Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Developments in the Muslim world

In June of 2009, protests broke out in Iran after Presidential elections that many Iranians believe were marred by fraud. Obama called on the Iranian Government to stop "violent and unjust" action against the protesters, but resisted calls to do more than that. He was criticized for not being more forceful, but responded that "the last thing I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for — those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States.". Protests broke out again in Iran in February of 2011 and were again met with force.

After a sudden revolution in Tunisia, Arab discontent began to spread. Demonstrations broke out Egypt in January and February of 2011. Press reports indicated that Obama followed a strategy of pressing for dramatic change, and leaving little doubt that he felt Mubarak's resignation would be desirable, without actually saying so. After three weeks of unrest, Mubarak resigned. Anti-Government protests broke out in Benghazi, Libya, in February, 2011, and the Gadaffi government responded with military force. The Obama Administration initially resisted calls to take strong action but relented after the Arab League requested Western intervention in Libya. The US provided air support, especially at the beginning of the operation, and helped in areas in which it has unique capabilities, such as electronic warfare and aerial surveillance. The Obama administration demanded and got participation from several Arab and European nations and Obama stated that the US would not send any ground troops. With Coalition support, the rebels took Tripoli the following August. By the second half of March, 2011, anti-government protests were being held in Syria, and police killed protesters in several cities. In March, 2012, Obama argued that unilateral military action would be a mistake. As of June, 2012, several experts characterized the situation as a civil war.

William Jockusch (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The Solyndra references should not be there above. Is there a way to fix this? If anyone knows how to limit the reflist to just the relevant references, please do so, and remove this note. William Jockusch (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

You shouldn't do references on a talk page because of this very problem. You can keep them whole by wrapping them in nowiki tags, like this: <ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/06/12/it-s-a-coup-d-etat.html|title=It’s a Coup d’Etat’|first=Maziar|last=Bahari}}</ref> but under normal circumstances, just link it like this [1] -- Scjessey (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

"The Iranian regime survived the protests and remains in power." should not be there. It has nothing to do with Obama's presidency. Other than that, it mostly looks okay until you get into the second half of the second paragraph. Then you run headlong into a recentism problem by talking about Syria. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

If a course of events has reached a clear end, the end should be included as a relevant portion of the sequence of events. Just as it is relevant that Qadaffi and Mubarak were overthrown, it is equally relevant that the Iranian regime survived. Syria has significant presence in world news nowadays, and Obama has addressed it personally many times (I just found four in about 30 seconds of googling), which makes it relevant also. William Jockusch (talk) 02:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

One way of putting it is that we don't try to report the exact state of affairs today. Events on the ground on June 18 are not especially historically significant. What's significant is the final thing. So it's very hard to write anything encyclopedic in the present sense. Imagine we were writing in real time about the Lewis and Clark Expedition. It wouldn't be good form for the article say "The expedition is currently camped out and foraging for supplies along the Missouri River" because somebody might read that tomorrow and it would be wrong, and in any event we'd likely have to rewrite that sentence next week. Better to say "The party spent the latter part of 1804 building a yet-unnamed fort along the Missouri River". The Syria situation is hard to sum up in a sentence or two, but it might work to say something like "In early 2012 the administration condemned and promoted sanctions against Syria, where the regime had killed thousands of civilians in a situation that devolved towards civil war, but argued against United States military involvement." I don't know if that hits all the points but you can probably wikilink to articles about the Syrian situation. Probably the regime will fall in the next weeks, months, or years, but who knows how that will play out or how involved the US and its administration will be? - Wikidemon (talk) 02:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, see my edit of the Syria part above. Digging deeper, I see Wikipedia says the Iran protests died down in 2010 with no significant concessions by the Gov't, but were reignited in 2011. That feels like a good summary, but I can't find outside sourcing for it, so I'm not sure what to do.William Jockusch (talk) 04:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, see my edit to the Iran part above. Unless there are further comments, I will put this into the article soon.William Jockusch (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I still think there's more stuff in there than necessary (not directly related to Obama's presidency) but I don't think it'll do any harm to leave it there for the time being. Nice work! -- Scjessey (talk) 12:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Could probably cut down on the cites though, it makes for a choppy read to see a number after virtually every sentence. The parts that are just basic and non-contentious facts, e.g. "After a sudden revolution in Tunisia...", "...Mubarak resigned", "...protests broke out in Benghazi, Libya...", etc.. Tarc (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I want to know what you think about

adding information widely reported on Obama's health: Reliable:[2] [3] Reliability is not clear:[4] [5] [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.35.69 (talk) 04:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a dumb idea. The media reports the health of all presidents as a matter of routine, and Obama's health is perfectly normal and unexceptional. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Routine coverage of a president, nothing notable or even interesting. Every year, the media dutifully reports what is on the White House Thanksgiving table, what they bought each other for Christmas, etc... We have to sift through the banal and decide what is actually of value to the reader. Tarc (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the civil response. I will try my best to rely my answers to these previous points. I disagree that this is banal. It is notable enough to be the subject of a full scale research report. This only adds value to the article. Do you feel it detracts from the article or that it has no value? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.142.15 (talk) 01:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It has absolutely no value whatsoever for the reasons previously stated. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

How is it that you have been able to choose which topics are valuable enough to get 6 paragraphs and which topics are not valuable to get a sentence mention? Is this based on the sections usually used in presidency articles? See my new section for a different question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.142.15 (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

4 Approval ratings and opinion

I propose that the fourth section approval ratings and opinion could be substantially reduced in length if a graph of the approval ratings versus time were included. Visual data is always preferred over sentence after sentence of data. I have removed the need for expansion tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.142.15 (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC) To make the other graphs in the article, how was data completed? Did you only use data from the same source? For example, in this section, there is a sentence that hints at fox's polling numbers being less accurate. Should I only pick polling from the same group like only from gallup? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.142.15 (talk) 19:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Misleading statement about judicial nominations

The following was recently restored to the article:

As of July 2010, Obama's nominees to the district and circuit courts had been confirmed at a rate of only 43.5 percent, compared to 87.2 percent during Bill Clinton's administration and 91.3 percent for George W. Bush. The Center for American Progress, which compiled the data, commented:

Judicial confirmations slowed to a trickle on the day President Barack Obama took office. Filibusters, anonymous holds, and other obstructionary tactics have become the rule. Uncontroversial nominees wait months for a floor vote, and even district court nominees—low-ranking judges whose confirmations have never been controversial in the past—are routinely filibustered into oblivion. Nominations grind to a halt in many cases even after the Senate Judiciary Committee has unanimously endorsed a nominee.

This is a misleading use of statistics which should not be included. They are comparing apples and oranges. A proper comparison would compare the first 18 months of Obama's term with the first 18 months of Bush or Clinton. Instead, they compare the first 18 months of Obama with the entire Bush or Clinton term.William Jockusch (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

That's probably true. AFAIK, the rate would tend to increase later in a President's term as they wear down the opposition and cut deals. Also, I suspect 2-term presidents get a bump in their confirmations once the election is over and the opposition has to face that there will be 4 more years. Further, including this entire quote gives it undue weight. This article is pretty long as it is, and is missing half or more of the significant events of the presidency. All of that notwithstanding, it's clear there is an unprecedented backlog of unapproved judicial nominations. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe I read something recently that the Republican leadership was invoking some kind of pre-election quasi rule, made up by some politician. I can't remember who it was named after, but in essence they state there will be no more judicial appointments until after the elections. I also believe that this was done during the first terms of both Clinton and GWBush. although I'm not positive on that. In any case, I saw the removal and did not think it warranted a revert. Not because I thought William was right, but because I wasn't sure and the info was old and I believe a partisan source. Like Wikidemon, I think this is probably a real issue but also agree the quote gives undue weight. Why don't those in favor of inclusion find a reliable source that has some sort of analysis on the judicial appointments to date and make a compromise proposal. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 01:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

There is always a controversy in this area, and I don't mind covering it, but we can do a better job than that quote. FWIW, the Republicans have not held up Obama's Supreme Court nominations. So if you are going to assert a slowdown [which I don't know about overall, one way or the other], there is some contrary evidence.William Jockusch (talk) 05:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Here's what has happened:

1. All of Obama's judicial nominations have been held up by Republicans. In the early part of his presidency, the hold-ups were unprecedented.
2. Later, a deal was struck to accelerate confirmations and bring the rate more or less in line with other presidencies (but still leaving Obama behind in number).
3. Obama has not been making enough nominations to fill all the vacancies.
4. Most recently, Republicans have stated they will end all confirmations because its an election year. This has happened before, but never so early in the cycle.

There is sourcing for all of these statements, but before I spend any time on this I'd like to know if anyone thinks there is any point to it. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I don't mind covering the controversy. But I do think both sides should be covered.William Jockusch (talk) 13:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

There aren't really two sides. However this is covered, I'm afraid it isn't going to look good for the obstructionist Republicans in the Senate. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

In your heart of hearts, do you really believe that there aren't two sides? William Jockusch (talk) 01:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

No. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize

At the end of the article's second paragraph this should be added: The Nobel Committee attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons. LeahBethM (talk) 06:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I wounder if the Nobel Committee would stand by that praise, today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.103.17 (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

If the decision were today they would not have given him the prize, no? So the whole thing is a snapshot in history. I do question whether that statement by the committee is relevant and significant to the overall sweep of Obama's presidency, though. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe the statement is relevant as to the full reason Obama was awarded the Nobel Prize. At the very least a source link to the full statement should be added to the current statement in the main article. LeahBethM (talk) 07:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Impeachment (Revisit #2)

In October 2010 I wrote that Impeachment of Barack Obama is close to being a viable article. In August 2011 I wrote that the article is even closer to viability with a Member of Congress & a major candidate calling for Obama's impeachment. Today, a Senator joined the frey. All I can say is one or two more high profile elected officials calling for Obama's impeachment, and Impeachment of Barack Obama becomes as viable of an article as Impeachment of George W. Bush. Victor Victoria (talk) 00:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You can keep thinking that, but it will keep being deleted if that is all that is out there. Offhand comments made to fire up the right-wing base in an election year are not the basis of article notability. Tarc (talk) 04:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

In other news of similar import, bacon tastes good with a dash of marmalade. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Two Thousandth servicemen death in Afghanistan Content

I had recently added content regarding the death of one Cpl Baune , who was that 2000th death in Afghanistan. The content had two reliable sources to provide verification. Another editor removed the content claiming that the content falls under WP:UNDUE & WP:RECENT. However, I am of the opinion that as there is content in the article that relates to the Obama Administration enacting the surge, that content relating to a milestone death does not fall under UNDUE, as such I have reverted the reversion and invited interested editors to discuss inclusion, or re-removal of the content. I am hoping some type of compromise can be reached.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Additionally the content was written in a neutral manor, and did not attempt to criticize the subject of the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Even if I'm being ridiculously generous, I would say it was only tangentially related to the Obama presidency. This would be a gross example of undue weight and you'll never get consensus to put it back in. You ask for compromise, but I'm with Boehner on this one. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Federal assault ban proposal

