own political agenda, whether that be conservative opposition or liberals who want him to do something, or just people for whom that is their major issue. Even if we could source this, the fact that a criticism is made is of only marginal relevance to Obama's actual positions. To get into any article it would have to be sourced as a significant enough issue per WP:WEIGHT. The fact that criticism is made, and that it is based on real facts, is not nearly enough to pass the hurdles of noteworthiness / relevance, neutral POV, and so on. Wikidemon (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It should be included. Of course Obama's pay differential between women and men is "a matter of title and seniority rather than sex discrimination," as PhGustaf accurately claims. An article entitled "Gender Wage Gap Is Feminist Fiction" from the libertarian Independent Women's Forum stated: "A study of the gender wage gap conducted by economist June O' Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, found that women earn 98 percent of what men do when controlled for experience, education, and number of years on the job." However, even though the claim that "women make 76 cents on the dollar" that liberals frequently make is also based on "a matter of title and seniority rather than sex discrimination," this has not stopped liberals from constantly, repeatedly, complaining about the this gender pay gap, again and again and again. Obama should be held to the same standards that Obama holds other employers to. Just as Obama's gender pay gap is "a matter of title and seniority rather than sex discrimination," so is the gender pay gap of employers that Obama accuses of gender pay discrimination. Obama should be held to the same standards that Obama holds other employers to. Therefore, this criticism of Obama should included in the article. It is incredibly hypocritical that the only time liberals attribute the gender pay differential to "a matter of title and seniority rather than sex discrimination," is when the accusation of discrimination is made against a liberal politician. In all other cases when an employer is accused of paying women less than men, liberals, including Obama, never blame this pay differentiatial on "a matter of title and seniority rather than sex discrimination." Therefore, to not include this in the article is just one more example of how this article is biased against including viewpoints that are critical of Obama, and thus violates NPOV. Grundle2600 (talk) 08:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You have just stated that you know the accusation in your proposed edit is untrue, but you intend to place the accusation into the article anyway because these edits and suggestions of yours are part of a larger battle with liberals that you feel ceaselessly compelled to wage at Wikipedia. Bro, you need an outlet someplace else, and you need to get it now. Encyclopedias do not purposely place untruths in articles to make a political point, or to balance out other perceived untruths. To reek of partisanship and antipathy for the subject of an article, as you do, is one thing. But when you openly acknowledge that you intend to knowingly place untruths into a political Obama article for a personal partisan vendetta against perceived hypocrisy the very week you come off a three-month Obama topic ban—and do it concurrent with your personal pledge not to edit Obama-related articles as a gesture of good faith that got an arbitration request closed by the requesting editor—you are making a mockery of everything you say, promise, do or intend, and a mockery of every sincere and patient effort in good faith (and there have been many) to explain an encyclopedic standard or elucidate an issue for you. You show on a daily basis that temporary topic bans and personal declarations of restraint mean nothing and have no effect on your editorial state of mind or behavior. You should be banned not only from editing political articles but from participating on their talk pages, as you have shown repeatedly that you prefer to absolutely flood them with trumped up partisan synthesis to proper editorial sourcing, and you intend to hold talk pages hostage to deflecting your inane and unfounded "suggestions", compelling us to call you on every shred of your disingenuousness and explain issues to you rather than you reading more than one screed to learn about them yourself. Because of you, each archive of an Obama article contains more discussion of and links to your puerile presentations of unfounded synthesis than of real issues; indeed, more than the articles themselves contain links to accurate sources. Any further discussion of this issue with you would be absolute insanity. Any editor familiar with the protocol of doing so should instead request an administrative review of your actions to implement a permanent reinstatement of your political article ban. Abrazame (talk) 09:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I am saying that Obama should be held to the same standards that he holds everyone else to. I said, "Starting right now, I am taking a voluntary break from editing all political articles for the next 96 hours. I am doing this as a gesture of good will. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)." I never said anything about the talk pages. The purpose of this is so I can concentrate 100% on discussion and establishing consensus, instead of just haphazardly editing articles. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon, you said that this is "not a political position." The "Equal pay" section of this article has been in the article for a very long time, and you have never criticized it or erased it. Only when an Obama critic holds Obama to the same standards that Obama holds everyone else to, do you claim that it's "not a political position." Please explain why you do think it's a "political position" when Obama makes the claim of discrimination against employers, but it's "not a political position" when the exact same claim of discrimination is made against Obama. Grundle2600 (talk) 08:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This is how the original appeared:

Barack Obama has attracted some controversy for paying his male sentate staffers more than he paid the women on his senate staff.

