Talk:Political positions of Barack Obama/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Opposition to Obama on abortion

I added some information on a few influential people that oppose Obama's views on abortion. I think such material deserves to be included even though it is maybe controversial, since not all of Obama's policies have received a unanimous, universal approval. ADM (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama's positions on abortion have been highly controversial among US Catholic bishops, with one American Archbishop in Rome, Raymond Burke, saying that the President "could be an agent of death" if his support for abortion rights becomes a model for leaders in other countries. He also accused Obama of "weakening the faith of everyone". In November 2008, Cardinal James Stafford made similar comments, speaking of "an agenda and vision that are aggressive, disruptive and apocalyptic" , thus echoing similar beliefs among Christians that Obama is an Antichrist President, an accusation that was first made in the Middle Ages on Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor by Pope Gregory IX.

I don't see how that's at all germane to this article; it's not about criticism of his political positions. The only other times criticism is discussed is when he has directly addressed it or changed course because of it. We could add a criticism paragraph to every single section of this article, but that's not what its aim is. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 01:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've rolled back these edits, as they were commentary. This article is only about stated political opinions, and in rare cases, opinions derived from legislative actions. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this information doesn't belong here, but perhaps in Public image of Barack Obama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejnogarb (talk • contribs) 00:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Why should dissent to his policies get tossed in with the nutcases who think he's Islamic when he's clearly a Pharaoh? Hcobb (talk) 02:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

A page depicting criticism of the President is being compiled here and will be posted when it is up to our standards. I suggest all future contibuters wishing to add content of this nature be pointed in its direction. - Schrandit (talk) 02:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Inserting "Democrat" into Lede

There used to be a reference of Obama's liberalism in the lede, but it was removed. I propose inserting a sentence about Obama's (obvious) membership in the Democratic Party, since it nicely summarizes the majority of his political positions. For example: "As the party's highest-ranking elected official, Barack Obama's political positions typically follow the Democratic Party's ideology." Opinions?  EJNOGARB  05:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

You would need a reliable source for such a statement, and I doubt you will find one. Obama is a Democrat, but that does not mean that he follows a Democratic Party "ideology". There is no specific Democratic ideology anyway. Obama's political positions may be drawn from a host of ideologies that may differ significantly from other Democrats. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The Democratic Party's ideology is its platform. According to NPR, "Obama has only been in the Senate for three years, and he voted with his party 97 percent of the time." Or, you can read the last four paragraphs of this article from the Washington Post. I think the first source is best, and a sentence in the lede could say: "Barack Obama's political positions typically follow the Democratic Party's ideology," or "According to NPR, Obama 'voted with his party 97 percent of the time.'" Opinions?  EJNOGARB  17:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) - Nope. Your first sentence is pure synthesis, and your second sentence is not a political position. Of course, Obama's voting record is going to be heavily skewed because he was running for President for a large chunk of it (which meant he couldn't make every vote). Obama is noted, in fact, for transcending the usual political ideologies - it even says so in one of your sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support Obvious. I don't see how anyone could object unless they are pushing a strong bias on the article content. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) - So you think we should completely ignore WP:SYN and just call everyone who disagrees with you "biased", eh? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The NPR source, however, doesn't rely on synthesis, and a political party affiliation is a political position. Second, Obama wasn't campaigning for three years, and his voting record is an average (and thus any absences wouldn't be reflected). Third, the article you mentioned lists many ways in which he is the "great non sequitur" (race, youth, etc.) but reports on how his bipartisan claims are largely unsupported. This insertion isn't meant to reflect any bias whatsoever, but simply state the obvious fact that Obama is a Democrat, and usually votes that way.  EJNOGARB  17:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

None of your sources support your phrasing "typically follow the Democratic Party's ideology". None of them. That is the synthesis part - the bit where you synthesize meaning from sources that don't state things explicitly. Geddit? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Please be civil. A reliable source (NPR) states: "Obama has only been in the Senate for three years, and he voted with his party 97 percent of the time."  EJNOGARB  17:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