In or out?[7] A procedural note. The sentences have been in the article for a while, so they presumably have consensus (although in hindsight, a proposal that didn't go anywhere may not be significant enough to include). The IP editor who was edit warring past 3RR to remove it has been making a ruckus on many articles, so I would not give any weight to their decision to remove it today and might just defer this per WP:DENY. Nonetheless, now that we have regular editors on both sides of this, what's best for the article? - Wikidemon (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

More important than what remains which is his stump speech and two minor bills. Also Fast and Furious should be in, not just a link. Just became doubly huge with the indictment of the attorney general for witholding information. North8000 (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Amazing as it may seem, I'm with North8000 on this. I think it should stay in, and I think the Fast and Furious stuff needs a paragraph. I am not in agreement with the notion Holder was indicted for withholding information, however. He was indicted for purely political reasons. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

In. I found it informative. If implementation has been cancelled or postponed, well, that's informative too. Meters (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

My removal/reversion was hasty w/o paying much attention on the date this had occurred. It looks a little like undue since to my knowledge they didn't went thru with the ban, or did they at least try? I have no strong feelings about this anyways so please don't count my hasty reversion as an "out" vote.TMCk (talk) 22:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Note: I have to admit not to have read any further in the article nor the sourcing :) TMCk (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Historical Significance of President Obama's first term

Really we can't wait until his first term is actual finished before heaping on praise. This is also the term that the Oceans would start to recede and th earth would heal. He may have done all those things, and great he ordered the killing of OBL, but let us wait until at least his first term is over before compairing him the FDR. Viewmont Viking (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Assassination, aka "Extrajudicial killing"

proposal has not gained consensus, proposer indefinitely blocked
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Irrespective of whether it is right or wrong to have the section in the article, please don't edit war over it. Please discuss it here. It's a contentious section, so editors wishing to include it in the article will need to win consensus to do so. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC) See the discussion at Talk:Barack Obama#Obam administration's alleged assassination of a U.S. Citizen. 72Dino (talk) 16:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC) What has that got to do with anything? Discussion about this article must take place here. Besides, I am part of the discussion you link to. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Yes, I saw your name there and your opinion is clear. It's still the same issue and does not need to be rehashed again just because it is on a different page. 72Dino (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC) There has not been an orderly discussion there or here, much less consensus, to include any specific thing on this page, just a mess on that other page that was more of a behavior issue than a content proposal. If anyone wants to discuss content, that's what this talk page is for. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC) [edit conflict with above thread] I've reverted this one[8] again, which is the remnant of some content that a currently-blocked editor has been persistently trying to shoehorn into the Obama biography. The content is POV - "admission" implies secrecy and guilt, and "first president" is an argument, not a neutral statement of facts. Obama didn't admit to anything, it was all in the open. The sources are poor - one Mother Jones analysis plus one opinion piece. The second sentence, properly sourced, might be okay but it is undue weight and out of context to put it in a standalone section that describes the criticism of extrajudicial killings and introduces Obama's supposed admission as the main subject, rather than the drone attack itself. The legal and political question of extrajudicial killings, and whether a US citizen has special status, are noteworthy subjects in their own, but linking that to Obama's presidency would require good sources, relevance, and concern for weight. If anyone wants to work the underlying event into the narrative about killing Bin Laden and drone attacks on other militants / terrorists, or argue here how and why we should cover any controversy over use of drone attacks that would be better. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC) There appear to be a number of sources at Anwar al-Aulaqi#Targeted killing order and lawsuit against the U.S.. As far as weight by having a separate section, I don't feel strongly one way or the other on that. 72Dino (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Yes, there definitely are lots of sources. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC) LOL, fair enough, I kind of left that one open. I probably won't pursue this topic, but at least there is a link to some references for someone who might. 72Dino (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC) IMO this series of edits[9] makes a lot of sense and covers the subject in a neutral, due way, with fairly solid sourcing (though the "first known instance" could use an additional source. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC) Take 2 Lest we become a government mouthpiece, I encourage us all to use plain language whenever possible, i.e., words and terms that have been around a good hundred years or more for very old ideas, like political killings. Thank you. Settdigger (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Per Wikidemon's point that this topic has not been discussed, let us please discuss it.Settdigger (talk) 04:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC) I've reverted this change, which inserted the term assassination as a synonym for targeted killing, giving "Overseas Contingency Operation: Plain language, please." as an edit summary. The terms are not synonyms. This would introduce an inconsistency between this article and the Targeted killing article. That other article quotes an outside source which says, When people call a targeted killing an "assassination," they are attempting to preclude debate on the merits of the action. Assassination is widely defined as murder, and is for that reason prohibited in the United States.... U.S. officials may not kill people merely because their policies are seen as detrimental to our interests.... But killings in self-defense are no more "assassinations" in international affairs than they are murders when undertaken by our police forces against domestic killers. Targeted killings in self-defense have been authoritatively determined by the federal government to fall outside the assassination prohibition.[10] I've also seen this, in which Attorney General Eric Holder explains his view of the legal issues involved in the targeted killing by the U.S. government of a U.S. citizen as follows: Let me be clear: an operation using lethal force in a foreign country, targeted against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al Qaeda or associated forces, and who is actively engaged in planning to kill Americans, would be lawful at least in the following circumstances: First, the U.S. government has determined, after a thorough and careful review, that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; second, capture is not feasible; and third, the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC) The OED defines assassination as "The action of assassinating; the taking the life of any one by treacherous violence, esp. by a hired emissary, or one who has taken upon him to execute the deed." It defines "assassinate" as "1) To kill by treacherous violence 2)To endeavour to kill by treacherous violence; to attack by an assassin. Obs. 3)o destroy or wound by treachery; to ‘stab’ reputation, etc" Relevant too then here is how the OED defines "treacherous": "1)Of persons, their attributes or actions: Characterized by treachery; deceiving, perfidious, false; disloyal, traitorous.2)Of things: Deceptive, untrustworthy, unreliable; of ground, ice, etc., unstable, insecure." God bless the OED for assisting in getting down to brass tacks. As to Wtmitchell's assertion that assassination is "widely defined" (whatever that means) as murder, he is doubtless thinking of this little OED nugget: (and here I am using the 2nd edition) where the word assassinate is actually a noun: "1.1 Murder, or an assault with intent to murder, by treacherous violence; assassination. " Note here that this use is obsolete: the last time the word assassinate was used as a synonym for a murder was 1755. So: I think what we come down to here is how we view this word "treacherous." Was Obama's killing of Al-Awlawki "treacherous"? I argue that it is. "Treachery" in this sense basically means secretive: more castles were taken in the middle ages by treachery than frontal assault, meaning they were usually inside jobs. To drone a dude, you obviously need good intel. Someone in Yemen had to call up the CIA, say: "Al-Awlawki is drinking coffee outside over there", and then, just like a hood Medieval assassin after the big tip-off, our loyal American drone drones the dude. Then he dead. Using the term "treacherous" to mean "disloyal" or "traitorous" is generally meaningless in this context: it's almost impossible to say that a sitting president can be either of those things. (By the way, anyone who tries to trump an OED definition with a definition from another source, please don't. You don't know what you're doing. Thanks). So: let's review. Assassination is "killing by treacherous violence." If you agree that drones are treacherous, i.e. secretive, you must agree that Obama assassinated Al-awlawki. Settdigger (talk) 04:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Wtmitchell, as to your second quote: please leave legality out of this discussion. This is about nomenclature. Neither term, either "assassination" or "targeted killing" is either legal or illegal on the face of it. The question is: which term better describes Obama's killing of Al-awlawki. Keep in mind: "targeted killing" is, as you are well aware, in essence a government neologism to try to fancy their way out of violations of international law. In terms of plain language: because assassination basically means 'treacherous' targeted killing, it all comes down to that magic word: treachery. Let's discuss it. As to this "self defense" argument: again, it is not really pertinent. Either a "targeted killing" or an "assassination" might well be "in self defense" or "not in self defense." It all comes back to: was it a "treacherous" killing? Or not? Thanks-- Settdigger (talk) 04:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC) A further, and more important point. If Wikipedia is to keep up the absolute baldest pretense (and it's a pretty bald one) that it cares about being "fair and balanced" both terms MUST be included in this article, as the debate over this nomenclature is more reaching and significant in terms of international law, domestic law, and, obviously, domestic politics. To pretend otherwise is to be severly disingenuous. Settdigger (talk) 05:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC) To clarify: the mere fact that you have provided us with helpful quotes from prominent former U.S. Government officials spending valuable airtime arguing over EXACTLY THESE DEFINITIONS clearly demonstrates that, again, there is a current, far-reaching, relevant, and important debate, and 2) (in my opinion) the government is worried about losing it. Thanks -- Settdigger (talk) 05:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC) We're in la-la land here, I recommend closing as I don't think further discussion is going to be constructive. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Make a constructive contribution, please. Thank you. Engage with the substance of my points above. Settdigger (talk) 06:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Engagement here is not going to be helpful. After further edit warring on the subject I have brought this editor to the attention of WP:AN/I. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Employment Data via Bureau of Labor Statistics

I wish to add the following to the article on Presidency of Barack Obama.

In September 7, 2012, the United States Bureau of Labor Statistic reported that at the end of August 2012, there were 133,300,000 employed people in the civilian labor force (nonfarm - seasonally adjusted), 261,000 less than when Obama became president in January 2009.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES000000000

Do you agree/disagree?

