Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:27, 18 October 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Presidency of Barack Obama article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 12 days

Template:Community article probation

	Barack Obama (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Barack ObamaWikipedia:WikiProject Barack ObamaTemplate:WikiProject Barack ObamaBarack Obama

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 12 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

This edit and its comment are inexcusable.

In this edit, the editor (Splette) removed a large amount of content, and commented, "Please discuss changes on the talk page first." That edit, and its comment, are inexcusable, because I had already discussed my additions on the talk page first. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It's been more than two weeks since I posted that comment.Grundle2600 (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This other edit, with no explanation for removing content, is inexcusable.

This edit, where the editor (The Magnificent Clean-keeper) erased a lot of relevant, well sourced information, does not contain any explantion for why the content was removed. Erasing that info, without explaining why, is inexcusable. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

As a suggestion, let's try to stay focused here, interpret edit summaries in the best possible light, and take baby steps. I think people are jumpy about your trying to add to the article a bunch of stuff that you've been proposing for a long while and that did not gain full acceptance. Okay, so there. But please don't react with alarm because that will just make them more jumpy. Of course it's excusable, whether it's right or not. Here's the excuse - the longer version of the edit summary is that you should finish the conversation on the talk page before instituting a disputed edit. If you look at WP:BRD it's okay to reverse a change and say it does not yet have consensus, so take it balk to the talk page. Why not concentrate on a single one of these, perhaps the least controversial, and we'll keep talking about it until we agree on a wording? I think we all agree that Van Jones is worth one sentence in the article, no? Let's start there. Who agrees or disagrees that we should add a sentence about Van Jones to the section on non-cabinet level positions? Wikidemon (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You sure are good at being calm. I will try more to be like that too. Thank you for your comments. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I "agree that Van Jones is worth one sentence in the article". --4wajzkd02 (talk)

Van Jones does still not have even one sentence in the article. Does anyone here have a reasonable objection to including one sentence about him being a self described "communist"? Grundle2600 (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. So the consensus is for one sentence on Van Jones. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Jennings

Kevin Jennings is Obama's choice to head the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools.

This article does not mention him, but it should.

Given his job title, there are two things about him that should be mentioned in this article.

First, in his 2007 autobiography, he wrote about his past frequent illegal drug use. Given his job title in Obama's administration, this is especially noteworthy.

Second, when he was a high school teacher, he broke the law by refusing to report that a 15 year old student of his had been a victim of statutory rape, and he also encouraged the student to have more sex with the adult. Again, given his job title in Obama's administration, this is especially noteworthy.

Does anyone have any reasonable objection to a brief mention of these two things in this article?

Grundle2600 (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Grundle, you're cherry picking two points that you want to include in an article that covers Obama's entire presidency. He never refused to do anything, and the article never mentions him breaking the law. And you are using blogs, again. Grsz 23:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. You're right that it doesn't say that he broke the law. And I should find better sources. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Guantánamo Bay detention camp subsection

