This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TBSchemer (talk | contribs) at 03:41, 3 December 2014 (→Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2014: Dave, maintain civility, please.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:41, 3 December 2014 by TBSchemer (talk | contribs) (→Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2014: Dave, maintain civility, please.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Skip to table of contents |
| 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. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
| 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. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Template:Community article probation
 | Barack Obama (inactive) | |||
| ||||
 | United States B‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Drone wars and Prism surveillance missing
There is nothing in this article about America's waging drone wars in the Middle East and Africa and nothing about the PRISM mass surveillence program. Can it be added or not? I believe this is the top current discussions about Obama's presidency at least at the moment. Nyttkonto (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
- Good luck getting the drone war mentioned. Obama's supporters are really adverse to mentioning that policy on wiki.
- Yep, and if you keep up that line of posting, we'll track you down and debate the issue in your lounge room. HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I think that these are huge issues worth inclusion. In both cases I think that they were continuations of previous practices (neither was initiated by him), and coverage should acknowledge that, but continuation is also a decision. North8000 (talk) 01:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Re 'huge issues worth inclusion'. Yes they are. Remember truth is not a criteria for inclusion. Worse, Misplaced Pages isn't really always on top of WP significant events. It takes a core of non POV dedicated editors per article to make a great balanced article. Equally again a small group can keep a article like this safe and bland. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 10:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Shooting of Trayvon Martin
It has been suggested on Talk:Barack Obama that Obama speaking publicly about this event should be stated on this article. For reasons unexplained, Obama feels great affinity with Martin, stating that if he had a son, he would look like Martin, and that 35 years ago, he would have been Martin. The President has said nothing about the vast majority of the thousands of people who are shot dead in the U.S. every year, so it is notable that he spoke directly to the media on a few occasions about Martin and the connection he feels to the case and to Martin personally, despite having never heard of him before his death and having very little in common with him. 94.197.30.250 (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- Illogic much lately? - Wikidemon (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- Your response makes no sense. I think that Obama's public statements on the Zimmerman-Martin case should be mentioned in this article - do you agree or disagree? 94.197.250.144 (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's way too early for that. Misplaced Pages articles are supposed to be written from an historical perspective, otherwise they smell of recentism. We need to see where this thing develops, what kind of coverage it gets, whether or not the Martin killing is taken up by the DoJ and what happens as a result. Then we will be in a better position to put something in this article about the matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- Your response makes no sense. I think that Obama's public statements on the Zimmerman-Martin case should be mentioned in this article - do you agree or disagree? 94.197.250.144 (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree. All Obama Misplaced Pages articles should end coverage as of January 20, 2013. After he leaves office. His second term could be covered. No joke. Listen to Scjessey or reject his proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.38.179 (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
- Within a few weeks we'll likely know if Obama's personal identification with Martin and statements about race, the federal inquiry about possible civil rights violations, and involvement in efforts to diminish stand-your-ground laws, is a major event in the Presidency. My hunch is that it is. I was just objecting to the silly jabs about Obama not having heard of him before the event. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
White House visitor logs
I just added the following to the article's section on White house visitor logs:
In June 2010, the New York Times reported that Obama administration officials had held hundreds of meetings with lobbyists at coffee houses near the White House, in order to avoid the disclosure requirements for White House visitors, and that these meetings “reveal a disconnect between the Obama administration’s public rhetoric — with Mr. Obama himself frequently thrashing big industries’ ‘battalions’ of lobbyists as enemies of reform — and the administration’s continuing, private dealings with them.”
QbR54190dfcv (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- That's an inaccurate summary of what the source says. The article doesn't say that those meetings were held "in order to avoid the disclosure requirements for White House visitors". It's original research to say that. Try again. HiLo48 (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's Grundle2600. Tarc (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Across From White House, Coffee With Lobbyists, New York Times, June 24, 2010
Why have all the additions from the past three months been reverted?
The edit history shows that everything that has been added to this article in the last three months has been reverted. Why is this? 71.182.236.185 (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
On edit: That thing about coffee directly below was not part of my comment, and I don't know why it's there. 71.182.236.185 (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- It can be fixed by adding a {{reflist}} to the appropriate section. As for the reverts, it is because a banned editor has been obsessed with this article for 4+ years now. Tarc (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- If a banned editor has been erasing content, then that content should be added back to the article. 71.182.236.185 (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- The banned editor has bee trying to add content deemed unsuitable by others. Tarc (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- If a banned editor has been erasing content, then that content should be added back to the article. 71.182.236.185 (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2014
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Once again, after attacking Obama relentlessly,"
(Found in the 2014 Midterm Election section)
This is not maintaining the neutral position Misplaced Pages is known for.