--cgersten 20:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Disagree, per WP:RECENT (just happened), WP:NOTNEWS (Wikipedia is not a newspaper) and WP:NPOV (makes no mention of how jobs were created and the unemployment rate came down). -- Scjessey (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC

Not sure how WP:RECENT becomes an issue here. These are suppose to be stats, not some event, so you can't claim "it just happened". I couldn't confirm the stats however, as the link tells me , "No Data".--JOJ ^Hutton 02:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0000000001. --cgersten 03:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)

What this is is taking a straightforward set of data and applying one's own interpretation to it, i.e. that it is All Obama's Fault(tm). SO, no, per WP:NOR. Tarc (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the source provided does that. If Cgersten could provide a better, more reliable source, it would be appreciated. It's hard to make an argument, based on what you provided so far.--JOJ ^Hutton 03:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Bureau of Labor Statistics is my source, do not understand why these stats are unacceptable as stats like these appear in countless articles. --cgersten 12:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You can't understand that going to primary cites and taking out certain strands of data is original research? Then perhaps you should not be editing articles on Wikipedia until you do. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

No the Bureau of Labor Statistics did the original research. All the news media have reported it as a major important news event and it's simple enough to cite the NY Times as the RS. Rjensen (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Then it should be simple enough to bring the NYT article here as a source with a proposal, using the NYT wording as a reference. Otherwise, it it most definitely OR. The noise those boxes make when you are choosing dates and other parameters to pump out the data, that's the noise of original research. Dave Dial (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

(after ec) - No, it's definitely original research. Read the proposed text at the beginning of this section and you will see the problem. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Scjessey, regarding the use of the word "attacking." Even if it's in the original source, does that justify its use in an encyclopedia? Also, I notice that the original source is available online for $11.00. Gary C. Jacobson, "The Republican Resurgence in 2010," Political Science Quarterly (2011) 126#1 pp. 27-52. Did you spend the $11.00 and if so, can I have a copy? If not, how did you know that the source used the term "attacking"? And regarding the proposed edit about, here are a few reliable secondary sources. The Senate Republican Policy Committee [11]. The House Republican Conference [12]. Congressman John Kline of Minnesota [13]. Clearly WP:RECENT is not an issue and neither is WP:NPOV. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, we source facts, not word choice. News sources often describe things in more colorful and POV language than Wikipedia. Criticizing and attacking are slightly different factual assertions to be sure - to criticize is to speak against something out of a sincere belief or concern that it is wrong, whereas attacking something is opposing it without regard to belief or wrongness. No doubt there was some of each. The source, and the entire sentence, is making a generalization. While we're at it, "relentlessly" is also a colorful flourish rather than a fact. Surely there were persons who relented as well. And the sentence is a little illogical, there's a missing causal step. Criticizing / attacking Obama, fueled by anger, emphasizing the economy, Republicans scored a victory. But you don't score a victory just because you're critical and angry, the step is that you've got to convince the electorate to vote a certain way. I'm not sure it's worth expanding this section much, but it would be helpful if we could source the way / reason that the discontent fomented (or held) by Republicans played out to cause a change in Congress. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I found a pretty good source published by the left-leaning Brookings Institution. [14] It states that incumbents — specifically, incumbent presidents and the senators and congressmen from the parties of incumbent presidents — often take a beating during hard economic times.

"Clearly, though, the administration failed to persuade most Americans, who viewed its program as costly, unnecessary, and unproductive if not outright damaging. The administration often seemed to believe that its policies spoke for themselves and that their merits were obvious ... and quite consciously chose to disregard the immediate political consequences of enacting its agenda. In his now-famous interview with the New York Times, President Obama put it this way: 'We probably spent much more time trying to get the policy right than trying to get the politics right. There was probably a perverse pride in my administration — and I take responsibility for this ... — that we were going to do the right thing, even if short-term it was unpopular.' "

Wikidemon, I hope this is useful in furthering the discussion and conveying the grouping of facts you're trying to convey. It isn't so much that the Republicans persuaded the voters to punish the Democrats. It's that the default setting during hard economic times is to punish the party in power, and the Democrats failed to persuade the voters to refrain from such punishment.

Also, it's October. Now that WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS can no longer be used as a defense, it's time to add something about those dismal employment numbers from August. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

30 consecutive months of job growth is not "dismal". You'd prefer the job losses of the previous administration? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

New data came out this morning showing the July/August numbers revised upward significantly, and unemployment ticked down to below 8%. I guess it makes the original proposal in this thread obsolete. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

"30 consecutive months of job growth is not 'dismal'. You'd prefer the job losses of the previous administration?" As a matter of fact, I would. Under Bush, the cumulative total of job creation (including the losses of the 2007-2008 recession) was +1.1 million. Obama is barely out of negative territory with this new jobs report. Also, there's a lot of contradictory data in this jobs report, calling its accuracy into question. CNBC — note this is not World Net Daily or Newsmax, but part of the same media conglomerate that brings you Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell — has cited a "slew of contradictory data."[15] For example, there are only 114,000 new jobs. (Simple growth in population demands about 160,000 new jobs per month just to break even on the unemployment rate, and when job growth consistently fails to satisfy that threshold, it's dismal.) A total of 873,000 unemployed workers were reported as finding new jobs. How does that work exactly. Do seven or eight workers share each new job nowadays? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

All the jobs lost at the beginning of the Obama administration can be attributed to the Bush administration. The only realistic measure of job creation is if you start counting from the fiscal year end, which for Obama means September '09 to the present. The numbers are as follows:

+.51% (Bush term 1)

-.84% (Bush term 2)

+.84% (Obama to date)

Those numbers come from the BLS and can be found here. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

removal of attributed content from reliable source

I am not going to be egged by an uncivil edit summary into an editing war, but I would like to point out that verified content that has been properly attributed to a reliable source has been removed by another editor. If one were to look at the source, the source links to the sources which indicate the 19 bankruptcy statement.

It lists, as having filed for bankruptcy:

• Evergreen Solar (other sources 1, 2) (Foundry source)
• SpectraWatt (other sources 1, 2)
• Solyndra (other sources 1, 2) (Foundry source)
• Ener1 (other sources 1, 2) (Foundry source)
• Abound Solar (other sources 1, 2, 3) (Foundry source)
• A123 Systems (other sources 1, 2) (Foundry source)
• Willard and Kelsey Solar Group (other sources 1, 2)

This is just seven of the companies listed by the source removed, so this "b***s*** claim" statement about the source is IMHO uncalled for, and its removal is a diservice to the article's improvement.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The removed material is sourced, germane, significant and credible. The remover made a vague/general claim that it was "bull-shit". The claim lacks credibility, they never even said what of all of that credible material they felt was incorrect. That would be the bare minimum to even think of removal. North8000 (talk) 01:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. The removed material is from a partisan think tank. The CNN article is not only more recent, but CNN is a much more reliable source than a right-wing think tank. The removed portion should not be restored and if anyone really reads the CNN story, they know the RW think tank is incorrect and pushing a POV. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You are implying a conflict that does not exist as a basis to remove sourced, germane, credible significant material. The CNN statement was limited to DOE-funded ones, the Heritage Foundation list included ones that got the funds from other federal agencies. North8000 (talk) 11:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

And as such, their opinion is slanted and not reliable in the slightest, any more tan we'd use worldnetdaily to source anything related to birther conspiracies. We're not using the Heritage Foundation as a source in this project for anything other than simple, factual information about themselves, if need be. Tarc (talk) 12:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

When it comes to objectivity, CNN is about as bad as it gets. Not that the Heritage Foundation isn't also biased. But the situaiotn of those 19 listed companies is a matter of fact, including it being a matter of fact (not opinion) whether or not they declared bankruptcy. North8000 (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd take CNN's accuracy and objectivity over the Heritage Foundation's any day of the week, but we don't have to. Even the Republican-led House Committee on Energy and Commerce says the number is 5. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Ahh. I see the problem then. If you believe that-"When it comes to objectivity, CNN is about as bad as it gets"-, then you probably should not be editing any article that concerns American politics. That statement shows that you are biased beyond objectivity and cannot possibly edit articles without bias. The problem goes further of course, by the fact you would write the statement, read it, and then still hit "Save page" on the computer screen. That shows that you do not understand how biased that thought process is. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

If that insult made any sense I might take it seriously. But getting all that out of me saying that CNN is biased makes no sense at all. That is generally known and accepted,and pretty widely stated, except by folks who like the particular bias that CNN has. North8000 (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

CNN, if anything, is biased slightly toward the right; however, it is so minor a lean that it is hardly worth mentioning. In contrast, the Heritage Foundation is so far to the right it is almost within the lunatic fringe sphere in which Fox News resides. And while we are talking about bias, North8000, I think it is pretty clear you wouldn't be trying to put this right-wing talking point bullshit into the article if it wasn't for your own obvious political leanings. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

This is like trying to have a discussion with a barking dog. No listening, no absorption, no responses to the on-topic points made, and just flinging random noise and insults that are light-years from reality. Reinforcing, this is only referring to the nature of the conversation and behavior within it. I'm signing off on this uncivilized mess of a thread. North8000 (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Woof. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Get OFF the couch. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The difference between the two lists likely has to do with the source of funding. CNN lists five that received money from the Department of Energy. Starting at the top of the other list, I notice that Evergreen was subsidized by the state of Massachussetts, not the federal government. Antandrus (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

It appears to have also received federal funding as well, see the source here, and here.

I have provided references that are NOT to the Heritage Foundation produced Foundry, to show that even if the Heritage foundation source is not used, that the content was verifiable by other (and often multiple) reliable sources.

I have to agree with North8000, the content is relevant, and should be added in a neutrally worded manor.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I dug a little more, interested in why these lists might be different.

Evergreen Solar, according to the Business Week article you cite, got $3 million from the Department of Energy. Other sources do not list them as having been recipients of federal stimulus funds. Here is the contract giving them three million dollars, on the DOE website. Note -- it's a subcontract, through NREL, so ultimately the funds do indeed come from the federal government.

The contract is dated September 27, 2002, which is before Mr. Obama took office. Antandrus (talk) 23:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I think both the CNN and Heritage references should be used, with a range given on the number of green businesses have declared bankruptcy who have received federal funds. This gives neither reference undue weight, and the reader can judge for themselves which number they want to believe is more accurate, and a single sentence shouldn't be undue weight within an appropriate section.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

There's just nothing notable about these bankruptcies at all. The ROI on these has outperformed the private sector, so there's no story here. The right wing echo chamber tried to make a big deal out of it, and the proper media only covered it to debunk those claims. Post-election, it looks even less relevant. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

There's something very notable about this. Not just the bankruptcies, but the microscopic number of jobs that have actually been created. The cost has been in the vicinity of $1 million per job. Instead of giving a few thousand people "green jobs" at a cost of $1 million each, it would have been far more cost-effective to just mail those few thousand people government checks in the amount of their salaries once a month. The ROI has vastly underperformed the private sector, in terms of the cost of electricity per kilowatt-hour. This has cost $50 billion. It's notable. And its miserable failure is very, very notable. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Well sure, except for the fact that none of that is true and is straight bullshit. Dave Dial (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

There is already a short paragraph included about the Obama Administration's funding of renewable energy. It would be unbalanced without including notable coverage of certain results of said funding, such as Solyndra.

Moreover, "proper media"? The question is are the sources RS, as was posted above the content covered in what some called BS in an edit summary is backed by other RS sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Only a one percent failure during the Bush Crash? That's a notable miracle. Hcobb (talk) 13:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of content supported by a Heritage Foundation source because a WP editor sees it as disagreeing with content supported by a CNN source would appear to be a violation of WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this falls under the WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT school of exclusion. The subject of Administration supported environmentally friendly energy companies having gone bankrupt is a notable subject, and covered not just by conservative think tanks but also from main stream media sources. However, attempts to add the content or to tag the section where verified content has been removed have been impeded by other editors.