On the chance that this does get put back in, I am suggesting it be changed to this:

Conservative opinion columnist Deroy Murdock accused Obama of hypocrisy for paying his female Sentate staffers less than his male staffers.

Grundle2600 (talk) 10:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If no one provides a reasonable explanation for why the article should not include this information, I will add it to the article.

When a politician says he favors one side on an issue, and his behavior is the opposite, then NPOV requires that the article mention both of these things: "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 all editors."

Grundle2600 (talk) 11:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again you find a lone, minuscule, irrelevant and (of course) partisan voice that caterwauls about a perceived "controversy". Also once again, you do not have the slightest comprehension of [WP:NPOV]] if you think that that policy justifies adding this material. Tarc (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Envrionment

Closing as moot
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A search for "environment" hits twice: a tangential remark about Antarctica, and a link to an external website. The link is broken. Barrack Obama has positions on the environment, they are political ones, and they're important. They are of course tied into his energy and other policies, but should be explicitly laid out. Also, the dead link should be removed. The Obama administration has committed $2 billion in loans to support offshore oil drilling. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC) So, how do you suppose the (apparently aptly named) hotair.com rates as a reliable source? PhGustaf (talk) 02:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC) OK. That's an excellent point. However, Fox News has also reported on it. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC) In August 2009, the Obama administration committed $2 billion in loans to support offshore drilling. For a long time, the article has cited Obama's opposition to offshore drilling, and no one ever complained about it being in the article, or removed it. Unless anyone can reasonably justify why the article should not be updated with adding Obama's new action in favor of drilling, I will add it to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC) No one has reasonably justified why the article should not be updated with the new information. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC) On the contrary, you have not reasonably justified (or even explained) whatever it is you're seeking to add to the article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Obama wants to raise taxes on the middle class

Closing as moot
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The New York Times just reported, "Although cast as a tax on gold-plated insurance policies for the well-heeled, it has prompted anxiety among the middle class... The supposedly Cadillac insurance policies include ones that cover many of the nation’s firefighters and coal miners, older employees at small businesses — a whole gamut that runs from union shops to Main Street entrepreneurs... Under the Baucus plan, insurers selling a plan costing more than $8,000 for an individual and $21,000 for a family would have to pay a 35 percent excise tax on the excess amount... The tax would be levied on insurers — or on employers that act as their own insurers. Either way, the tax would very likely be passed along to workers in even higher premiums than they pay now... On Sunday, President Obama... defended the tax." This should be mentioned in this article, because it contradicts Obama's claim that he would not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 per year. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC) It looks like, in your never-ending quest to find defamatory material about Obama, you've confused him with Max Baucus. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC) It says that Obama supports Baucus's proposal. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC) If no one provides a reasonable explanation for why the article should not be updated with this new information, I will add it to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC) OK. It's been more than 10 says since I first made this suggestion, and no one has provided a reasonable explanation for why the article should not be updated with this new information, so I will add it to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Again, Grundle: Editors make suggestions all the time but not always get a positive feedback or in this case, there is only a negative feedback to it. So I (personally) would hold back with any edit in this regard and would go for more (mildly aggressive?) discussion before adding anything to the article. If I have a good point it will find it's way into the article by consensus with other editors. Get the "drift"?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Grundle, don't pretend this hasn't been explained to you repeatedly. It is not up to other editors to convince you not to add something. It is up to you to convince other editors why it should be added. The fact that many editors grow weary of your antics and don't respond to every single thing you post shouldn't be mistaken for a green light. --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Politico and Breitbart are reliable sources.

