MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 7d) to Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama/Archive 2. |
Grundle2600 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 118: | Line 118: | ||
:The criteria we are to use at Wikipedia for "really, really, really" taking an editor's criticism of our entries to articles into consideration is whether their criticism has merit, not whether you voted for the same guy for president. If I weren't familiar with your editing history at this article and your writing style, I would have assumed you were joking with that statement. You've consistently displayed a Libertarian bias at this article, and that statement is a bizarre assertion that you intend to continue to practice the exact same ideological bias you have been, and believe you see in others here. I, too, sympathize, and have contributed to the avalanche of painstakingly specific, informative and referenced responses and constructive criticism you have received here, to no avail. Repeating the same behavior and expecting a different result isn't getting you ''or'' us anywhere, it seems. [[User:Abrazame|Abrazame]] ([[User talk:Abrazame|talk]]) 01:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC) |
:The criteria we are to use at Wikipedia for "really, really, really" taking an editor's criticism of our entries to articles into consideration is whether their criticism has merit, not whether you voted for the same guy for president. If I weren't familiar with your editing history at this article and your writing style, I would have assumed you were joking with that statement. You've consistently displayed a Libertarian bias at this article, and that statement is a bizarre assertion that you intend to continue to practice the exact same ideological bias you have been, and believe you see in others here. I, too, sympathize, and have contributed to the avalanche of painstakingly specific, informative and referenced responses and constructive criticism you have received here, to no avail. Repeating the same behavior and expecting a different result isn't getting you ''or'' us anywhere, it seems. [[User:Abrazame|Abrazame]] ([[User talk:Abrazame|talk]]) 01:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
::Every editor is a human, and all humans are biased. If everyone gets to add what they want, then the article will be balanced. I don't erase other people's sourced stuff. [[User:Grundle2600|Grundle2600]] ([[User talk:Grundle2600|talk]]) 18:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:11, 17 June 2009
Template:Community article probation
Barack Obama B‑class (inactive) | |||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
GM's bankruptcy
Read: General Motors bankruptcy
From the article: " Obama noted that GM will receive $30 billion in additional funding from taxpayers, giving the public a 60 percent share in the company."
"GM became the largest industrial company (and fourth-largest overall) to seek bankruptcy protection in the history of American business" Ultraszuro (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- What about it? Presumably the failure and bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler, the administration's response to it, and the aftermath, deserves some kind of mention here. The outcome is far from known, so it's hard to predict what that will look like. An up-to-the-day account of exactly what is happening and being proposed will be hard to maintain. There is some merit in trying to keep some of the child articles relatively current, but in this article I would argue that we could use a placeholder statement, such as that the administration in 2009 reacted to the financial failures of these two automakers with a variety of proposals, and then a link to those articles.Wikidemon (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I favor including this in the article, but also mentioning that the bailout was started under Bush, and supported by McCain. If Obama is a socialist, then so are they. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- The New York Times referred to GM as "Government Motors." Grundle2600 (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- The Wall St. Journal used the word "nationalize" to describe Obama's actions. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- Romania's former "car czar" writes about his own personal experience, and explains why he thinks Obama will be unable to fix General Motors. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- I would not describe the sources that way. The Times, for instance, used that play of words as an attention grabber intro to a story. It was not presented as a serious news reportage claim, but at the same time is not one of the Times' highest moments for journalistic objectivity. Wikidemon (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
- OK. We certainly don't have to put that (joke?) in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support if we're voting. -SusanLesch (talk) 05:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Also Support if we're voting. I don't think we're to determine what was an attention grabber and what wasn't. Any article could be argued that way on the premise that media organizations make money from their news and that attention grabbing is the crux of their purpose in all news.(Rustydangerfield (talk) 17:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC))