Perhaps a sentence with the reliable sources provided can be added, indicating that some (perhaps examples can be included) of the companies that have received Federal Funds during the Obama Administration have declared bankruptcy. Including one sentence would not be WP:UNDUE, and would give the fact inclusion within this article. As long as the content is worded neutrally, there should not be a problem I would think.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Nothing provided by Heritage can be considered a reliable source. Please let this agenda-driven crusade go and stop disrupting Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:reliable source standards do not require actual objectivity /reliability. If it did, it would exclude most major newspapers. So that statement is a double standard from the word go. But more to the point, a source with a bias (such as the New York Times or the Heritage Foundation) can still be reliable on reporting maters of fact. North8000 (talk) 14:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of the tag by another editor, as was done here, does not show good faith of myself, as the tag is appropriate. The inline discuss tag would also be appropriate and less noticable, if the other editor prefers, but there is no reason not to tag the section under discussion as this is a neutrality discussion, and the tag is relevant.

As for the discussion which was initially started many weeks ago regarding the quality of the sources provided. There have been a majority of editors who support that Heritage Foundation is a reliable source, even if it is bias, just as the New York Times is a reliable source, and it to is bias. Moreover, if one were to look at my initial posting in this thread, I have provided multiple reliable sources other than the one from the Heritage Foundation to use in place of the source that was removed, or to verify the information from the Heritage Foundation source.

To exclude notable content regarding the subject which is already included in the article is itself not giving it due weight, and thus not keeping with WP:NPOV.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Just mentioning that I just noticed here that there's a discussion brewing about WP verifiability policy as it relates to the removal of sourced material by claiming the source is not reliable. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It appears to me that there is a consensus, but not a unanimous agreement, that content supported by multiple reliable sources has been removed, and due to WP:NPOV & WP:DUE some form of this content should be restored. Being that it is likely that I would be accused of creating a edit war. Is it possible that an Administrator can re-add neutrally worded and attributed content back into the article?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You don't have anything of the sort, I'm afraid. We do not use fringe think tanks like the Heritage Foundation as sources in Wikipedia articles for anything other than basic claims about themselves. Using them would be like sourcing Obama's place of birth to Orly Taitz. Tarc (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Please see the discussion above, and please see WP:AVOIDYOU. As was already discussed above Hertiage Foundation is a reliable source regardless of whether it is bias or not. Otherwise if sources need to be neutral to be used such reliable sources such as the Huffington Post, New York Times, and Time magazine would not be useable as well. Moreover, I have provided multiple other reliable sources that support the content found in the Heritage Foundation source; therefore, if the Heritage Foundation source were not to be used, the content about businesses XYZ that received federal funding for advancement of green energy by the Obama Administration could be verified by those other sources. Therefore, to accuss myself of bias and fringe is not showing good faith, and not included content because it can be seen as criticism of the subject would be in violation of NEU.

I am not asking for undue weighted material to be added, I am not asking for multiple paragraphs to be included. I am not asking for original research to be added. I am asking that content supported by multiple reliable sources be re-added in a neutrally worded manor that is highly notable in relation to the Obama Administration's funding of green energy companies.

Is it a fact that Solyndra received funding from the Obama Administration? Yes

Is it a fact that Solyndra declared bankrupcy? Yes

Is it a fact that multiple other green energy companies who have been funded by the Obama Administration have declared bankrupcy? Yes

Given that all this is factual, why cannot content that is neutrally worded and summarized as not to give it undue weight be added to this article?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

A series of factual things stitched together by you (Y-O-U) into a faux controversy is called WP:SYNTHESIS. The Heritage Foundation is not a reliable source. Period. Tarc (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Please see that this isn't faux controversy, or synthesis. It is highly notable as one can see through this google search, as well as over a dozen news stories that cover the bankrupcies of green energy companies that have received funding from the Obama Administration.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

No. I tried to point out above -- please read my post on November 13 -- that the Heritage list is inaccurate. It's misleading, which is a common feature of an unreliable source. When you dig into the numbers, as I did with Evergreen, you see that the firm may have received federal funding, literally, in their case through a NREL subcontract -- but during the Bush administration. Heritage tries to pin that on Obama, thinking no one will fact-check them. That list does not belong in an article on the Obama administration under any circumstances. Antandrus (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, even without the Heritage list, there are still multitude of green energy companies funded during the Obama Administration that have declared bankrucpy, even covered by CNN. Therefore if the objection is to not include the Heritage list, there are list that do not originate from the Heritage Foundation that can be used to verify content.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, only Heritage goes into histrionics over it being a controversy; other sources that make note of it is just routine news coverage. Tarc (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Tarc has hit the nail on the head. If you take away the Heritage squawking you're left with nothing. It was an election conjuring trick by right-wingers, nothing more. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The removal being discussed here doesn't involve the so-called histrionics or squawking. This discussion is about the removal of the bits which I've highlighted below from the article (I've converted the Refs to inline ELs here for ease of access):

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provides $54 billion in funds to double domestic renewable energy production, renovate federal buildings making them more energy-efficient, improve the nation's electricity grid, repair public housing, and weatherize modest-income homes.[16] Multiple companies received federal funds, of which five according to CNN,[17] to 19 according to the Heritage Foundation,[18] have declared bankruptcy including Solyndra and A123 Systems.[19][20]

in this edit by Scjessey with the edit summary, "rm bullshit claim from the blog of a right wing think tank". The bits removed did not involve any histrionics or squawking (though this discussion has involved lots of both). The issue is whether or not the Heritage Foundation source cited is considered by WP to be a reliable source for this topic. I'm not a reliability maven, and can't speak to that. It is customary to take questions like this to WP:RSN. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

So the text should be something like: "In the midst of the Bush Crash, with America's future depending on all forms of energy. Careful allocation of federal funds kept ninety nine percent of selected future energy companies afloat." Right? Hcobb (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Why not block or ban Wtmitchell till he learned what NPOV means? (Sarcassm... in part).TMCk (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • There may be some merit to that thought. I'd still like to see an explanation for this revert, which claimed to be fixing a malfunctioning bot that removed information, but what it actually was was reinsertion of the contested text being discussed here. I do not see how this could be a good-faith mistake. Tarc (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

OK. It was an honest mistake. I was used to seeing that content in our discussions here about the removal of adjacent content supported by the Heritage Foundation source, but I had apparently been surprised at not seeing it in the article, gone looking for the edit which removed it, and been interrupted partway through that quest. After getting back to it, I seem to have misinterpreted displayed diff. Further details here. My error.

I see now that the that content had been removed a couple of days prior to my first remark hare with an edit summary saying that it was "non-notable stuff". Regarding notability, please note that notability guidelines do not limit content within an article -- see WP:NNC. The applicable policy here is WP:DUE (part of WP:NPOV), not WP:N. It is a mistake to remove article content on the basis of notability guidelines. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The suggested content proposed by Hcobb does not itself keep with WP:NEU. Additionally, it appears that many newer editors who oppose ANY inclusion of verified content forget that the Heritage Foundation source is NOT the only one, as multiple others have been provided to verify any new content. Additionally, to attack Wtmitchell because he does not support others opinions is not keeping with WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA.

How about the following:

Greater than 27 thousand energy and environmentally related projects have received loans, grants, or other incentives.(source) A few companies connected to these projects have declared bankruptcy, including Solyndra,(source) Ener1,(source) Abound Solar,(source) and A123 Systems.(source)(source)

This would use no-conservative sources and should meet WP:NEU & WP:VER, and not be to extensive to be given undue weight.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Nope, still synthesis no matter how it is worded. What we have here are 2 sets of facts; 1) loans were given and 2) some who received loans later declared bankruptcy. That's all that is here. Everything beyond that, i.e. counter-pointing these 2 events to stage a criticism of Obama's stimulus spending, is a leftover talking point from the Romney campaign. Tarc (talk) 14:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Is it not fact that 27 thousand plus projects were federally funded? Yes?

Is it not fact that it can be verified that the four notable companies listed received federally funded and that those four companies declared bankruptcy? Yes

Therefore, there is no original research here. It can be stated individually, if SYNTH is a concern:

Greater than 27 thousand energy and environmentally related projects have received loans, grants, or other incentives.(source) Solyndra, which received $528 million in loans, later declared bankruptcy.(source) Ener1, which received a $118 million grant, later declared bankruptcy.(source). Abound Solar, which received $68 million in loans, later declared bankruptcy. A123 Systems, which received a $249 million grant, later declared bankruptcy.(source)

This extends the content size, but does not summarize as efficiently as the previous version.

To exclude verified neutrally worded content because someone claims it is a talking point, does not meet with WP:DUE, if that is the primary reason for opposition. Otherwise, of that opinion were to be carried out universally all content that is opposed to the policies of Bush Administration on that Wikipedia article should be removed, and same goes with all previous Administrations. See how that doesn't make sense and doesn't keep with WP:NPOV?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

It's being excluded because it is hysterical right-wing bullshit that nobody cares about. There's just no way in a million years it would meet WP:WEIGHT, even if you could actually find a single reliable source that supports the narrative you are wishing to push. Jesus fucking Christ, dude. Enough of this agenda-driven editing already! -- Scjessey (talk) 23:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

NPOV requires the usual, rather than the unusual to be noted. So a simple note that Obama's energy polices have be 99% successful would suffice, without noting any of the many many successes or few failures by name in this article. Hcobb (talk) 21:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

That gigantic reach on all fronts is wp:snow. North8000 (talk) 23:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Do we all agree with the facts that the failure rate of firms suckling at Obama's stimulus was much lower than for companies in general at the time? Hcobb (talk) 02:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The key point here is that government investments in companies during the Obama presidency have been totally unremarkable. They've been marginally more successful than the investments made under previous administrations and quite a bit more successful than the private sector during the same period. It's extraordinary that the fringe editors here want to somehow take these generally positive results and present them with a negative spin and think they can get away with it. It's a bit like complaining because some guy lost his job when the overall unemployment rate dropped. It's a clear WP:WEIGHT issue. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Given the VAST amount of coverage of the highly notable bankruptcies of companies that have received that were funded by the Obama administration, it is a WEIGHT issue that there is absolutely no mention of it in this article; there should be some mention of the companies that have declared bankruptcies that have received funding from the Obama Administration under the effort highlighted in this article.

Furthermore, in respionse to HCOBB. I have been accused of adding synthesized content into the article, or proposing addition of synythesized content. To state that a large amount of companies that received funding did not declare bankruptcy, and that there were only a few bankruptcies out of the total would itself be synthesis.