1. In this edit, I added, I added info to the section saying "As of September, 2009, the detention camp had not yet been closed, with senior administration officials acknowledging that difficulties in completing the lengthy review of detainee files and resolving other thorny questions mean the president's promised January deadline may slip.", citing this NY Times article headed "AP Sources: Gitmo Closing Goal of Jan. May Slip" as a supporting source.
2. Subsequently, this edit twiddled the wording to read, "As of September 2009, the detention camp remained, with senior administration officials saying that difficulties in completing a lengthy review of detainee files and resolving other difficult questions might cause the president's January deadline to slip" and going on to explain with info supported by the cited supporting article that It's President Bush's fault and that it's complicated to do, with an edit summary saying, " looks okay but reword to be more formal ('acknowledging' looks close to 'admitting', 'thorny' is an unencyclopedic description even if used for color by paper, etc", though the cited supporting source said, "Senior administration officials acknowledged for the first time Friday that difficulties in completing the lengthy review of detainee files and resolving other thorny questions mean the president's promised January deadline may slip.". I missed that edit at the time, but my reaction on seeing it now is that we have left the no spin zone.
3. Next, this edit changed it to read, "As of September 2009, a lengthy review of each detainee's files by administration officials and prosecutors was made more difficult than expected as the Bush administration had failed to establish a coherent repository of the evidence and intelligence on each prisoner. ..." and going on to supply more details from the cited NY Times article, with an edit summary saying, "More of a substantively informative update than 'Obama may slip his deadline'".
4. In this edit, I reinserted an introductory sentence saying, "As of September 2009, senior administration officials were saying that difficulties in completing a lengthy review of detainee files and resolving other difficult questions might cause the president's January deadline to slip.", with an edit summary saying, " Restore removed introductory summary info stating the main point ('may slip')"
5. This edit removed my restored introductory sentence with an edit summary saying, "Revert per WP:CRYSTAL. Mention any imagined slippage if/when happens."
6. WP:Crystal says, "Misplaced Pages is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable. ..."
7. As previously mentioned, the cited supporting source is a NY Times article headed, "AP Sources: Gitmo Closing Goal of Jan. May Slip".
8. My take on this is that it is notable because (a) within a few days of taking office, Obama issued an EO requiring that the Guantanamo Bay detention facility be closed within a year. (b) he has made a big deal about that, both prior and subsequent to taking office, (c) acknowledgement by senior administration officials that the president's promised January deadline may slip (using here the description given in the second paragraph of the NY Times article cited as a supporting source) is a notable and verifiable occurrence which is relevant to the topic of this article.
9. The word "slip", used in the headline of the article cited as a supporting source is important here. It indicates that senior administration officials have acknowledged that the deadline set by the president for the closing of the detention center may be missed.
10. Accordingly, I have reverted the removal of the introductory sentence using the word "slip" which I had earlier re-inserted.

Additionally, on looking at this yet again, I have concluded that this subsection does not belong under Policies->Ethics. I have moved it up one level, making it a subsection of the Policies section. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You're confusing the verifiability of the source of the quote with the verifiability of what is actually stated in the quote. If a person makes unverified speculation, it does not become verified if they are quoted in a reliable source. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? Wtmitchell has obviously reviewed the news bulletin extensively. You ought to use proper English when disagreeing with him. By "verifiability of the source of the quote" you do mean "credibility of the witness"? Ottre 20:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said at all. Trying reading it a little more carefully. I would give a lengthier explanation, but your insulting and combative comment doesn't really warrant wasting the time. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

In this edit, Loonymonkey reverted my previous edit described above, with an edit summary saying, "Undid revision 317368497 by Wtmitchell (talk) WP:CRYSTAL issues, as explained earlier. We don't state speculation as fact." As explained above, I disagree for several reasons.

1. WP:CRYSTAL does not apply here. Rather than discussing an anticipated event, the disputed introductory sentence ("As of September, 2009, senior administration officials were saying that difficulties in completing a lengthy review of detainee files and resolving other difficult questions might cause the president's January deadline to slip." would report the acknowledgement by senior administration officials that, due to the factors noted, the president's January deadline to slip. That fact is supported by this NY Times article headlined "AP Sources: Gitmo Closing Goal of Jan. May Slip", cited in the article. This acknowledgement by senior administration officials is a fact which is worthy of notice.
2. The word "slip", used in the headline of the article cited as a supporting source, is important here. It indicates that senior administration officials have acknowledged that the deadline set by the president for the closing of the detention center may be missed.
3. The subsection headed Guantánamo Bay detention camp is badly located under the Ethics header where Looneymonkey's revert re-located it. I think, rather, it belongs under the Policies header where I had moved it.
4. Re Looneymonkey's point above regarding verifiability, the assertion to be verified is the assertion that senior administration officials have acknowledged that the deadline set by the president for the closing of the detention center may be missed. That assertion is verified by the cited NY Times article, which says, "Senior administration officials acknowledged for the first time Friday that difficulties in completing the lengthy review of detainee files and resolving other thorny questions mean the president's promised January deadline may slip."