- Support if we're voting. -SusanLesch (talk) 05:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- OK. We certainly don't have to put that (joke?) in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- I would not describe the sources that way. The Times, for instance, used that play of words as an attention grabber intro to a story. It was not presented as a serious news reportage claim, but at the same time is not one of the Times' highest moments for journalistic objectivity. Wikidemon (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I think this info about the White House helping to save the Hummer should go in the environmental section of this article. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Please read your provided source(s) before commenting. Always read the whole story "like you wouldn't care" and then pull the whole info out of it. That might help you in the future (even so I doubt it very much as you "dismissed" previous helpful recommendations from all sides. And by the way, it would be nice if you could and would add something "nice" to any article maybe just ones a week?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- It says the White House said it was "good news" that the Hummer brand was being saved. So much for Obama's concern about global warming. I changed the link to a different source with the same info because the previous link no longer works. I did add some positive stuff about Obama and marijauana to the political positions article, and a few other positive things last year. I voted for Ron Paul, and to me "good news" is when Obama agrees with Ron Paul on issues. If there was something that was "good news" about Obama once a week that I could add, I probably would have voted for Obama! How come you never suggested that the other editors add "bad news" once a week? Grundle2600 (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Neither the old link, nor the new link, mention any connection to Obama. Even if Obama had personally said it was good news, or a source said he was involved, this is not sourced as being at all relevant or significant in connection with his presidency, much less environmental policy. Wikidemon (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- The article includes this paragraph:
- Neither the old link, nor the new link, mention any connection to Obama. Even if Obama had personally said it was good news, or a source said he was involved, this is not sourced as being at all relevant or significant in connection with his presidency, much less environmental policy. Wikidemon (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- It says the White House said it was "good news" that the Hummer brand was being saved. So much for Obama's concern about global warming. I changed the link to a different source with the same info because the previous link no longer works. I did add some positive stuff about Obama and marijauana to the political positions article, and a few other positive things last year. I voted for Ron Paul, and to me "good news" is when Obama agrees with Ron Paul on issues. If there was something that was "good news" about Obama once a week that I could add, I probably would have voted for Obama! How come you never suggested that the other editors add "bad news" once a week? Grundle2600 (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- "The White House welcomed the pending sale of Hummer while quickly pointing out that it had not been involved. The transaction 'is good news for the 3,000 Americans who will be able to keep their jobs, the two American plants that will remain open and the more than 100 Hummer dealers that should be able to stay in business all around the country,' said Bill Burton, a presidential spokesman."
- Since you said, "Neither the old link, nor the new link, mention any connection to Obama," please explain who the "presidential spokesman" is speaking for. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Please explain who the "presidential spokesman" is speaking for. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I think this should be included:
The Financial Times wrote that Obama's treatment of Chrysler's secured creditors "disturbed the security of expectation that has made lenders willing to provide capital as secured credit, thus handicapping all US industry and undermining what has been, for all its flaws, one of the best financial reorganisation processes in the world, now emulated elsewhere." [1]
Grundle2600 (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- No point including editorial flourishes and advocacy. The rules of bankruptcy and the nature of secured credit are basic economic matters, the arguments for which don't have to be repeated here. The long and short of it is that the plan gives some unsecured creditors priority over some secured creditors, running counter to the default rules of bankruptcy law.Wikidemon (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- OK. And thanks for showing that you really, really understand what this is about. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- This edit[1] goes beyond what we were talking about. Among the issues, (1) it introduces a "controversies" section, an idea that has consistently failed to get consensus on this page; (2) it suggests that the Chrysler plan is counter to the dictates of bankruptcy law, when that is not clear or precise - it is simply a different priority order than called for by bankruptcy plan, which if the creditors accept it is perfectly fine and if they do not is subject to resolution by the courts with an outcome we cannot know now; (3) I specifically suggested we not include advocacy and rhetorical flourishes (which describe the PR / public statements in connection with the Richard Mourdock lawsuit); (4) the Murdock lawsuit's relevancy and weight are something that needs to be reviewed and discussed before including. If there's a section about the auto bailouts, that's the place to mention that the administration advanced bankruptcy plans. If there is consensus to mention this we can simply say that the Chrysler plan involved giving some unsecured creditors priority over some unsecured creditors. If people think appropriate we can name those creditors, i.e. the pension plan received money even though the secured bondholders had not been fully paid. Further, if people think it's right to include it seems reasonable to say that this drew reactions that included editorial criticism and/or mention the lawsuit. However, repeating one side's statements of advocacy about this gets into weight, relevancy, and POV problems. Wikidemon (talk) 01:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- You said, "it suggests that the Chrysler plan is counter to the dictates of bankruptcy law, when that is not clear or precise." You are wrong - it is very clear and very precise. This is the first time, ever, that unsecured creditors have been given precedence over secured creditors. This goes 100% totally completely against what the bankruptcy law calls for. It is very clear and very precise about that. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Do you have a source for that claim? It doesn't sound plausible. Bankruptcy settlements are whatever the creditors will accept. If the secured creditors accept it, then it is not counter to bankruptcy law. Further, I am not sure what powers the administration may have to impose its own settlement terms.Wikidemon (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- You said, "it suggests that the Chrysler plan is counter to the dictates of bankruptcy law, when that is not clear or precise." You are wrong - it is very clear and very precise. This is the first time, ever, that unsecured creditors have been given precedence over secured creditors. This goes 100% totally completely against what the bankruptcy law calls for. It is very clear and very precise about that. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- This edit[1] goes beyond what we were talking about. Among the issues, (1) it introduces a "controversies" section, an idea that has consistently failed to get consensus on this page; (2) it suggests that the Chrysler plan is counter to the dictates of bankruptcy law, when that is not clear or precise - it is simply a different priority order than called for by bankruptcy plan, which if the creditors accept it is perfectly fine and if they do not is subject to resolution by the courts with an outcome we cannot know now; (3) I specifically suggested we not include advocacy and rhetorical flourishes (which describe the PR / public statements in connection with the Richard Mourdock lawsuit); (4) the Murdock lawsuit's relevancy and weight are something that needs to be reviewed and discussed before including. If there's a section about the auto bailouts, that's the place to mention that the administration advanced bankruptcy plans. If there is consensus to mention this we can simply say that the Chrysler plan involved giving some unsecured creditors priority over some unsecured creditors. If people think appropriate we can name those creditors, i.e. the pension plan received money even though the secured bondholders had not been fully paid. Further, if people think it's right to include it seems reasonable to say that this drew reactions that included editorial criticism and/or mention the lawsuit. However, repeating one side's statements of advocacy about this gets into weight, relevancy, and POV problems. Wikidemon (talk) 01:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I think we should include this quote reported by Reuters:
"Hey, Obama has just nationalized nothing more and nothing less than General Motors. Comrade Obama! Fidel, careful or we are going to end up to his right." - Hugo Chavez
Grundle2600 (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Criticism and praise of Cairo speech
An editor has recently added a statement that "The speech received both praise and criticism from leaders in the region."[2] and, in the Barack Obama article,"The speech was largely praised by world leaders, but criticized by some"[3] (which conveys a different impression). I think the latter expression is more in line with the sources, but more fundamentally, I don't think the main thing the sources convey about the speech is the relative amount of criticism and praise of it by leaders. They analyze what was in the speech, and then they run down more detailed reactions in different countries, ranging from official statements by spokespeople, to statements by some leaders, to man-in-the-street impressions. I don't know how relevant any of this is to the importance and impact of the speech. To take a few famous examples, when Ronald Reagan said "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" or Kennedy said "Ich bin ein Berliner", we wouldn't really have to say "the statement drew both praise and criticism from world leaders". The former article has a pretty good analysis of the context and legacy of that speech (whereas the latter is mostly about jelly doughnuts - ah, Wikipedia! Anyway, if it's worth an extra sentence, how would you summarize what the speech was about, how it was perceived (and by whom), and its effects? Wikidemon (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Considering the speech wasn't in either article yet, and knowing these are controversial articles, with warnings about POVs, I decided to put in a minimalist statement and see if the whole thing was immediately deleted or whatever. FYI there is a whole article on the speech linked in first sentence Barack Obama's speech at Cairo University, 2009 of both articles which probably could provide some ideas of who said what. Maybe that also needs to be made more clearly linked? And obviously responses do continue. Anyway, I thought I'd see what happened before proceeding further. Obviously there is a lot of negative reaction in the US from people who support Israel and/or dislike Muslims as well, but I didn't even want to start getting into that mess of POV. If the one sentence stays, I'm happy for now. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Obama fires inspector general who exposed misuse of tax dollars by Obama supporter