If we are to use the CNN reference alone we can add verified, neutrally worded, due weight content that states five companies funded under the green energy programs of the Obama Administration have declared bankruptcy.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Putting aside the inter-editor bombast, the stimulus program is fairly significant overall to the presidency (though it is a combined administration / congressional federal government thing and not specific to the president). I don't see that the sub-issue of funding for alternative energy programs and the recipients' respective successes and failures, as terribly significant or relevant to the presidency of Obama, the subject at hand here. We don't go into that detail on an industry-by-industry basis. There is considerably more sourcing for this than other industries, but that's entirely attributable to the election politicking, and as such much more germane to the campaign articles. We really shouldn't let party politics set the agenda for what we deem noteworthy vis-a-vis the underlying coverage of government, as governance and politics are two different subjects. It may also be relevant to some articles about alternative energy programs, and of course the individual companies involved. Speaking of weight issues, I just hacked away some at the overly detailed (but scattershot and disjoint) coverage of unemployment percentages and what people on both sides and analysts had to say about the month-by-month figures. All that stuff looks pointless in hindsight. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

If the content that I just tagged for discussion remains, it should be balanced, and include neutrally worded and verifiable to reliable source referenced (as I have proposed) content regarding the highly notable bankruptcies related to the funding. Otherwise, perhaps as Wikidemon has proposed, the sentence should be removed all together.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I've removed your tag as it was simply not necessary. The existing text is balanced, neutrally-worded and verifiable. Your proposed addition is unbalanced, biased and from dubious sources. Please stop disrupting Wikipedia to further promote your ideology. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

IMHO removal of the tag is inappropriate, as there is an active discussion not only on including verifiable to (single or multiple) reliable source(s) neutrally worded text, but also on possible removal of the sentence as proposed above by Wikidemon. Furthermore, to make the accusation above Scjessey, IMHO, is in violation of civil and is not keeping with WP:AGF. To exclude a small sized link to this active and ongoing discussion because the discussion because it is opposed by a few editors, but supported by other editors, is inappropriate. Excluding neutrally worded verifiable content as it does not present the subject in a favorable light, especially given that the majority of the content does, is not keeping with WP:NEU. Furthermore, please see WP:OWN; one editor does not control the content of the article, and exclusion of appropriate tags because an editors does not agree with the opinion of some editors in the discussion is IMHO not constructive.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I kinda agree on the procedure & behavior, though the soft touch seems to work best with everyone including Scjessey. I definitely agree that we shouldn't include laudatory content about the alternative energy part of the stimulus program if we don't include the criticism. Whatever one thinks of the validity of the criticism, in this case the criticism itself is a major part of the issue. By contrast, if we are going to go into detail on the success of the alternative energy stimulus, we're remiss if we don't mention the fact that the failures of the program were the subject of a major political fracas. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikidemon is far more diplomatic than I in this matter. I see a clear example of POV pushing with little evidence of good faith from RightCowLeftCoast. This has been going on far too long and I will no longer waste my time trying to compromise with someone who has no interest in bettering this project. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, not assuming good faith. I am only attempting to achieve neutrality. I am not attempting to include undue weight, and I have no interest in wording any additional content in an overtly negative manor; yet I stand accused of not attempting to better the project. I am not attempt to POV push, if anything POV exclusion is something of an issue in this discussion.

If Scjessey would be civil with me, I would be more than happy to be civil with him.

That being said, I would be incline to either have balance, neutrally worded, and verifiable content regarding this issue, or no content regarding this issue at all (as suggested by Wikidemon). Perhaps we should give it a week (say 6 January 2012), and if there is no opposition to Wikidemon's proposal then we can follow through with the content removal as suggested.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that few, if any, share your opinion that the article at present is unbalanced. Tarc (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Question, should this article only contain content that is positive, or presented in a postive light, about the subject?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

As no-one has put forward such a position or assertion in this discussion, your question is rather pointless and borderline disruptive. NPOV means that all significant points of view are represented. The material you insist on adding...that some stimulus recipients subsequently going bankrupt reflects badly/negatively on the stimulus plan itself... is insignificant, as it is not found in reliable sources. Tarc (talk) 22:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I am curious as to why verified content was removed, and why some other editors oppose its inclusion. To state that content regarding bankruptcies of companies that have received federal funding relating to the Obama Administration's green energy programs is a out right lie. If you look at the links above to sources, one is to CNN, and there are multiple others to non-conservative (and some left leaning (such as the Huffington Post)) reliable sources. Therefore, I would kindly ask that others stop lying about my intentions.

It can be stated as fact, and neutrally, that the Obama Administration has funded programs with the goal of increasing renewable energy production. It can be stated as fact, and neutrally, that there are several highly notable companies that have after received funding from the Obama Administration have declared bankruptcy. However, to exclude that the latter, but only include the former, creates a bias within the article.

Of course, as Wikidemon has proposed, excluding both would remove the bias that presently exist.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

When one just speaks of simple facts ("programs were funded", "some programs declared bankruptcy"), there is nothing notable or remarkable about hose facts. Businesses are a) funded with government money every year. Businesses b) go bankrupt every year, that's a routine, run-of-the-mill "a" and a routine "b". The problem is, you wish to add a and b together into a [Heritiage Foundation-like condemnation. That condemnation simply does not exist in reliable sources, it is a product of fringe media. What you are trying to add to this article would break WP:NPOV, not satisfy it. Clear? I certainly hope so. Tarc (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Above is in violation of WP:CIVIL, and supports not following WP:NEU. I kindly ask the above user to maintain civility.

Furthermore, the above statement is supporting exclusion of verified to reliable source(s) content that can be neutrally worded. It claims that I am attempting to add something synthesized when it is clearly stated in the reliable sources. Because an editor may not agree with what a reliable sources says is not a reason for exclusion.

The reliable sources (as has been provided numerous times above) state that the Obama Administration, through its green energy initiatives (as currently included in the article, which was been proposed by another editor for deletion), have funded companies that have declared bankruptcies. These bankruptcies were highly notable, notable enough, that some of those companies have their own articles. This is factual, verifiable to reliable sources, and can be worded neutrally in this article.

I would support either inclusion of additional content, neutrally worded of course, that I have already should to be clearly verifiable; or, the deletion of the content as suggested by Wikidemon.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

See the following references:

• Steve Hargreaves (22 October 2012). "Obama's alternative energy bankruptcies". CNN. Retrieved 31 December 2012.
• Ronnie Greene; Matthew Mosk (6 March 2012). "Green Firms Get Fed Cash, Give Execs Bonuses, Fail". ABC News. Retrieved 31 December 2012.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

From your ref above: "less than 1% have gone bankrupt", so let's report that please. Hcobb (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. We might as well report that less than 1% of meteors in our galaxy hit the White House, or that less than 1% of NFL quarterbacks threw 200 touchdowns this season. Tarc (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Or less than 1% of New Yorkers were killed in 9/11? If we were going to include a figure we would include an exact or approximate figure without saying what it is more than or less than. Anyway, please forgive me if I'm being dense here but I don't see any positive content here either. The article as currently written says that the government provided $54 billion of stimulus money for a variety of purposes, it does not comment on the success or failure of that effort. Looks neutral to me. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It does say that, that is verifiable; it also says what companies, and how much funding they received, declared bankruptcy, this is verifiable as well. However, those who support inclusion of the 1% statement, are against inclusion of other content. Why? To include one and not the other is a clear violation of WP:WEIGHT, IMHO.

Wikidemon, I have not stated that the content about funding green energy programs via the stimilus is non-neutral, or non-verified. That is not what is being discussed.

What is being discussed is the removal of verified content that was initially removed prior to the 2012 election. I have shown via multiple reliable sources (non-bias & bias (Huffington Post & Heritage Foundation)) that the content that was removed is verifiable. The wording followed WP:NEU & WP:ATTRIBUTE, however it was removed. I have also stated that I am willing to compromise by not including some reliable sources, and to work with others to find neutral wording that can be acceptable to all involved. Rather a group of editors have continued to state their opinion that verifiable content (even neutrally worded) should be excluded.

Additionally, tags indicating that there is an active discussion have also been removed. This to makes no sense. The discuss template itself is non-intrusive.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

OMFG. The simple fact is that there is a significant majority of editors that disagree with your approach, for several reasons. We have laid out those reasons and you have argued and argued and argued until you've gone way past the point of simple tendentiousness into the realm of everyone wants you to just STFU. You are totally unwilling to accept the consensus that has formed and so you keep insisting on disruptively tagging the article. I'm sure you are sincere about your point of view, but you must understand that it has formed from listening to an echo chamber that reverberates only with fringe views. It is time for you to admit you're wrong (or at least see you are never going to get want you want) and move on. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I have read WP:SNOW, I have read WP:NEU, I have read WP:WEIGHT, I have read WP:RS, and I have read WP:VER. The content that was removed, all but the first. Yet, even in the first (which is an essay) it says:

The snowball clause is not policy, and there are sometimes good reasons for pushing ahead against the flames anyway; well-aimed snowballs have, on rare occasions, made it through the inferno to reach their marks.

If there are a large number, even a consensus of editors, that seek to supress neutrally worded, balanced in weight, verified by reliable source(s) content because they do not agree with it, that does not make the censorship right.

Moreover, the above statement by Scjessey, IMHO, is clearly uncivil.

This article should not become not be a promotional page for the subject; nor should it be an attack page either. Therefore, to exclude content that may be observed by some as not positively reflecting upon the subject would create an article that on balance becomes a promotion or propaganda page. Such a page would be against policy, as would such a page that is purely a criticism page (oh wait, those exist, or did exist against conservative notable individuals). So since criticism pages exist, that must mean that promotoion pages exist as well, even though both are against policy. So if against policy, there is a consensus to make this a promotion page, I will continue to advocate for policy.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:TEND. Then read it again. Then print it and read it again. If you still haven't got it, come back here and I'll show you what "uncivil" really looks like. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This isn't getting anywhere. Yet there seems to be a simple content proposal here (is there?) that we can quickly resolve. Without apportioning blame, could both of you please ignore each other's tangential comments about civility and behavior, take a breath, and resume this discussion in a clear, succinct way? If you don't want to discuss it, you don't have to, you can just say you agree or not with a proposal, or that you want to make a certain change or keep things as they are. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree incivility of one editor towards another is not constructive, and reflects poorly upon that editor.

As for the proposal of Wikidemon, although I would prefer to have a balanced amount of content. If balance is achieved by not including information, I would not be opposed to Wikidemon's proposal of not including information of funding of green energy, due to the WP:WEIGHT statement:

I don't see that the sub-issue of funding for alternative energy programs and the recipients' respective successes and failures, as terribly significant or relevant to the presidency of Obama, the subject at hand here. We don't go into that detail on an industry-by-industry basis.

— Wikidemon

In and of itself, it is verified to a reliable source, and neutrally worded; however, given that other neutrally worded, attributed, and verified to multiple reliable source content is being censored and thus making the content unbalanced, as I said before, I would not be opposed to Wikidemon's proposal.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing in the section of the article titled "Environment" that is at present unbalanced, biased or wrong. You will not be adding biased material on bankruptcies, as that has nothing to do with the subject of the article. Anything beyond this point, by you, is quite frankly WP:IDHT material. Tarc (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The content that Wikidemon speaks of is the following:

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided $54 billion in funds to double domestic renewable energy production, renovate federal buildings making them more energy-efficient, improve the nation's electricity grid, repair public housing, and weatherize modest-income homes.[265]

This is verifiable to a reliable source.