Should probably be removed or at the least replaced with something more neutral. 68.67.243.116 (talk) 07:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think the statement is factual, not biased in any way, and tells exactly what happened & reflects the consensus of RS. The complaint did not specify where the problem lies. the statement = Attacking Obama relentlessly, emphasizing the stalled economy, and fueled by the anger of the Tea Party Movement, Republicans scored a landslide in the 2010 midterm elections, winning control of the House and gaining seats in the Senate-...Once again, after attacking Obama relentlessly, Republicans won control of the Senate and gained more seats in the House, achieving their largest majority since World War II. Perhaps this is the problem?: it is the largest House majority since 1929. Rjensen (talk) 07:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, there was never any consensus to add that statement in to begin with. I've reverted to the previous stable version. Now let's address the sentence in the 2010 elections section. "Attacking relentlessly" is a deliberately judgmental turn of phrase. That kind of POV statement doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. We can find a better, more neutral, well-sourced way to describe why the Republicans won the 2010 and 2014 elections so overwhelmingly. I will follow-up soon with some ideas, and some sources. TBSchemer (talk) 09:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- There are several useful sources used to explain the Republican victory over at the United States elections, 2010 article. One significant difference between 2008 and 2010 is in how women and independents voted. Another significant factor is that in 2010, Americans trusted Republicans more than the Democrats on most issues. One factor that helps explain the shift in the votes of independents is that the Republicans used the Tea Party movement to appeal to libertarians, broadening their constituency. So here's a rewrite proposal:
- By using the Tea Party movement to contrast their economic policies with President Obama's, Republicans broadened their appeal among libertarians, independents, and women, resulting in a landslide in the 2010 midterm elections that gave them control of the House and several seats in the Senate.
- How does that sound? TBSchemer (talk) 10:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- It sounds terrible--like a GOP press release--it says GOP used/controlled tea party rather than vice versa!. All the RS report relentless GOP attacks on Obama and the Obamacare program. "relentless" is not POV -- it means sustained steady heavy attacks. Rjensen (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- I hear what you're saying about the Republican/Tea Party directionality. Does this address your concerns? With politicians sympathetic to the Tea Party movement emphasizing a contrast between their economic policies and President Obama's, Republicans broadened their appeal among libertarians, women, and independent voters. This strategy resulted in a landslide in the 2010 midterm elections that gave Republicans control of the House and several seats in the Senate. TBSchemer (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Holy crap. You think there are for that? Dave Dial (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- I actually already provided the citations above. TBSchemer (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ahhh yes, Dick Morris, sprinkled with some Fox News and some synthesis. Let me guess, you held onto the Dean Chambers/Skewed polls mantra in 2012. Right? Dave Dial (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Dave Dial, please respect WP: Civility by not making insinuations about other editors or engaging in political sniping. Keep your comments constructive. Source 1 specifically states that (and provides supporting evidence for the fact that) the GOP broadened their appeal among women and independents. Source 3 specifically states that the GOP broadened their appeal among voters by appealing to libertarian economic principles. Source 2 specifically states that "the Economy matters most" to voters, and voters in 2010 gave the GOP an edge on this issue and several others. We don't need to synthesize anything. All three of these sources agree that the GOP won the election by broadening their appeal among voters. Two of these sources specifically mention a total of three voter groups who were a part of that broadened appeal (women, independents, and libertarians). Two of these sources specifically mention that the Republicans focused heavily on the economy, and the economy mattered most to voters. They are all in agreement about the factors that gave the election results. TBSchemer (talk) 03:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ahhh yes, Dick Morris, sprinkled with some Fox News and some synthesis. Let me guess, you held onto the Dean Chambers/Skewed polls mantra in 2012. Right? Dave Dial (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- I actually already provided the citations above. TBSchemer (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Holy crap. You think there are for that? Dave Dial (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- I hear what you're saying about the Republican/Tea Party directionality. Does this address your concerns? With politicians sympathetic to the Tea Party movement emphasizing a contrast between their economic policies and President Obama's, Republicans broadened their appeal among libertarians, women, and independent voters. This strategy resulted in a landslide in the 2010 midterm elections that gave Republicans control of the House and several seats in the Senate. TBSchemer (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- It sounds terrible--like a GOP press release--it says GOP used/controlled tea party rather than vice versa!. All the RS report relentless GOP attacks on Obama and the Obamacare program. "relentless" is not POV -- it means sustained steady heavy attacks. Rjensen (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think the statement is factual, not biased in any way, and tells exactly what happened & reflects the consensus of RS. The complaint did not specify where the problem lies. the statement = Attacking Obama relentlessly, emphasizing the stalled economy, and fueled by the anger of the Tea Party Movement, Republicans scored a landslide in the 2010 midterm elections, winning control of the House and gaining seats in the Senate-...Once again, after attacking Obama relentlessly, Republicans won control of the Senate and gained more seats in the House, achieving their largest majority since World War II. Perhaps this is the problem?: it is the largest House majority since 1929. Rjensen (talk) 07:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 14:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- when GOP campaigns are vehemently bashing Obama as the main attack point (in 2010 and 2014) that is the main story that has to be mentioned. Rjensen (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- And I'm sure from a Republican POV, Obama was "vehemently bashing" the GOP. But we can be more neutral and encyclopedic than that, and we should. Rather than resorting to broad-brush characterizations, let's stick to measurable quantities and specific, recorded actions. TBSchemer (talk) 03:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
- when GOP campaigns are vehemently bashing Obama as the main attack point (in 2010 and 2014) that is the main story that has to be mentioned. Rjensen (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)