Closing as moot
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
And so is the video of Obama that is linked to from one of those sources. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC) A video by Pam Key on her NakedEmperorNews.com website—featuring intentionally misleading, out-of-context quotes by Obama and others—is not a WP:RS. A Pam Key NakedEmperorNews.com video does not become a WP:RS when Andrew Breitbart features it on his Breitbart.com website. A Pam Key NakedEmperorNews.com video does not become a WP:RS when Matt Drudge features it on his DrudgeReport.com website. A Pam Key NakedEmperorNews.com video does not become a WP:RS when Matt Allen at Politico.com reports that it has been cited by Linda Douglass (White House Office of Health Reform director of communications) in a video on the White House "Health Insurance Reform Reality Check" webpage as an example of intentionally misleading, out-of-context disinformation. Newross (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Breitbart and Politico are reliable sources, and anything that they cite, including the quote and video, are valid material for the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC) I added the POV and Advertisement tags to the Health Care section because this paragraph was removed from that section: "In March 2007, Obama said, "I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be, potentially, some transition process..." " Grundle2600 (talk) 13:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Newross, since you claim the quote was taken out of context, please explain what Obama meant when he said those words. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC) I see that someone has removed the tags. I thought that wasn't supposed to be done until the dispute was resolved. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC) The section on health care in not supposed to be a puff piece to make Obama look good. Instead, it is supposed to accurately report his positions the issue - even the ones that might make him look bad. Without the bad stuff, the section is POV and looks like an advertisement. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Newross, I asked you, "Since you claim the quote was taken out of context, please explain what Obama meant when he said those words." So far, you have not answered my question. Since Politico is a reliable source, if you continue to not answer my question, I will eventually put the quote back in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 08:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC) In March 2007, Obama said, "I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be, potentially, some transition process..." Grundle2600 (talk) 11:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC) If no one provides a reasonable explanation for why the article should not include this information, I will add it to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC) At the March 24, 2007 presidential candidates health care forum co-sponsored by the Center for American Progress and the SEIU at Cox Pavilion at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas—six weeks after Obama announced his candidacy on February 10, 2007 and nine weeks before Obama put forward his health care reform plan on May 29, 2007 at the University of Iowa—Obama was one of seven Democratic presidential candidates who answered questions from moderator Karen Tumulty of TIME and the audience. During the 23-minute Obama question-and-answer session, one 2-minute answer by Obama was in response to a 1-minute question from Tumulty that referenced the bipartisan Wyden-Bennett bill that had been introduced nine weeks earlier on January 18, 2007. What part of: The NakedEmperorNews.com Pam Key video mashup "SHOCK UNCOVERED: Obama IN HIS OWN WORDS saying His Health Care Plan will ELIMINATE private insurance" is NOT a WP:RS. do you not understand? Newross (talk) 20:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC) My source is Politico, which is very reliable. The quote is in the text of the Politico article, which is very reliable. The quote is one of Obama's political positions, and this wikipedia article is about his political positions, so the quote is relevant to this wikipedia article. Newross, I asked you, twice so far, "Since you claim the quote was taken out of context, please explain what Obama meant when he said those words." Now this is the third time that I am asking you. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC) You can watch the video and read the transcript of the 23-minute Obama question-and-answer session at the March 24, 2007 health care forum if you want to understand the context. Your source is: The NakedEmperorNews.com Pam Key video mashup "SHOCK UNCOVERED: Obama IN HIS OWN WORDS saying His Health Care Plan will ELIMINATE private insurance" which is not a WP:Reliable source. The end. This discussion in finished. Newross (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC) You said that Obama's statement was taken out of context, but you did not explain what Obama did mean when he said it. Since I already asked you what he meant three times, and you did not answer, I will not ask you again. Obama's quote appears in the text of the Politico article, which is a reliable source. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC) Politico is a reliable source, and the text of their article cites the Obama quote. Furthermore, although Newross states that the quote was taken out of context, he has refused my multiple requests to explain what the quote actually means. Therefore, I am adding the quote back to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC) I put the quote back in. Then Loonymonkey erased it, and commented that the quote was "ridiculously misleading." Loonymonkey, please explain how the quote is "ridiculously misleading." Grundle2600 (talk) 23:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC) It has been a week, and Loonymonkey has not answered my question about how the quote is "ridiculously misleading." Grundle2600 (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Medical marijuana