However, as what was shown above, there was material removed that was neutrally worded, and attributed to two reliable sources (one CNN, the other the Heritage Foundation (which some contest is not)) was removed. Additionally, limiting it down to only news sources, such as CNN and CBS has been blocked, even though I have stated that I only wish to add neutrally worded and verifiable content regarding the highly notable bankruptcies funded by the $54 billion mentioned.

The current content only list the positive outcomes of the funding, however, fails to include neutrally worded verified to reliable source(s) content about non-positive outcomes of the funding. This creates a paragraph that does not meet neutrality. Thus it creates content that can be viewed as being promotional. Therefore, those are two policies that are not being followed.

Local consenus, if such a consensus in fact exist at all (I would argue that there is presently no consensus), to censor non-positive outcomes of the funding does not trump policy.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

If you remove the ultra-hyper-mega-superpartisan Heritage Foundation from the list of acceptable sources, your entire premise collapses. It is only their anti-government textual barfing that spins these tiny few bankruptcies as "notable". To everyone else, they are unremarkable. Since the overwhelming vast majority of firms benefitting from this investment did not go bankrupt, surely by concentrating on the few that did you are violating WP:WEIGHT? How can you not see this? Your claims of promotion/censorship are ridiculous. Nobody agrees with you. Move on, please. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The correct weight question is not what percentage of government-supported companies went bankrupt, but whether the sources on balance considered the bankruptcies to be worth writing about. If the sources consider it noteworthy, we do to; if they don't, we don't. There are certainly many sources that reported on individual bankruptcies, particularly Solyndra's. But is this significant when held against the immensity of the subject of a presidential administration (weight), and if so, in what way (relevance to this particular article)? I would argue that most of the neutral, strong sources cover the broad issue of energy/stimulus company failures as a political controversy, rather than stringing the individual cases together for themselves to treat it as a business or governmental matter. The more partisan sources (Fox, MSNBC, Heritage Foundation) get into the fray themselves, so even if they are reliable as to other matters, their participation in the debate has to be discounted when assessing notability / weight. And finally, although it's a little tricky original research wise to work through the substance of the issue, Scjessey's point that the bankruptcy rate is in fact unremarkable or even low tends to confirm that the issue is a matter of politics, not actual business economics. As a political row, the issue is better suited to the hierarchy of articles about political campaign issues. We do touch briefly on some campaign issues here, but Solyndra was at best a secondary campaign issue next to the big ones (abortion, gay marriage, unemployment, taxes and budgets, and so on). - Wikidemon (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The argument that without the Heritage Foundation source, the connection of the Obama Administration (the subject of this article), the funding of " double domestic renewable energy production" through the ARRA, and some of the bankruptcies covered, would be non-notable is wrong. If you see above, there are multiple non Heritage Foundation reliable sources that cover the Obama Green Energy funded bankruptcies, that cover them to the point where there is significant coverage and thus make them notable. See this link of a search here. Sources such as CNN, Forbes, Fox News, CBS News, San Francisco Chronicle, Huffington Post, and ABC News cover the bankruptcies (and many more sources, as my list s not an exhaustive listing of sources). Therefore, to exclude verifiable content that does not show positive outcomes of the $54 billion spent, while ONLY including positive outcomes creates the undue weight status. This, thus creates a non-neutral promotional paragraph about the money spent. It would be like writing about the Battle of Midway, and ONLY mentioning the four Japanese carriers sunk, and EXCLUDING/CENSORING the loss of the Yorktown.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

No, that is completely wrong. Coverage about the bankruptcies certainly exists, but the significance of these bankruptcies with respect to the Presidency of Barack Obama is almost zero. Only the right-wing Heritage Foundation thinks it is a big deal. That the Obama administration funded green energy products is germaine to this article, but the "but Solyndra!" part of the story is not germaine. It's just right-wing, campaign-related bullshit and it has no place in this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. But I'm picking up something here, a claim that the article as it stands is listing successes. I don't think so but it could be read that way because it says that the money was spent to X, which implies a result. There is a claim, cited to the act itself as a primary source, that the act "...provided $54 billion in funds to double domestic renewable energy production". Did it in fact double domestic renewable energy production and meet its other goals? That would need a cite, and it would take us down the road of analyzing the effect of the program. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

However, I have clearly shown that the Heritage Foundation, is NOT THE ONLY reliable source that covers the story; I have done so repeatedly, and that is being ignored by editors who support continued censorship of content that does not reflect positive incomes of the $54 billion spent. Therefore, to say that "Only the right-wing Heritage Foundation thinks it is a big deal." is incorrect, and is a Red herring. Even removing Heritage Foundation, there are multiple types reliable sources that cover the topic in an in-depth manor that meets significant coverage for the sake of notability in the context of the $54 billion spent.

Therefore, to exclude non-positive outcomes from the $54 billion, but to ONLY include positive outcomes from the same funds creates a promotional paragraph, which is against policy. And as I said before, local consensus does not overide policy.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

What positive outcomes? All it says is this:

"The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided $54 billion in funds to double domestic renewable energy production, renovate federal buildings making them more energy-efficient, improve the nation's electricity grid, repair public housing, and weatherize modest-income homes."

In otherwords, it states that $54 billion was set aside and it explains what the money was intended to be spent on. It makes no mention of the efficacy of the funding. There's no positive or negative spin whatsoever. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

In listing the intents, it thus states expected positive outcomes. I have shown that there are non-"right wing" sources that give significant coverage to non-positive outcomes; others are trying to censor that data. I have not argued against inclusion of the "1% statement" regarding the funding, as it is verifiable to a reliable source; however, there have been several editors who are against inclusion of other verifiable content.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Every piece of legislation like this states the intended outcomes. You obviously cannot tell the difference between a "desired outcome" (as presented in the text) and a "positive outcome" (which is impossible to measure after so short a period of time). We don't include any outcomes, whether positive or negative. For example, renewable energy production has more than doubled since the passage of ARRA - a positive outcome not mentioned in the text. It is not "censorship" when editors want to exclude unremarkable details that (a) would violate the WP:WEIGHT part of WP:NPOV, and (b) are very obviously designed to be inserted to support an ideological narrative. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I have not campaigned for excluding balanced content, both postive and negative outcomes, that are neutrally worded and verified to reliable source(s). So if there are reliable sources (including Heritage Foundation (which there has been an opinion that reliable sources (such as Huffington Post) need not be unbias themselves) that verify positive or negative outcomes, I for one say equally weighted content for both should be included in the article. The link provided by Scjessey, may be "left-wing" (that being thinkprogress.org), but that does not automatically exclude it from being a reliable source, as the user has claimed the "right-wing" nature of Heritage Foundation does exclude it.

What I have seen for campaigned here is exclusion of neutrally worded, verified to reliable source(s) content, that itself has received so much coverage by multiple reliable sources that it itself has recieved signficiant coverage as defined by WP:GNG. Yet it is censored here.

All this being said Wikidemon's previous proposal was that the $54 billion dollar spending itself is not significant enough within the context of the subject that the sentence there shouldn't be included at all. Or at least that is how I understand the proposal. I could understand that reasoning, seeing as how in the course of the present administration more than 8 trillion has been spent, and 54 billion is not even a whole percen of the funds spent.

Perhaps it's time for an RfC.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

$10 billion here, $10 billion there, sooner or later you're talking about a lot of money :) I think the issue is very notable, in total and with respect to each company that got seriously funded. It's just that this has to stand up next to every other one of the thousand things that happened so far during Obama's presidency, from the Beer Summit to the dog and the vegetable garden and all the major appointments. There's no exact science to figuring out what's important enough to mention. I think there could be a short neutral mention that there was some criticism or political opposition to the bailout as well. I guess the bottom line is that we're here for serious interested readers, and ought to convey as much as we can to give them a good general unerstanding if they just want to skim this article, and a starting point for exploring other more specific articles in more detail. In my experience RfCs tend to be kinda frustrating BTW. Either nobody pays attention at all or you get people playing games and repeating the same arguments even more, it can sometimes amp up any disagreement instead of resolving it. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

May I be correct in stating that Wikidemon would support neutrally worded, verified to reliable source(s), balanced content regarding the outcomes (both positive and negative) of the $54 billion dollar stimulus spending?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

That would be inappropriate per WP:WEIGHT. That level of detail belongs in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, not here. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

If that is the case, singling out a single $54 billion portion of a $787-$831 billion dollar act could also be seen as having inappropriate weight in this article (at the low estimate of 787 billion 54 is 6.8% of funds; and at the high estimate of 831 billion 54 is 6.4% of funds).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

What are you on about? The previous two paragraphs discuss the other parts of ARRA. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The sentence which is being defended by Scjessey, which the editor has advocating nothing follow (even if neutrally worded and verified to reliable source(s)), is:

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided $54 billion in funds to encourage domestic renewable energy production, make federal buildings more energy-efficient, improve the electricity grid, repair public housing, and weatherize modest-income homes.[263]

I am stating that if Scjessey is making the arguement that nothing else should follow the sentence quoted above due to WP:WEIGHT, I can therefore argue that singling out $54 billion out of 787-831 billion dollars of authorized sepending itself would should be removed per the arguement put forward by Scjessey. However, if Scjessey views the sentence as being proper in the article due to it being neutrally worded and verified, and having sufficient weight to be in the article, then outcomes (including non-positive outcomes) should also have sufficient weight for inclusion. Additionally, let us look at the weight of "green energy funding obama stimulus", it does appear to be notable; yet look at what are the highest search results:

• Recapping the Obama Administration Green Energy Stimulus Failures, Canada Free Press
• What we got for $50 billion in 'green' stimulus, CNN
• Obama's alternative energy bankruptcies, CNN
• Examiner Editorial: Insiders get rich on Obama's green energy stimulus, Washington Examiner
• Battery Maker A123's Bankruptcy Drawing Scrutiny Of Obama's Green Stimulus Before Debate, Huffington Post

So, there is sufficient weight to include the sentence (3,260 thousand hits), yet within the weight of the subject, the bankruptices and non-positive outcomes of that subject are the heaviest weighted parts of that subject. Therefore, to exclude non-positive outcomes of the 54 billion dollars would be 'censorship of content that has sufficient weight for inclusion into the subject which Scjessey is defending should be within the article.

As for the two paragraphs prior to the sentence which Scjessey is advocating stand alone, with no outcomes (positive or negative) following it are as follows:

The New York Times reported in 2009, that the NSA is intercepting communications of American citizens including a Congressman, although the Justice Department believed that the NSA had corrected its errors.[260] United States Attorney General Eric Holder resumed the wiretapping according to his understanding of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008 that Congress passed in July 2008, but without explaining what had occurred.[261]

[edit] Environment

On January 27, 2009, Obama issued two presidential memoranda concerning energy policy. One directed the Department of Transportation to raise fuel efficiency standards incrementally to 35 miles per US gallon (15 km/L) by 2020, and the other directed the Environmental Protection Agency to allow individual states to set stricter tailpipe emissions regulations than the federal standard.[42][262]

Both these paragraphs have nothing to do with the ARRA, more commonly refered to as Obama Stimulus.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I said two previous paragraphs, not preceeding. The two paragraphs I was referring to are the fifth paragraph of the "Legislation and executive orders" section and the first paragraph of the "Economy" section. So everything you said above is based on a misunderstanding of my comment, I'm afraid. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The paragraphs quoted above are the two paragraphs that came BEFORE the paragraph which is under discussion, the two paragraphs which are linked by the above user are not the paragraphs described when Scjessey wrote:

The previous two paragraphs discuss the other parts of ARRA.