I don't want to become involved in an edit war over this. I ask Looneymonkey self-revert and/or (seeking consensus), that other editors of this article express their opinions about this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wtmitchell:

1. You cite the same AP article twice; it has the effect of suggesting that we are discussing more than one article.
2. You also wikilink to a disambiguation page; what you meant to link to was project slippage.
3. As one does not necessarily judge a book by its cover, the title of an AP report is not necessarily where its encyclopedic value lies. (Much like this and my points below illuminate this issue though my first two did not.)
4. Although you have used the phrase "senior administration officials" (five times in the four sections immediately above), the people who used the term—the concept—in question are anonymous. While I can allow for the possibility that there is a situation where an encyclopedia would quote anonymous officials, this doesn't seem to be that instance.
5. Contrary to the anonymous officials' prognostications, indeed contrary to the article's title, the article notes: "Obama's aides have stepped up their work toward closure and the president remains as committed to closing the facility as he was when, as one of his first acts in office, he pledged to shut it down, said the officials, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity in order to more freely discuss the sensitive issue. They said the White House still was hoping to meet the deadline through a stepped-up effort." Presumably these anonymous officials are different from the unnamed aides and "the White House"? So some anonymous officials predict one thing, while others suggest a different thing. You, like the AP title (though not the AP article) presented only one side of the anonymous officials' prognostications. Even with my more nuanced presentation of the salient details, this difference of opinion, despite the AP spinning it into an article headline and lead, is not the stuff of an encyclopedia.
6. The word "slip" is not important here; the degree of progress has been noted, as has the "major complaint" noted in the article for why the segment of the project only recently completed took longer than expected—both elements of the story you omitted or contraindicated. (Your "...difficulties in completing the lengthy review of detainee files...mean the president's promised January deadline may slip" left the reader uncertain as to whether those reviews have been completed; your ref states that they have.)
7. January 22, 2010, is four months away. There is an abundance of time before that date for further progress reports, informative details about recalcitrant NIMBY Congresspeople, or some official announcement on a scheduling/rescheduling, actual encyclopedic information we might consider a major point worth updating this broad overview of the topic with.
8. Those anonymous sources were projecting, imagining an eventual "slip" of a date four months in the future. Your own sentence above, "...due to the factors noted, the president's January deadline to slip" omits an important word, which (overlooking the grammar) is "may". With the word, it is weak, weaselly, unspecific.
9. This anonymously imagined "slip" is not one of major significance, or something it is in the public interest to know about or prevent. It is not a suggestion that it won't happen, it's merely an imagined delay in the timeframe. The imagined delay isn't a specific one, and it isn't an official change of the timeline. The one-year comment was not tied to any other issue. For example, does some statute of limitations expire on that date? Does some arcane law require a different course at that time? Do they all get set free, or put to death, if we don't move them by that date? No, it's just a date. When the date comes, it may be relevant to the article to note that it has been pushed back, but without something specific or official, it's not yet relevant.
10. If the president had signed an executive order for something to happen, yet no honest effort had been made in eight months or a different direction was intended or soon after taken altogether, I'd say that might be reasonable to point out. Unlike a few hundred times in the previous administration, this is not such an example.
11. WP:CRYSTAL—which is only one of many reasons why this minor point is inappropriate—reads:"Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions." "May slip" is vague extrapolation by an anonymous source or sources about a non-essential data point, one contradicted by the same AP story. I'm not saying some didn't make that prognostication, I'm not saying it wasn't reported by the AP, and I'm not rendering a personal opinion of whether or not it is likely to be borne out, I'm saying that prognostication does not meet this and these various other thresholds of article inclusion. Anticipating a delay is not the same as rescheduling a delay which is not the same as a delay transpiring, and none of it is inherently encyclopedically notable to the broad overview of the Guantanamo closing at the Presidency of Barack Obama article just because it's printed in a reliable source even if it did pass Wiki guidelines for a more in-depth examination of the process of closing the camp. I would argue that some harm is done by suggesting the date "may slip" without venturing to suggest how far. Weeks? Months? Years? Decades? It doesn't add value as it creates more uncertainty than it responsibly or justifiably represents. At the moment, it is not an open question. The task of an encyclopedia editor is to responsibly present pertinent information about things that have actually happened, not to earn this week's paycheck or to sell next week's paper by writing cliffhangers on shreds of anonymous speculation.
12. The president's executive order reads: "Sec. 3. Closure of Detention Facilities at Guantánamo. The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from the date of this order. If any individuals covered by this order remain in detention at Guantánamo at the time of closure of those detention facilities, they shall be returned to their home country, released, transferred to a third country, or transferred to another United States detention facility in a manner consistent with law and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States." As many as 800 detainees have been held in Guantanamo. That number is currently less than 225. The process is moving. Again, if this date approaches with no official statement, I don't doubt the media will examine notable statements from various named sources, and we will determine if any details are informative and fit for this article's broad overview at that time. In any event, the fact that someone augured it four months earlier would not be relevant.