Closing as moot
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I added the POV and advertising tags to this section because this part has been removed: "In August 2009, the DEA raided a medical marijuana grower in California, a state where medical marijuana is legal." Grundle2600 (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC) For those who claim that Reason magazine and the San Francisco Bay Times are not reliable sources, here are some more sources: Associated Press, Los Angeles Times, Lake County News, NORML, and stopthedrugwar.org. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC) I see that someone has removed the tags. I thought that wasn't supposed to be done until the dispute was resolved. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC) The section on medical marijuana in not supposed to be a puff piece to make Obama look good. Instead, it is supposed to accurately report his positions the issue - even the ones that might make him look bad. Without the bad stuff, the section is POV and looks like an advertisement. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Associated Press reported, "Officials say federal and local agents raided two medical marijuana dispensaries in the Los Angeles area and arrested the owner. The Los Angeles County district attorney's office says drug task force agents served a state search warrant at the Organica Collective in Culver City, at the Overland Gardens Collective in West Los Angeles and at a home on Wednesday. Drug Enforcement Administration spokesman Jose Martinez says agents from several agencies seized about 100 pounds of marijuana, about 200 live plants and about $100,000 in cash." Why should this not be cited in the article? Grundle2600 (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC) The person named in that source is different than the person named in my other source. That means I can put it in the article without it being a revert. Whoo hoo! Grundle2600 (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Since the concern was that the source was not reliable, I added a brand new Accociated Press citation about a brand new, different DEA raid that names a brand new, different person. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Someone has removed the Associated Press citation of the DEA drug raid. Such removal of relevant, well sourced information is inexcusable. When a politician says he has one position on an issue, but he acts the opposite of his claim, the article should cite both of those things. Obama said he would stop the raids, but his true position is that he is still continuing them. If he truly wanted to stop them, he would have issued a simple one page executive order to do so. Furthermore, NPOV 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 all editors." Grundle2600 (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Ok, What exactly is your point and your intention, as far as I'm concerned almost all politician's say one thing and do something else.. South Bay (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC) My point is that when a politician says he holds one position on an issue, and then acts the opposite way, the article on his political positions should cite both of those things. For the article to only cite what he says, and not what he does, violates NPOV, which says, ""All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." Grundle2600 (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Well, I am still slightly confused of what you are talking about, could you please clarify and elaborate a bit more of why you think this controversy should be included. South Bay (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Grundle, you are under the impression that Obama himself ordered the raid, which is amusing. Grsz11 22:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Maybe I missed one but the "raids" I checked don't make clear if the "inraided" [sic] ones where acting within the law or not. So unless this is cleared up there is no sense at all even discussing it. Did I miss something? Let me know!--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC) One guy, I think the earliest one, had apparently $100,000 in cash confiscated from his home. If true, that sounds to me like a slight possibility that there was indeed something "wrong" with his business, but we don't judge, we don't do our own research, right? So this is just to add on to my comment and point above.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Medical marijuana is legal in California, and Obama's spokesperson said he would stop the DEA raids in states where it's legal. I wasn't aware that owning U.S. currency was a crime. Grundle2600 (talk) 08:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC) In this particular situation, I think using the word "however" is perfectly appropriate, because it contrasts a statement with an action that is the complete opposite of the statement: In May 2008, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt told the San Francisco Chronicle that Obama would end DEA raids on medical marijuana suppliers in states with their own laws.[307] However, on August 12, 2009, federal DEA agents raided two medical marijuana facilities in Culver City, California. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC) If no one provides a reasonable explanation for why the article should not include this information, I will add it to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC) Grundle, this whole section is about discussing your inclusion. You need consensus to add something, not to not add something. The CBS News article mentions nothing about Obama (WP:SYNTH). Grsz11 13:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC) The Associated Press article mentions the DEA raiding medical marijuana growers in a state where medical marijuana is legal. Obama promised that he would stop these raids. This wikipedia article would be better if it was updated with the new information that Obama did not stop the raids. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC) No one has objected to my suggestion that the article be updated with the new information. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

View/actions on Native Americans

I recently added the following:

On November 5 2009, Obama hosted the inaugural annual White House Tribal Nations Conference, meeting delegates from each one of the federally recognized tribes, promising a review of both present day issues and historical oversights, stating, "You will not be forgotten as long as I'm in this White House".