— Scjessey, 12 JAN 2013

Therefore, any misunderstanding on my part is only due to the other editor not being sufficiently clear in their statement. I thank the other user for clarifying what he meant by two previous paragraphs.

That being said, the two previous paragraphs are not my concern, and it could be said that other than the paragraph contained in the Legislation and executive order section, would have undue weight in the article using the argument advanced by Scjessey, who states any level of details on the legislation and impact of it within this article would be considered undue weight within this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

All three paragraphs simply state the purpose of ARRA. None of them speculate on efficacy. It is only you who wishes to do this in order to get your "But Solyndra!" narrative into the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Should content verified by reliable source(s) regarding outcomes of "$54 billion in funds to encourage domestic renewable energy production," both positive and negative, be included within the article, following this sentence

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided $54 billion in funds to encourage domestic renewable energy production, make federal buildings more energy-efficient, improve the electricity grid, repair public housing, and weatherize modest-income homes.[263]

?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - this level of detail is best left to the article for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, rather than this already very long article. Also, it is only an excuse for the proposing editor to shoehorn some Solyndra-related bloviating into the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The opinion of Scjessey has already been made very clearly in the discussion above this RfC, and need not be restated here within the RfC. I was hoping this RfC would bring additional editors' opinions regarding the discussion above.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Why not? Your opinion is being restated simply by calling for an RfC on a matter, despite a solid consensus against your position. This is not a constructive RfC, but rather it is another example of you tendentiously not getting the point. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - The RfC filer has consistently misrepresented the situation at hand; it is not merely a matter of "should content from reliable sources" but rather a question of giving undue weight to a fringe criticism/observation. This is nothing new with this article's talk page, the archives are littered with a variety of names and faces have tried similar things over the years. Tarc (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

As can be shown above, the positive and negative outcomes of the funding are not fringe, it has been covered by a multitude of reliable sources (both news and non-news) sources. What content should have sufficient weight to belong in this article, and what should not? Even the sentence quoted above as at least one opinion which disputes its weight in this RfC.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC's are "requests for comment", not "requests to rehash the discussion that led to the RfC in the first place". Please don't pester everyone that weighs in on this section, please. You had your say. Tarc (talk) 02:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know there was a policy that stated I could not follow up with a question. I have stated my opinions above, as have others, but how is this not allowing me to ask a follow up question?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

No policy / guideline limits on discussion until you get to the thresholds of tendentiousness, wikilawyering, etc. But it does tend to turn people off when the nominator argues against every single comment contrary to their proposal, particularly people who just wanted to register their opinion rather than enter into a debate. Plus it's ineffective and can dilute the message to repeat it. People start tuning out when it becomes an off-topic wall of text. That's probably why threaded discussions aren't allowed in ArbCom statements. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Two out of plenty, even if cut down to green energy is/was only notable within the election but any due weight is lost for this article within the big picture.TMCk (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

So, if the sentence quoted above is only notable within the context of the election, should it be mentioned in this article at all?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose on both weight and POV grounds. Although many sources exist, the presidency is a huge topic, and those sources are not sufficient to establish that this is a significant topic in proportion to the overall scope of the Presidency. Logically, the amount of funding here is barely enough to mention at all, much less to go into any analysis. Nor do the sources establish it as particularly relevant to the presidency, as many if not most of them that mention the administration's role discuss it in the context of politics and campaign strategy, not economics and governance. Regarding POV, adding two opposed POVs does not make an article more neutral, it makes it doubly charged. Whereas campaigns and politics may be point-counterpoint, history is not a series of statements followed by the pros and the cons. If there is more to be said about this, it's that the failure of several companies that got stimulus funds became an issue of moderate significance during the 2012 campaign. That's certainly notable and belongs in the encyclopedia, but again, there are weight/relevancy concerns about adding that here. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

What weight should the sentence quoted above have in this article? Is it relevant to the entire Administration as a whole? Is it relevant only within the context of election? Is it relevant in regards to the total funding authorized by the ARRA within the context of this article?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:DEADHORSE. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Disposition Matrix

Disposition Matrix should be added to the article. 72.53.146.220 (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI, it's referring to this, an evolution of the anti-terrorism / targeted killing hit list. It belongs in some article for sure, but I have no opinion for now on whether this is that article. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Wall Street Reform Section Neutrality

I have placed a neutrality tag on the Wall Street Reform Section that describes the Dodd-Frank Act. The sentence "The law recognizes complex financial derivatives and makes rules to protect consumers from unfair practices in loans and credit cards by establishing a new consumer protection agency" seems to lend positive interpretation of the act to the reader instead of an objective, unbiased viewpoint. Specifically, the phrase "...makes rules to protect consumers from unfair practices in loans and credit cards" seems to be somewhat biased. Perhaps the phrase could be revised?

Also-not sure if this is appropriate or not for this brief summary of the act-but shouldn't there be some mention of the controversy surrounding the bill?

-Labranewf (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you have an alternate wording of that sentence that you think better describes the bill's purpose, along with a source? --Jayron32 03:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the source itself is fine. Perhaps we could simply replace the term "unfair" to establish a more generally neutral tone for the section. "Controversial", maybe? Do you have any other suggestions?

-Labranewf (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Go for it. There's no rule mandating that it's better to tag a section than to fix it yourself. In fact, everything about Wikipedia's core principles says the opposite. Your supposed to just fix problems. Wikipedia is built on the "it's better to ask forgiveness than permission" model anyways. Have at it. If someone does object, then you discuss (WP:BRD), but nothing around here would ever get any better if we discussed changing every single word in every single article. --Jayron32 04:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

reverted. "unfair" is in the source, that's what the rules are indeed protecting against. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Then I think we should call the source into question. I've found another source herethat I think provides a more objective analysis. It's from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.

The document states: "The stated goals of the act were to provide for financial regulatory reform, to protect consumers and investors, to put an end to too-big-to-fail, to regulate the over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives markets, to prevent another financial crisis, and for other purposes."

Would you agree that this would serve as a better overview than the current source? I think this minimizes any potential bias and would be be better over all-it's the actual official description of the bill and the Chicago Fed is a better source than CNN (IMO). -Labranewf (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The quote appears to be more neutral, however using the text word for word may violate WP:COPYVIO. Neutrally reword what it states, and make the change.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

If the idea is to give a straight description, there is no need to "neutralize" the language. If it says "unfair", then that should be in the text also. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC) - Update: I can see a change was already made, so this is all moot. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that Scjessey's objection to having neutral wording is not because we have had disagreements in the past.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that RightCowLeftCoast's pointless comment that evidently ignored the "update" I made to the end of my last comment is not because of an eagerness to engage in battleground behavior just to annoy me. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I really like the new wording. I think it removes any possible value judgment. Thanks. -Labranewf (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of the Drone War

The expansion of use of drones to make war on non-state entities in various countries is an important part of the Obama administration's foreign policy. I brought this up on Barack Obama's page, and while the general consensus seems to be in favor of adding it, Scjessey suggests that we include it in more detail in this article as well. I suggest a subsection in the "Foreign Policy" section of the article. Some argue that the term "Drone War" is politicized. Personally, I find it fairly objective, but if that's an unacceptable title, "Expansion of Drone Program" would probably suffice. The subsection should include a couple paragraphs describing the use of drones, including their use in Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia, and their recently announced expansion to North Africa (from a base in Niger). I would suggest including the opposing viewpoints on drones- maybe a brief description of the White House's position followed by a brief description of the anti-drone opinion as espoused by some noteworthy governmental or journalistic source (al-Jazeera comes to mind immediately, but there are others). Thoughts? Kaputa12 (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• yes the drone war is important and should be included. However foreign editorial opinion from longstanding opponents of the US doesn't cut much weight and does not belong. Rjensen (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
• yes, the drone war is notable and one of many important policies that should make the cut for inclusion in this article. However, I would add that when and as it is added to the article, both the foreign aspects of the drone war are relevant as well as the domestic policy issues that have arisen once the secrecy was removed from some of the foreign drone operations in 2009-2012. The domestic controversy over foreign drone use (e.g., on American citizens, on "innocent" civilians, Foreign government opposition/support, etc.) AND the domestic controversy that arose in early March 2013 over the president's policy on the use of drones on American soil against American citizens who do not pose an imminent threat (including the President's statements in the recent recorded interview, Attorney General Holder's Congressional testimony on March 6th, etc.). Net: it is a worthy topic, and probably warrants a small section in the article that will address all three of these aspects of the public policy matter and resultant debate. Cheers. N2e (talk) 14:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Ethics: pay for access scandal

I recently came across [21] and I think it should be added to the Ethics section of this article: "Giving or raising $500,000 or more puts donors on a national advisory board for Mr. Obama’s group and the privilege of attending quarterly meetings with the president, along with other meetings at the White House." (the original report, the press conference response.) Whatever the details, the plain facts seem to be that half a million dollars buys regular meetings with the president. EllenCT (talk) 07:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

yes that's how politics has worked for 100 years. no scandal. Rjensen (talk) 08:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Really? I was under the impression that this sort of thing is fine for contests among low-dollar contributors for an isolated dinner or some such, but high-dollar access is usually not par for the course. Do you remember Clinton's Lincoln Bedroom scandal? Or [22]? EllenCT (talk) 08:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The Lincoln bedroom issue was not talking to donors but giving them semi-scred space for the night. The Brits have a different philosophy--they let newspapers bully and bribe politicians in a major way until 2 years ago. The American philosophy is to ignore the rpess and pay attention to $$, because of the enormous costs of campaigns.Rjensen (talk) 09:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you cite a previous example? EllenCT (talk) 09:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Eisenhower was notorious-- he ignored his old army buddies and clubbed with millionaires who funded his 1952 campaign. He appointe 8 to hs cabinet along the Secty of Labor who was not rich ("Eight millionaires and a plumber" was the wisecrack). See Daniel M. Friedenberg (2002). Sold to the Highest Bidder: The Presidency from Dwight D. Eisenhower to George W. Bush. Prometheus Books. pp. 25–27., which has many similar stories about other presidential candidates since Ike. Bernard Baruch became a powerful insider by regular $500 or $1000 donations to many Senators (that was big money in the 1920s and 1930s) Rjensen (talk) 09:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Choosing to meet with select donors after they have donated isn't the same thing as offering meetings to anyone for a set price. Anyway, there seems to be backpedaling from the initial offer of guaranteed in-White House meetings. EllenCT (talk) 09:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

there a long strain of populism in America that associates $ = corruption. The fear that rich people are bribing politicians to get their policy preferences. Ralph Nader represents that paranoia pretty well. But that's not how politics has ever worked in USA. Rjensen (talk) 11:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't doubt that, but has any other president offered meetings for a fixed donation amount? The story is continuing to get major headlines.[23][24][25][26]. There seem to be a few hundred in Google News over the past month so far. EllenCT (talk) 20:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