But it does not say that Obama follows his party ideology. That is synthesis. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No one is insisting that it read that way. Above, I wrote that another good insertion could be: "According to NPR, Obama 'voted with his party 97 percent of the time.'" I'd like to achieve a true consensus, and not just a majority, on how this is worded. If you feel strongly about Obama, there is nothing in such a statement which is negative.  EJNOGARB  18:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with how I "feel". It is about Wikipedia policy. The ideology thing is pure synthesis, and Obama's voting record is not a "political position". It has no place in this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Your constant citation of "synthesis" is nothing but wp:wikilawyering to obfuscate the obvious. Everything that needs to be said has been, so we should now wait and see what other editors think.  EJNOGARB  18:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is common for people who don't like Wikipedia's rules and guidelines to call people who do "wikilawyers". The only thing that is "obvious" here is that you are frustrated that your agenda has been thwarted, since you have resorted to name-calling. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's a cite to the New York Times that states the obvious. [1]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting read, but all it really does is note in passing an ideological grade given by the National Journal. Ideology is not the party, and even if it were, how exactly is this a "political position" anyways? This is an article to go into detail about his positions on political issues. Tarc (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) - And what do (CoM) you consider "the obvious" to be? The article you cite says things like the following:

"He brings to politics a desire to find common ground, which makes it impossible to predict exactly how he would line up on various people’s litmus test issues."

"I think he comes at things in a way that is perpendicular to the usual left-right axis."

"He has demonstrated an occasional willingness to break from liberal orthodoxy [] which at the time infuriated liberals."

Quotes like these seem to support the thinking that Obama may not fit the "typical Democratic party ideology". Thank you for making it more "obvious" that your thinking is wrong. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, because those quotes don't cite any specific examples, they are meaningless. The article does cite some specific examples, such as "He has demonstrated an occasional willingness to break from liberal orthodoxy, including his vote to confirm Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, which at the time infuriated liberals (13 Democrats opposed her). He formed alliances with Republicans on a handful of noncontroversial issues, including wasteful government spending in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina." Of course it also says, "According to a ranking by National Journal, Mr. Obama’s voting record is more liberal than 82.5 percent of the Senate, compared with 79.8 percent for Mrs. Clinton. The American Conservative Union gave him a ranking of 8." And the NPR citation of him voting with his party 97% of the time is also relevant. All of this could be included in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey, you said, "Obama's voting record is not a 'political position.' It has no place in this article." Then please answer a question that I asked, but no one answered, in the talk archive. If the article can't have a rating from Citizens Against Government Waste about Obama's voting record, then why is it OK for the article to have a rating from the League of Conservation Voters based on Obama's voting record? Grundle2600 (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not think it is appropriate. I'd like to see it removed. I'd like to see all positions derived from voting record removed, in fact. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

If a politician says that he takes one side on an issue, but he votes the other way, then in the interest of balance, shouldn't both of those things be mentioned in the article? What's the politician's actual position - the way he talks, or the way he votes? Grundle2600 (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

A vote for a particular policy will not always be an indication of support for that policy. Votes are often traded - "I'll vote for this if you vote for that" happens. And also you get situations like when the Party of No votes "no" when some of them would prefer to vote "yes". They do so because they have been told to by their party whip. Another example would be the current "most liberal senator", Ted Kennedy. He gets this rating because he only comes into the Senate for the most important votes due to his poor health. The same thing happened to Obama during the campaign - he could only make it back to the Senate for the most important votes. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe this particular article should focus on exactly what it's called, his political positions. Any additional cruft, properly sourced of course, is probably already in his main article, where it belongs. Do we really have to point out "He's a Democrat" here when it's probably already on the {{main|Barack Obama}} page? - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 16:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Do we really have to point out "He's a Democrat" here -- In an article about political positions, yes. This is a bizarre thread. Arkon (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