While the AP seeks to break (and thus make) news, and crafts headlines and perhaps even stories to catch a reader's eye, at an encyclopedia we have no need to sensationalize, pander, or get out ahead of a story, and can take the time and editorial care to present facts as they are deemed relevant to an issue, and then determine what degree of examination is appropriate to related articles. To report, as you did with your first edit, that his goal may slip, without explaining why, has the effect to a certain type of reader of feeding a partisan stereotype, not unlike "gotcha journalism", when in fact the responsible handling of the actual data points in the same article serves the encyclopedic reader with the information to support or challenge (or simply not apply to) a stereotype. The anonymous edit prior to yours read "Guantanmo Bay has yet to close, and the prisoner abuse has worsened. Obama may never close it." The tenor of your edit, particularly given the information in the article you referenced, would have had the effect of servicing that POV rather than representing the facts of the progress made. We need to filter the "new" from the "news" and focus on the substance of the reference as it is relevant to the handling of the subject in the article, particularly an article about a much broader topic. The relevant thing about this story to Obama's presidency is not fundamentally about when they close Guantanamo, and it is only superficially about whether they close Guantanamo or not, as of course the closing of Guantanamo is symbolic and not substantive. The substance is how they handle the prisoners' reviews, transfers, prosecutions and future detention, where relevant; whether laws were broken in the way it has been handled to this point, and whether that gets pursued civilly or criminally; and how we handle these situations going forward. Greater detail of the inherent challenges of all that is hopefully being responsibly examined at another article, however, as it is necessarily limited at this one by the length limitations here at Misplaced Pages. That the president did not wait some length of time to start is worth noting, something we do only implicitly. That some have said the process may take some greater length of time to "end" is not worth noting explicitly. This isn't a race, it isn't a then-or-never proposition, and it isn't a dropped ball or a broken promise. We needn't even explicitly state the date has gone by if that should happen, as retaining the date he announced the policy of pursuing the camp's closing, and noting the date when the last detainee has been processed out of there, in a mere two- or three-paragraph overview with the major delays noted contextually, might make the point to the degree it was relevant from a weight standpoint. Abrazame (talk) 10:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Point by point comments follow.

1. The article is cited only once in the article. I cited it multiple times here in the talk page. I thought that it was clear from my remarks that I was speaking of only the one NY Times article. If I confused you, I apologize.

2. You're right. I had followed the disamb links to that article, but apparently screwed up the wikilink here on the talk page.

3. I have to go to WP:V on this, "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." I don't think there is any dispute at this point that my assertion in the disputed introductory sentence has been published by a reliable source. The dispute from your viewpoint seems to revolve around whether or not the lead sentence is encyclopedic. I am not a professional editor, but I note that WP:BETTER says, in part, "Misplaced Pages is an international encyclopedia. People who read Misplaced Pages have different backgrounds, education and worldviews. Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject: the article needs to explain the subject fully." I believe that the disputed introductory sentence establishes context for the material which follows, and makes the import of that material more understandable for readers not thoroughly familiar with the topic.

4. The disputed introductory sentence does not quote anonymous "senior administration officials". It asserts that a reliable source (the New York Times) has reported statements by such officials.

5. Ah... You're speaking of the NY Times article there. Good point. Perhaps the WP article should mention that. Senior administration officialss acknowledge that the deadline may slip, but presidential aides have stepped up their work toward closure and the president remains as committed to closing the facility as he was when, as one of his first acts in office, he pledged to shut it down. I am not prepared to speculate about which officials and aids anonymously told what to the NY Times, but in this instance I think that it is appropriate for WP to include here information about what the NY Times reported. If you think that I have cherrypicked the info reported in NY Times article, feel free to include balancing information.

6. I overspoke about the word "slip". What I had in mind was the meaning of the word rather than the word itself. I would be just as happy with "may miss the deadline" as with "may slip" words in the headline of the cited supporting source. The point is that a reliable source has reported that senior administration officials have acknowledged recently (3 or 4 months prior to the deadline) that the deadline may be missed.