link I think this may deserve a sentence in the transparency section. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wait and see (like for several days or a week or two) if the story develops further - so far it seems like all we have is an AP wire story, and it's certainly not dominating the front pages of newspapers. This is a general comment for your suggestions as well Grundle. You regularly ask for breaking news to be immediately included, but that risks us falling into the trap of WP:RECENTISM. That recently happened with the Supreme Court case re: Chrysler/Fiat which you were pushing. It could have been a big deal, but ended up not being one at all since the Court let the sale go through—in the end it was a tiny blip and should never have been added in the first place. The same might be true of this story, or it might turn into a large controversy. We have no way of knowing, and until we do we should hold off adding it. I think your suggestions on this talk page will carry more weight if you avoid saying "add this" several hours after a story breaks, and instead wait for quite awhile (it may be weeks sometimes) until we can determine the significance of the story in question. Remember that in the end this article needs to cover four (or maybe eight) years of a presidency—we don't have room for anything except the most important aspects. Maybe this will be one, but we don't know yet. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- OK. Thank you for your comments and suggestions. I will take them into consideration. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- Here is a new editorial by the Wall St. Journal. Here is a new article from Associated Press. Also more from ABC and The Washington Examiner. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- It sounds quite murky. As so often happens, when an overseer / whistleblower is fired, somebody claims a coverup, and someone else claims the person who was fired was misbehaving and making false claims. I wonder if we can allow a sub article to develop on the office or the people involved, and then try to make sense of it in a summary sense to decide if it's important enough to cover and, if so, how. Wikidemon (talk) 04:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- OK. A subarticle it is: Gerald Walpin firing controversy. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Polling
Can we try to keep polling information down to a minimum? It's fairly arbitrary use of statistics, subject to change and interpretation, and not a terribly informative way to tell the story of the presidency.[4] Unless a poll is particularly remarkable I don't think it's very informative. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 16:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- That would also suggest removing the old poll information,[5] which in addition has the disadvantage of being stale. Polls are just snapshots - beyond being unreliable, and of uncertain meaning. If there is a long term trend and we could cite it, we could eventually say something like "public and congressional support for Obama's economic recovery policies fell from a once-high level over the spring and summer of 2009, as X, Y, and Z." But that story is still being told. Wikidemon (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- There should be some discussion of the broad trend, I think, preferably based on a meta-analysis. Rasmussen has much poorer numbers than Gallup. II | (t - c) 16:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- To Wikidemon, respectfully, you just posted at the bio that poll numbers are nothing but factoids without context such as the events and policy decisions, and noted the question of whether it is related to the presidency at all. When the new editor recently added the negative polls to the bio, I edited that to correct his numbers, not to revert or re-add the mention or take it to the talk page. But when this other new editor removes one set of evaluations with some minor qualifications with another set of evaluations with a different claim, I see a story that is failing to be told, not information that is relevant and contextual and responsible. I do not agree that just because a snapshot is perceived as being one moment in time that any editor should come in and substitute that with other data points just because those data points came at a later point in time. We don't want this done with the literal snapshots. We don't want this done with other data. Either the data is bloodless and shouldn't be here or it has the potential to be conveying information and we should understand what that is, discuss how we move forward with encyclopedically presenting a broad but detailed picture of the presidency (or the bio). This isn't a peak on the Billboard chart. This is an oversimplification of an average of numbers based on a variety of questions framed to fit the news of the day. We need to make sure it's not so much of a closeup or displayed from such a skewed perspective that it doesn't actually show that moment in time for the presidency (and/or the man). Abrazame (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- Abrazame, I agree with you. I was not disputing your edit, but rather using it as a way of highlighting the original version. Sorry I did not make that clear. Replacing a positive-sounding poll with a negative one highlights the problem that the positive-sounding polls weren't terribly explanatory either. Wikidemon (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- To Wikidemon, respectfully, you just posted at the bio that poll numbers are nothing but factoids without context such as the events and policy decisions, and noted the question of whether it is related to the presidency at all. When the new editor recently added the negative polls to the bio, I edited