If this topic can't be included in the article, then what's even the point of having a section called "Transparency" or a section called "Ethics" or a section called "Wall St. Reform" or a section called "Lobbying Reform"? This external criticism of this wikipedia article addresses these sections of the article in great detail. The writer claims that all of these sections have repeatedly removed huge amounts of reliably sourced material from all of these sections, but only when the material shows bad things about the subject. Anything that makes the subject look good is allowed to remain. As a result, this article has a huge number of violates of wikipedia's Wikipedia:NPOV policy. Thirsty and purple (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I removed that link per WP:SPAM. For all I know, you are the writer of that piece. It does not meet the standards of inclusion on Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

This is still generating stories, with Republicans trying to use it politically, so I sincerely doubt it will be going away any time soon.[27][28][29] Since Obama went ahead and met with the group on Wednesday, I'm going to add a short blurb in the Ethics section. EllenCT (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced that this is anything of significant or lasting importance to the level where it's suitable for inclusion. It looks like the political swipe of the day. I also note you added identical content to Organizing for Action. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Certainly time will tell, but when I saw that the Republicans had latched on to it, I became convinced it will probably be long-running. Do you know of any other U.S. president who offered meetings for a set price? EllenCT (talk) 01:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

If the reason why this is getting some press is that Republicans are using it as an issue, perhaps there is there a more appropriate article related to political partisanship, as letting attack politics creep into too many articles about government begins to sacrifice NPOV. AFAIK major donors have gotten access to politicians for as far back as anyone's memory, whether the price is "set" or not seems like a rhetorical point. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

This is continuing to generate a steady quantity of negative press for OFA and Obama, in both factual and op-ed pieces, but now there is no question that the criticism is coming from every part of the political spectrum, it is now broadly international, and it seems to be growing more cutting and angrier in tone, and with more extreme headlines, as the days go by. Here is an example selection of articles since Wednesday's OFA convention, most recent first: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]. While I think some of those factual pieces have important things to include (e.g., the Sunlight Foundation complaint that the list of $500,000+ donors who will meet quarterly with Obama -- somewhere other than the White House -- has not been released) I am not going to be proposing another edit for at least another week, in part because I told my lab advisor that I would wait for reactions to my initial article edits, and also because I think it's likely that there will be further important developments. EllenCT (talk) 05:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be a double standard for inclusion here

The net effect appears to be that even smaller items go in if they look favorable for Barack Obama and that, (by one means or another) larger items that aren't so favorable-looking get left out. For example, the Solyndra topic, where half a billion dollars were lost, and which had immense coverage which related it to him, is not here, but we have an entire >200 words section (plus an image) where he took the popular stance when a person was mistreated when they got locked out of their house and settled it between the two people. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there a point to this, or should I just delete it per WP:FORUM? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me there is a point to it. We ought to strive to keep Wikipedia articles as neutral as possible. This article is no different, and could be improved with some effort on balance, both the good and bad, the widespread agreement and the controversial. I had commented a few days ago, up above in a related section (Inclusion of the Drone War) on a more narrowly focused discussion of an example of this needed balance. My comment was to support inclusion of the Drone war in general, while encouraging all sides to be covered, including the domestic drone policy in particular. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussions like this are universally unproductive. Attempts to add a bunch of controversial stuff, good or bad, introduce POV and move political articles away from being encyclopedic to being more like the point-counterpoint daily news cycle. The idea that we need more negative stuff is not a viable argument for including something. Editors accused of hypocrisy are even less likely to engage in meaningful discussion on that. There may indeed be certain (uncontroversial) things of little import that are in the article. But for a contentious matter to be worth including, there has to be some justification that it is relevant and of due weight to the subject of the article, namely Obama's presidency. Judged on that scale the drone campaign is looking to be a defining concern and a source of much consternation for some people, and may indeed be one of the big points for which Obama is remembered. That wasn't clear even a few months ago, but it may be now. Ideally we would find strong sources that not only talk about the campaign and Obama's role in it, but how that issue is shaping the presidency. Solyndra and pay-to-play are hardly of that magnitude, and seem to matter mainly as a minor rallying point of detractors. They definitely are not issues of historical significance as far as having any dent on the functioning or legacy of the office. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

That is a rare and admirably high standard, much higher than the norm in Wikipedia.North8000 (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with N2e. It seems to me that the point is that North8000's perception is that the overall tone of the article is very POV -- that there is quite a bit of POV pushing in this article as evidenced by the different inclusion standards described and exampled. Since the purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page, I think that this falls within WP:TPG. I don't think that it falls within WP:FORUM, and I don't think that Scjessey should just delete it.

Though it wasn't stated explicitly, I take an implicit suggestion from North8000's comment that NPOV WP editors (if there are any NPOV editors editing this article) should strive to reduce the POV tone of the article, and to balance inclusion standards for this articles content more neutrally. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Then North8000 should make specific suggestions (perhaps with proposed text) about what should be added/cut, rather than just moaning about a perceived double standard. This thread was started to question the editors, not the content. That's inappropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Scjessey's correct. Generalised critiques don't help here. What's needed is specific suggestions for improving article content. HiLo48 (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

OK using the examples from my post, add some coverage of the Solyndra story and remove the section about when someone was mistreated when they got locked out of their house. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Righto. Now, you know I'm not American, so educate me. We get a lot of American news here, but I'm not familiar with either of those matters, and this IS a global encyclopaedia. What's the Solyndra story, and what's the story about someone being mistreated when they got locked out of their house? Or, more to the point, what words would you like to see added, and what reliable sources support those words? HiLo48 (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Solyndra was big in the news because the administration gave a >$500,000,000 loan guarantee to them before they went bankrupt and the taxpayers ate the >$500 million. The article is here Solyndra the loan guarantee section and the "Shutdown and investigation" section cover the parts that were most covered by sources. Has been deleted several times from this article. On you second question, the section I'm referring to is when a person was mis-treatd by the police when he was trying to break into his own house. (I'll bet he got angry and the police responded on an all-too-common power trip) The section is "Gates arrest controversy" North8000 (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem, of course, is that only right-wingers think the Solyndra thing was a big deal. Fox News tried valiantly to make it a "thing", but it just wasn't. Investments of that nature are made by governments all the time, and the ratio of success to failure of the Obama administration has been very good indeed (far better than the private sector). So impeccable, neutral sources will be needed to demonstrate why the Solyndra thing is so important. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Commenting since I participated earlier in this section/discussion. One editor suggested that "[another editor] should make specific suggestions (perhaps with proposed text) about what should be added/cut"

I will just point out that I did that, two sections above. In the section entitled "Inclusion of the Drone War" I offered three specific aspects of the drone controversy—matters of public policy for this administration, quite notable, a bit controversial in various circles, and definitely of both worldwide and domestic interest—that ought to be added to the article. Recommend that specific discussion stay in that section. But I mention it here as it, too, is a way by which the article can become better, as well as more neutral. It should not be left out simply because it is an area in which the administration has been criticised. Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

That's not a convincing argument. If we reported every area where any administration is criticised, our articles would become monsters. HiLo48 (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no "drone war". -- Scjessey (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

While I wish that Wikipedia had a relevancy criteria for content; sadly it does not. The standard described above for inclusion of material about a negative development "impeccable, neutral sources will be needed to demonstrate why Solyndra is so important." is many levels higher the norm in Wikipedia. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

But absolutely the norm for Obama-related articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you see that high bar applied to the things that went well that that are in the article (e.g. on the guy locked out of his house story) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

What is the story behind [39]? Is there a long-running dispute on all those items here? Or a specific thread in the talk page archives about them? EllenCT (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Anything from Grundle is automatically reverted, regardless of merit. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Grundle? What did they do? EllenCT (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

No. User:Grundle2600. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

So this is a long-running attempt to put as much negative information into this article as possible, starting in 2010? Is Grundle2600 the same as User:Thirsty and purple? A comment from that editor was deleted from my talk page after linking to a May 2012 blog post by "Dan from Squirrel Hill" in a tinyurl, which looks like a chronicle of everything critical which has ever been deleted from this article. Do we know whether this is one person or a group? EllenCT (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Grundle2600 is a person who started the "Dan from Squirrel Hill" thingy about the time he was banned from WP.TMCk (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I found his user page before he was banned, and User_talk:Grundle2600#I_started_a_blog. shows it's the same person. He was originally banned because he couldn't resist editing about politics even though he had agreed not to (a topic ban) but I'm having trouble determining why he was topic banned. He didn't seem to have anything to do with Obama until after he was banned. Are people banned for political reasons frequently? EllenCT (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

You obviously haven't read the full history of Grundle2600. He was a prolific and disruptive editor in all Obama-related articles for a long, long time before he was topic banned (and then fully banned). He was not banned "for political reasons", and frankly the suggestion that happens at all (let alone "frequently") is quite ridiculous. Now, if you wish to continue to ask questions about this issue, please do so elsewhere. Asking about this matter here effectively adds to the Grundle2600-based disruption. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I'm sorry. But I feel that I ought to at least explain my disagreement in principle. Human nature being what it is, suggesting that disruptive behavior is only seen and characterized as such when the person(s) labeling communications as disruptive are offended by it or otherwise opposed to it is not ridiculous. I've seen plenty of in-joke humor and long-running pointlessness on wikipedia talk pages already which clearly takes plenty of editor time. I have yet to see anything labeled "disruption" which didn't involve differences in underlying opinions. If you have a counter-example I would be happy to read about it on my talk page. EllenCT (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive is perhaps the wrong word, at least it's too broad for the specific thing that's been happening. Grundle is a friendly, positive, agreeable chap with a nice sense of humor who simply will not stop creating new accounts to post an ever-growing anti-Obama screed on certain articles and talk pages. He's done a few dozen sock accounts, probably more than a hundred edits and reverts. There's nothing offensive at all about that in my opinion, he's expressing a commonly held opinion about Obama. I enjoy the interactions and I wish there were a constructive way to work with him, it's just that adding the same tens of thousands of bytes a hundred times is untenable and nobody has found any other way to get him to stop. As it stands he's not really trolling because nobody is taking the bait, but if we did have a renewed discussion about censorship, bias, content, and behavioral policy every time he reappeared it would be a huge waste of time. AFAIK he is a one-of-a-kind phenomenon on Wikipedia, I don't think you can draw any broader conclusion or fit it into a pattern people deal with very often. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)