7. Misplaced Pages is neither a paper encyclopedia nor a reporter of current-event news. Regarding the first, unlike paper encyclopedias, WP has the capability to modify articles so that they report notable events as they happen, and to place those events in context as the surrounding context develops. Regarding the second, it is probably not appropriate for WP to report events which develop in a timescale of minutes, but it is (I think) appropriate for WP to report events which develop on a timescal of months, and to refine such reports as the events develop.

8. "weak, weaselly, unspecific"? A source considered by WP to be reliable in its editorial judgement reported that some senior administration officials, apparently speaking on background (a common practice in Washington circles), reported that a very notable deadline set by the president in nearly his first offical act may be missed.

9. Regarding Obama's policies (where I think this section belongs, rather than his Ethics, where your revert placed the section), the executive order to close the detention camp within a year was one of his first official acts after assuming the presidency. If only because of that, I think the NY Times report about acknowledgement that the deadline may slip is worthy of notice.

10. I agree.

11. See #7.

12. Re your quote from the Executive Order, good point. Tat info should be included in this article, possibly in a footnote to the text in the section being discussed here.

XX (your closing remarks)

• "present facts as they are deemed relevant to an issue", you say? The paragraph in question now reads:

As of September, 2009, a lengthy review of each detainee's files by administration officials and prosecutors was made more difficult than expected as the Bush administration had failed to establish a coherent repository of the evidence and intelligence on each prisoner. Prosecutors have recommended to the Justice Department which detainees are eligible to be tried, and the Justice Department and the Pentagon will work together to determine which trials go forward in military and which in civilian courts. While 216 international terrorists are currently held in maximum security prisons in the U.S., yet to be decided is where to house potential convicts from Guantánamo. Congress was denying the administration funds to shut down the camp and adapt existing facilities elsewhere, arguing that the decision is "too dangerous to rush".

Citing AP Sources: Gitmo Closing Goal of Jan. May Slip, September 26, 2009

The disputed edit would add "As of September, 2009, the detention camp had not yet been closed, with senior administration officials acknowledging that difficulties in completing the lengthy review of detainee files and resolving other thorny questions mean the president's promised January deadline may slip" as an introductory sentence, supported by the same cited source.

• "The relevant thing ..." The point at issue here was relevant to me, if not to you. I suspect that it may be relevant to others besides me.
• "The substance is ..." This subsection is in Policies->Ethics (where you have moved it or, if moved to where I think I should be located, in Policies). Its relevance is to Obama's policies or to his ethics, depending on where the subsection is placed.

It has only been a short amount of time since I asked for opinions from other editors, but I note that no others have weighed in. Misplaced Pages:Third opinion says, "If, after discussion, only two editors are involved, you may list the dispute below in the Active disagreements section." As it seems that you and I are at an impasse, I suggest that we take this dispute there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Having noticed that you have edited this talk page elsewhere since my last comment here, I have listed this dispute at Misplaced Pages:Third opinion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Truly? Surely you can tell the difference between the red signature Abrazame (talk), which is my own, and the blue signature Loonymonkey (talk) — or perhaps you're suggesting we are each other's sock? There already are three opinions here, you argued that you disagreed with Loonymonkey and requested another editor to weigh in and you got me. The person who you "noticed" editing the talk page elsewhere was not me but Loonymonkey. The person you keep referring to as having reverted this to the Ethics section is not me, but Loonymonkey. I strongly support that individual's edits and comments in this matter, including the placement of the Guantanamo section in the article, but I assure you we are not the same person. By requesting a Misplaced Pages:Third opinion you are not only exhibiting a failure to understand who and how many people are involved here, but you're jumping the gun seeing as how you and I have been discussing this for barely a single day. I can't imagine why you see an anonymous hint about an arcane issue as so earth-shatteringly important that it requires arbitration in less than a day. Abrazame (talk) 07:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The article should say that the detention camp is still open, and that he had campaigned to close it down. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Saying "nope" is not a legitimate reason to remove large amounts of relevant, well sourced material.

The person, PhGustaf, who made this edit, which removed a substanial amount of material, commented by saying "nope" and nothing else. The material that they removed had been discussed extensively on the talk page and talk page archive before it was added. Saying "nope" is not a legitimate reason to remove relevant, well sourced material. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Removing large amounts of well sourced, relevant material that is critical of the subject makes the article POV and also makes it look like an advertisement. I have added the POV and advertisement tags to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Why is it OK for the article to mention Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not OK for it to mention his actions in favor of offshore drilling?