that to correct his numbers, not to revert or re-add the mention or take it to the talk page. But when this other new editor removes one set of evaluations with some minor qualifications with another set of evaluations with a different claim, I see a story that is failing to be told, not information that is relevant and contextual and responsible. I do not agree that just because a snapshot is perceived as being one moment in time that any editor should come in and substitute that with other data points just because those data points came at a later point in time. We don't want this done with the literal snapshots. We don't want this done with other data. Either the data is bloodless and shouldn't be here or it has the potential to be conveying information and we should understand what that is, discuss how we move forward with encyclopedically presenting a broad but detailed picture of the presidency (or the bio). This isn't a peak on the Billboard chart. This is an oversimplification of an average of numbers based on a variety of questions framed to fit the news of the day. We need to make sure it's not so much of a closeup or displayed from such a skewed perspective that it doesn't actually show that moment in time for the presidency (and/or the man). Abrazame (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
- There should be some discussion of the broad trend, I think, preferably based on a meta-analysis. Rasmussen has much poorer numbers than Gallup. II | (t - c) 16:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Descriptive reference names
Can we try to keep the names somewhat descriptive? When references are named "ethics", "waivers", "lobbyists", "energy", it takes me ten minutes just to track down the original reference. Please use reference names which are more than one common word long. Particularly in an area like this, refs can become outdated pretty quickly and need to be removed, and it's nice to be able to find the master reference and all of its other references easily. II | (t - c) 16:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I think that 100% (or almost 100%) of the editors who keep erasing my entries in this and other Obama releated articles are Obama supporters, and that this bias is being reflected in the Obama related articles. Either they voted for Obama, or, if they are too young to vote or if they live outside the U.S., they at least supported Obama in the sense that they wanted him to win the November 2008 election. Some of these editors may have supported Hillary in the primary, but they still supported Obama in the general election.
I wrote in Ron Paul in the general election, but I have never, ever erased any of the sourced criticisms in his article.
To the dozen or more of you who keep repeatedly erasing my stuff, is there even one of you who didn't support Obama in the November 2008 election?
Grundle2600 (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- I voted for Ron Paul too.. but I know what NPOV means. Btw, this isn't a forum (In fact, I think you need to read that entire page and take it to heart).--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- I hope you have better luck with this than others have had. POV protectors are all around us.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Grundle, I sympathize with your frustration, and the prodding of your new article -- see my comment on the arbcom evidence talk page. But please, can we avoid having this discussion on the talk page here? It's only going to make people dig in their heels. There's probably a better place to take this concern. I know we all live in the real world, but we're all supposed to try to edit fairly regardless of who we voted for. Wikidemon (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- I hope you have better luck with this than others have had. POV protectors are all around us.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
The fact that Dudemanfellabra voted for Ron Paul would go a lot against my agrgument, if Dudemanfellabra was actually one of the people who often erased my stuff or ever tried to have me blocked. But Dudemanfellabra does not have such a track record. However, it does give Dudemanfellabra a proven frame of reference of not being biased trying to protect Obama. So in the future, whenever Dudemanfellabra is critical of my entries to articles, I will really, really, really take that into consideration. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Wikidemon - OK. This isn't the place. I just wanted to let you know I read your comment. Thanks. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- The criteria we are to use at Wikipedia for "really, really, really" taking an editor's criticism of our entries to articles into consideration is whether their criticism has merit, not whether you voted for the same guy for president. If I weren't familiar with your editing history at this article and your writing style, I would have assumed you were joking with that statement. You've consistently displayed a Libertarian bias at this article, and that statement is a bizarre assertion that you intend to continue to practice the exact same ideological bias you have been, and believe you see in others here. I, too, sympathize, and have contributed to the avalanche of painstakingly specific, informative and referenced responses and constructive criticism you have received here, to no avail. Repeating the same behavior and expecting a different result isn't getting you or us anywhere, it seems. Abrazame (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Every editor is a human, and all humans are biased. If everyone gets to add what they want, then the article will be balanced. I don't erase other people's sourced stuff. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- ^ How Washington blew GM’s bankruptcy, Financial Times, June 1, 2009