It was summarily removed by Loonymonkey [10] for being 'an event, not a position'. Aside from the fact it pretty clearly sets out a political position, and the blatant disregard of wp:preserve (it was only by chance I came back to look at the article and noticed this dumping of valid content), I would like to see suggestoins of how it can be reworded, or an alternative location, for this line. MickMacNee (talk) 18:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I am okay with the notion of covering Obama's Native American tribe-related policies here in a sentence or three, and using the meeting to illustrate that milestone. It's a significant presidential policy area even if it's not always on everyone's mind. Do be patient please - valid content is removed all the time from these summary articles, often on the theory that it is already well-treated in a more detailed article or that it is better to put the information somewhere else. The boundary for when an event or piece of news becomes a presidential policy is a fuzzy one. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I did look around before, albeit not for too long, for a better article, and this was as good as I saw, but I'm no expert in this wiki field, hence the request for suggestions of a better location if someone knows it exists. MickMacNee (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting question. I don't know either but I can take a look. I would start by checking to see whether there are any categories, portals, and/or wikiprojects focusing on Native Americans or indigenous / tribal people more broadly, and then following the article links from there to see what the structure of the articles is with respect to how federal / tribal summits and presidential initiatives are described. Tribal-state and tribal-federal relations is a very rich subject and presidents themselves have often been substantially involved, e.g. Eisenhower and Nixon. Also, I see there is an article devoted to the conference itself, which would be where all of the detail goes. The question, then, is where else if anywhere should there be a link and a brief description. I might suggest the "presidency of..." over the "political positions of..." article because it's more of a presidential act than a presidential policy (despite the positive quote, actions are more telling than words). However, as a bit of a caution both this article and that other one are a slightly harsh editing environment and people often simply delete things that they consider too biased, trivial, irrelevant, or weakly sourced. Anyway, I'll sit on this and give it some more thought. As they say Wikipedia has no deadline. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There was some coverage of the 11/5 event today on one of the C-SPAN networks. As with the "inaugural" characterization, it was noted during the event that this was the first time a president had brought important cabinet members with him to meet and discuss issues with tribal representatives. I should think the mere fact that his is the first administration to do such a thing is worth noting here, and perhaps even at Presidency of Barack Obama. The promise "You will not be forgotten as long as I'm in this White House," however, seems a bit vague for articles so broad. Perhaps there's a transcript available on the C-SPAN website, or a video presentation there that could be reviewed for substantive quotes? Part of the point was to listen and request input, upon which hopefully they will build and execute plans. If there are specific changes in the way the government and the tribes interact, these should be noted to some extent. I vaguely recall a few comments about some such changes already made, but as I had not yet read this and was otherwise engaged with that on in the background, the specifics slip my mind. The general subject certainly bears mentioning; as I assume is the case with Wikidemon, my interest is that its mention be tightly substantive. I should think that leaving out the quote and noting the cabinet members who participated would be a reasonable start. Abrazame (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it still isn't a political position. It's an event, and a notable one, but there is no position or policy produced by the event. "You will not be forgotten" can't be called a political position in any sense of the word. We've been pretty strenuous about limiting this article to just positions, removing third-party editorial commentary and vague soundbites or quotes (for instance "Americans deserve a jobs recovery" is not a political position but "we should extend unemployment benefits another 20 weeks" is). I'm not saying this doesn't belong on wikipedia, just not in this article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Has Obama articulated any positions, either in his statements or by actions? Or is he just paying respects and promising that it will be a priority? - Wikidemon (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be the latter, which is why I removed it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

First paragraph on Affirmative action should be clearer

It's not clear from the first paragraph on affirmative action whether Obama supports or opposes it, or whether the "ballot initiatives" are pro or anti affirmative action. 12.165.250.13 (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Public funding of elections

Obama was the first co-sponsor of the Fair Elections Now Act when he was in the Illinois senate.[11] Sure this is worth a mention?--Louiedog (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)