How can anyone say that including his actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling, does not violate NPOV?

Grundle2600 (talk) 01:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you had absolutely no consensus whatsoever to add all that material, a fact of which you are well aware (given that you've tried to add or get other to add various parts of for the last several months). Trying to lump all your bad edits into one gigantic bad edit doesn't make it more likely to be acceptable, it makes it much, much less likely (and heads into dangerous territory for you, given your various blocks and behavioral restraints). I would suggest not trying the patience of so many editors with such frequency. You know how that will end for you. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If I had added the material in multiple consecutive smaller edits instead of one bigger edit, how would that have been any different? Why is it OK for the article to mention Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not OK for it to mention his actions in favor of offshore drilling? Grundle2600 (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I see that someone else has removed the tags. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I am addressing the following paragraph to all those of you favor the removal of the content that I cited when I started this section:

There was consensus to have a single sentence about Van Jones resigning after it was revealed that he was a self described "communist" who blamed the 9-11 attacks on the U.S. government. Please explain why you think the article should mention Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling. Also please explain why you think citing one of those things without simultaneously citing the other does not violate NPOV, which states, "All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." How is it not noteworthy that Obama's choice to head the "Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools" has an extensive history of illegal drug use, and avoided reporting the statutory rape of a 15 year old student? If there's going to be a section on Obama's claims of transparency, why shouldn't the section mention cases where Obama was heavily non-transparent? How is Obama's nationalization of General Motors, and firing of its CEO, not notable? How is the questioning of the constitutionality of Obama's czars by two different Senators from Obama's own party not relevant to the section on those czars? Grundle2600 (talk) 10:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It has been more than 72 hours since I posted the above paragraph, and no one has answered my questions. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You have still not answered my questions. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is it OK for the article to cite Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling?

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

Presidency of Barack Obama stated:

"On February 10, 2009, Obama overturned a Bush administration policy that had opened up a five-year period of offshore drilling for oil and gas near both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has been quoted as saying, "To establish an orderly process that allows us to make wise decisions based on sound information, we need to set aside" the plan "and create our own timeline"."

I later added:

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

Someone removed my addition, but did not remove the other part.

Why is it OK for the article to cite Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling?

How does letting the article state one side but not other, not violate NPOV?

Grundle2600 (talk) 02:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

References for above

1. msnbc
2. U.S. Loan to Brazilian Oil Company Riles Conservatives in Favor of Offshore Drilling, Fox News, August 20, 2009

The removal was in this edit with an edit summary claiming saying "... per WP:NEWS, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE and so on. Please discuss changes on the talk page first".

WP:NEWS is neither a content policy nor a content guideline, and doesn't seem to apply here; the Fox News article which you cited as a supporting source appears to come from a reliable source; it doesn't look to me as if your addition was out of proportion to the prominence of the info you added; your comment re WP:NPOV seems to me to be relevant sufficiantly notable for inclusion—but then I don't have much background making such judgements in dispute situations. I might question the placement of the info in the Ethics section without explicitly raising issues related to ethics, but then I raised such questions above about the placement of the Guantánamo Bay detention camp subsection in that sections without achieving an understanding of why that subsection had been placed there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Wtmitchell, thanks. Grundle2600 (talk) 10:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Grundle, why don't you answer your own questions? You've been asking questions here long enough to have picked up how it goes. You simply aren't interested in learning about the issue yourself, so you come here with your stubbornly ignorant misconception and we have to read your articles to explain them to you. We're enabling you here by giving you any response at all, so to wean you off this dependency, I'll ask you some questions to lead you to the answer you're asking us for.

1. Where were the drilling locations that the Bush administration opened up?
2. Which government oversees this region and had previously prevented drilling there?
3. Where are the drilling locations that the U.S. Export-Import Bank lines of credit to U.S. firms would send U.S. workers in newly created jobs working on the Petrobras site(s)?
4. Which government oversees this region, and what is their position on offshore drilling?

Abrazame (talk) 06:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Abrazame, Obama said he opposed drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. But later, Obama supported a loan guarantee for $2 billion to fund drilling off the Atlantic coast. Grundle2600 (talk) 10:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not an answer to any of these four questions, it's a vague restatement of your original confused conception. This is what I mean by your stubborn ignorance. You don't know and you don't care to know, yet you persist in pushing your misinformed, smeary point of view at political articles. When called on it, you aren't even interested enough in researching further about the issue. Do you want to prove yourself responsible to be allowed to continue posting "suggestions" like this one at the talk page of political articles? Then answer those four questions and learn how to think critically about an issue. This isn't rocket science, Grundle, it's the internet. Abrazame (talk) 02:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Abrazame, I have to remind you to be civil. Calling someone stubborn, ignorant, and misinformed is not helpful.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, a big problem is the wording of the addition is not supported by the text of the source. The Export-Import Bank of the United States, not President Obama, made the loan. The news article makes no mention of President Obama having any involvement in the loan. So there is a serious WP:SYNTHESIS problem in that we don't have a source that says that Obama himself caused a loan to Brazil to do offshore drilling. The fact that the loan was made may be true, but the relevance to this article is far from established by the source text. --Jayron32 02:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The Export-Import Bank is controlled by the President. Export-Import Bank of the United States states, "The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) is the official export credit agency of the United States federal government. It was established in 1934 by an executive order, and made an independent agency in the Executive branch by Congress in 1945, for the purposes of financing and insuring foreign purchases of United States goods for customers unable or unwilling to accept credit risk." Grundle2600 (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

He also controls the FBI, the CIA, the military, the Department of Treasury, immigration enforcement, FEMA, the DEA, etc., etc. Does he single-handedly make every single decision of those offices?...Don't be ridiculous. Grsz 17:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Grundle, I'm still pantomiming the good faith that your interest and perseverance in this matter has something to do with the issue you raise, and is not simply an effort to smear the subject while distracting the work of the editors here. A great way to earn that good faith would be to answer my questions. I've noticed that you expect a one-way street around here, you arrive with questions and demands and we're expected to jump for you. By not answering the questions of others, you establish bad faith. That's not a discussion, it's a tantrum. Why would you post several times here since those questions without any effort to answer them? Why would you repeat your question at an Arbitration request for amendment when you haven't held up your end of this discussion? Those questions are rhetorical. The four questions in my first post are the ones I expect you to learn the answers to. Abrazame (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Abrazame

1. Where were the drilling locations that the Bush administration opened up?

Along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.

2. Which government oversees this region and had previously prevented drilling there?

The United States.

3. Where are the drilling locations that the U.S. Export-Import Bank lines of credit to U.S. firms would send U.S. workers in newly created jobs working on the Petrobras site(s)?

Along the Atlantic coast.

4. Which government oversees this region, and what is their position on offshore drilling?

The Brazilian government. They favor the drilling.

Why do you think the article should cite Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling?

Grundle2600 (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Grundle, first, thank you for taking a stab at answering the questions. Second, I'm disappointed in you for the superficiality of your stabs. I believed that your question to us was one of sincere ignorance. I believed that my hint, via the answers to those four questions, was so obvious that it would lead you to the answer to your own question. Wherever you went to investigate the answers to my questions, you either didn't pay enough attention to connect the dots and have the answer dawn on you, or you do realize what I'm getting at, and you're just soaking up the negative attention at the expense of our time and Barack Obama's talk page.

1. Where were the drilling locations that the Bush administration opened up?

Along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.

Incorrect. The U.S. president cannot prevent oil drilling off the coast of any other country than our own. That does make sense to you, does it not? This answer is staggeringly unspecific given that you're taking other things out of context; there are virtually a hundred countries with Atlantic or Pacific coasts. We're not talking about drilling off the Atlantic coast of Norway, or the Pacific coast of Russia, we're talking about drilling along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the United States. That's implied in the article Presidency of Barack Obama; it's not implied in your answer.

2. Which government oversees this region and had previously prevented drilling there?

The United States.

Technically correct. Yet given your lack of specificity regarding the first question, and your conflation of these two stories, you are representing that you think that the U.S. president does have power over oil drilling anywhere in the Atlantic or Pacific, regardless of whose coastline it is.

3. Where are the drilling locations that the U.S. Export-Import Bank lines of credit to U.S. firms would send U.S. workers in newly created jobs working on the Petrobras site(s)?

Along the Atlantic coast.

Incorrect, insofar as again there are probably 70 or 80 countries with Atlantic coasts and given your failure to specify which of the hundred-plus countries with Atlantic or Pacific coasts in your first answer, there is no implied specificity in your second answer. The implied regional specificity of U.S. presidents opening and closing the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the U.S. for drilling, versus the Brazilian government allowing drilling along the Atlantic coast of Brazil is the primary point here. That implication is understood when these issues are responsibly placed in the right articles. When you place these two facts together in a single sentence or adjacent sentences under a particular heading, it necessarily robs them of (legitimate) implied context they would otherwise have by illegitimately implying that they share context. The Tupi oil field is in the Santos Basin due south of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. I invite you to look at any of several maps depicting the region in this PDF.

4. Which government oversees this region, and what is their position on offshore drilling?

The Brazilian government. They favor the drilling.

Correct. Although, again, you are contradicting your understanding of this fact with your implied presumption that this has anything to do with Obama or any president of the U.S.

As people have explained here, and particularly given your track record here, the onus is on you to prove why something should be in the article, not on us to prove why it shouldn't. If somebody arrives here posting a referenced sentence about the White House serving ice cream, it would be absurd for editors here to have to explain why that's not relevant to the Misplaced Pages encyclopedia article on the Presidency of Barack Obama, regardless of the fact that it may have been noted in a reliable source dating to this summer. Placing it in a sentence that notes that Obama has spoken out against obesity as a major national health problem doesn't make it relevant. A healthy family enjoying ice cream in moderation as part of a balanced diet while engaging in a good amount of exercise does not send a hypocritical message. The fact that a bipartisan group of Bush appointees at the U.S. Import-Export bank were doing their job by offering credit to U.S. companies to bid for jobs for U.S. workers as contractors for a foreign oil company off the shores of a foreign country in a different hemisphere in a legal enterprise—particularly at a time when the world's credit markets were sluggish due to the deep recession we're climbing out of—has nothing to do with the fact that Obama overturned Bush's policy to open up the entire shorelines of our own country for oil drilling. Brazil has other oil fields they are drilling off their shores. This is not a new practice there, it's simply a new oil field. Do you understand now why your demand for this edit has not been embraced? Can you stop asking this question all over Misplaced Pages now? Or are you still imagining some relevant image emerging from these dots?

Even more importantly, do you see the way that learning a little bit more about the facts and contexts of a newsy factoid—particularly when you readily admit you are unaware of most of these issues prior to stumbling across them while surfing the internet, and your bad sources show us the POV blogs and Op/Eds where you surf—actually sheds some light on why the connection your sources suggest are often a sham, more the desperately puerile stuff of a school playground or partisan attack dog than an encyclopedia? Our point in responding to you here is not to simply have you acknowledge for this or that point that you have come understand that you were wrong, but to illustrate how one responsibly comes to more fully understand an issue oneself prior to wrongly posting about it here. You need to make sincere effort to rule out arguments against inclusion for your suggestions and not simply demand us to. Your answers to these questions show you were either incapable of doing, or unwilling to do, this. It's not that you don't know all the facts, and other editors can add details to fill in, it's that time and again you misrepresent the facts, and in doing so mischaracterize facts already in the article, and the only response is to revert your edits entirely. That as much as any other reason is why so many editors seek to limit or prevent your participation here. If your ignorance were innocent, and your interest were sincere, and your personal POV and that of the places you surf didn't render you absolutely incapable of understanding any issue on your own, it would be reasonable to consider you an editorial colleague despite all your past transgressions (by past I mean up through the past week); but nothing you do suggests that there is innocence or sincerity or a real effort to understand or progress into the fuller understanding of the facts of an issue that is essential in being a responsible editor. As such, taken as a whole, it amounts to vandalism, not editorial work. Abrazame (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't amount to vandalism but certainly to disruptive POV motivated "editorial work", w/o understanding of what WP is and is not. Nothing new here besides the same old.......The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Grsz

You said, "He also controls the FBI, the CIA, the military, the Department of Treasury, immigration enforcement, FEMA, the DEA, etc., etc. Does he single-handedly make every single decision of those offices?...Don't be ridiculous."

Are you saying that the information about George W. Bush should be removed from the Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina article, because Bush did not have any control over FEMA?

Grundle2600 (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You have not answered my questions. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)