"Democrat" is not a political position, just as "Republican" isn't. Those terms refer to party affiliation or membership. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why this is a partisan issue. Someone explain it to me? --Raijinili (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think it would be when I introduced the idea. User:Scjessey wields tight control over any article related to Obama.  EJNOGARB  03:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That's right. All your article are belong to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm on to you!  EJNOGARB  03:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Use of the phrase "a woman's right to choose"

This seems like a highly charged political term. Why not just say abortion's legal status? - Schrandit (talk) 03:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not a highly-charged political term. Who says it is? Anyway, it is besides the point. It is the term used by Obama, and it is the term used by the reliable source. Obama was specifically talking about the right of a woman to choose, not the legality of abortion - the two are not necessarily the same thing. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Scjessey on this. Tvoz/talk 03:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

CoM has since put this in quotes, which makes sense, and then clarified the statement with terms from opponents. CoM's changes strike the proper balance, and I endorse them. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, now that the term is in quotations I'm good. - Schrandit (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide

Seems like this is being well covered. I hate current eventish type material, but can that section be updated per this citation? TIA Tom (talk) 03:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The source you have provided speaks about a possible change in plans, rather than a concrete change in position. I cannot see how that is relevant here. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

True, it talks about what the administration is considering, so no problem waiting unless something more comes of it. The section now reads aas a sort of timeline so I thought this might be relevant. I came here first rather than editing the article. Anyways, Tom (talk) 03:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"Outside opinion" versus "political position"

Just because it's not part of his official political position doesn't mean that it's not relevant in an article about his political position. --Raijinili (talk) 05:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Consensus has long been that the purpose of this article is to describe his actual stated political positions, not opinions about those positions. We could easily double the size of this article with dozens of rankings, "scorecards" and editorials for or against various positions, but then it would simply become a WP:COATRACK and cease to be in any way useful as an encyclopedic reference. Better to stick with the facts and let the readers form their own opinions. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Consensus? Show me.

As I see it, calling the article his political opinions and restricting it to his official positions would make it a coatrack. In fact, doing so would also make it a WP:SOAPBOX for him, acting as his megaphone without allowing any contrary viewpoints. --Raijinili (talk) 03:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see how the criticisms and commentaries of interest groups, left or right, have any place in the article. The subject here is quite clear; political positions that Obama has taken in his career. Tarc (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, political positions he has taken, not those that he professes. That's where outside commentary comes in. If this article is just a bunch of political positions that he claims, then it might as well be a link to his website. --Raijinili (talk) 01:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is important to understand that there a many articles on Wikipedia that encompass this issue. Consider this list, with respect to political positions:

1. Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama - for political statements (speeches, pledges, etc.) and actions (legislative record) made while he was an Illinois State Senator.
2. United States Senate career of Barack Obama - for political statements and actions made while he was a US Senator.
3. Presidency of Barack Obama - for political statements and actions (executive decisions, requests for legislation, etc.) made while POTUS.
4. Political positions of Barack Obama - for political statements and actions made during his entire political career, including stuff while he was not holding public office.

Now it seems to me that it is appropriate for reasonable external opinions, where appropriate, to be included in the general prose of the first 3 articles because they provide context; however, this article should primarily reflect his stated positions and any positions one can ascertain from his legislative record (and that does not mean his voting record, which is something else entirely). Expanding this article to include third-party opinions would make it decidedly unwieldy, because you would have to include third-party opinion (neutrally-balanced mix of positive and negative) for every position in order for it to be fair. That would make this article a battleground of the worst kind, because every positive and negative opinion piece for every position would instantly come under scrutiny. Partisan bickering and edit-warring would ensue, and this article would also become a vandal magnet. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, as it is, why does this article belong on Wikipedia? Not allowing commentary to the contrary is a violation of NPOV, and what you describe might as well be a list of facts or a Wikiquote page. --Raijinili (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This is essentially a "list of..." article, because there are simply so many items on it you cannot get too elaborate. It's not a violation of WP:NPOV to list a stated position. It would only be a violation if that stated position was accompanied by positive or negative opinion of that position. Having positive and negative would be okay, but the article would increase in size by an order of magnitude, making it unworkable. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)It is a violation to only list stated positions. In particular, it violates WP:Undue weight.

"Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."

"In articles specifically on the minority viewpoint, the views are allowed to receive more attention and space; however, on such pages, though the minority view may (and usually should) be described, possibly at length, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view."

While Obama's views (on his own positions) might not be "minority", they are not universal, and I feel that the policy (that all views be presented with due weight) applies.

Your statement is that the alternative would make things harder for the editors. This is incomparable to the importance of making the article encyclopedic, and a list of official stances is not encyclopedic. I called it a mouthpiece. What do you have to say about that? --Raijinili (talk) 03:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for you to be belligerent. If your arguments have merit, let them speak for themselves without the bluster. You mischaracterize my responses. As I indicated before, the 3 articles relating to Obama's public office give the opportunity to weave opinion about political positions neatly into contextual prose. Because they focus on the more significant positions, there is space for a proper exploration of those opinions in an appropriate weight. And while we are on the subject, your quotation of that policy reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of it. "All significant viewpoints" only applies when there are viewpoints being expressed. This article is not meant to judge the political positions of Barack Obama, but merely to present them for review with references pointing to how and when these positions were expressed. As to your assertion that a list of official stances is not encyclopedic, I would point out that (a) this is not just official stances, but also stances derived from legislation, and (b) this is perfectly normal and common on Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I did it for emphasis, so that it couldn't be ignored, nothing more. You had not addressed the contention that the article was nothing more than a mouthpiece.

Having the official viewpoint is still a viewpoint (Obama's) on a fact (his political position). I have not misunderstood policy, at least not in that regard.

"Obama went on to say that he believed that it was wrong that forty-seven million Americans are uninsured, noting that taxpayers already pay over $15 billion annually to care for the uninsured." Sentences like that are probably all over the article, and there's another in that same paragraph which is less neutral (the last one, if you want to know). There should be made a clear distinction between what he says and what Wikipedia verified (or at least, can verify).

While the existence of such articles doesn't endorse their existence, such an argument doesn't prove that they shouldn't exist either, so I'll also argue against this, using the same type of argument:

Political positions of John McCain

"McCain's 2006 rating by the Almanac of American Politics (2008) on Economic Policy is 64% conservative, 35% liberal (52% conservative, 47% liberal in 2005)"

Political positions of Sarah Palin

"According to a review by Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan group, Wasilla (a town of 6,700 residents) benefited from $26.9 million in earmarks in Palin's final four years in office." (admittedly took me a while to find, compared to above, so I'll give another)

"The Program has come under criticism and legal actions from wildlife activists stating the purpose of the program is to increase the numbers of prey species to unsustainable levels for sport hunters, residents and non residents of Alaska."

Political positions of Joe Biden

"Biden's record on abortion is pro-choice, receiving a 100% rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America in four of the last five years, although he received a 36% as recently as 2003. "

Political positions of Mitt Romney

"However, in July 2007, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, the president of the American Family Foundation, and Daniel Weiss, media analyst for James Dobson's Focus on the Family said Romney had not prevented Marriott Hotels from making pornography available in its hotel rooms when he served on the hotel chain's board from 1992 to 2001. " (admittedly also hard to find, and can be argued to support the sentence following it)

"In January 2008, a comprehensive analysis by the National Taxpayers Union found that Romney's presidential campaign proposals would increase the federal budget by $19.5 billion."

Political positions of Ron Paul

"The National Journal labeled Paul's overall foreign policies in 2006 as more conservative than 20% of the House and more liberal than 77% of the House (28% and 72%, respectively, in 2005)."

That was an interesting survey. Either it appeared almost right away, or it didn't appear for almost the majority of the article. Different people are editing these things.

Anyway, I think I've made my point. If you say that other such articles exist, I say that those articles also give outside views. I claim that my statement's validity follows from yours, so if what I said isn't a valid argument, neither is what you said (about "other articles"). --Raijinili (talk) 05:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Noting the existence of these articles was one of the ways I was clarifying the reason for this article's existence, but I am not suggesting that we should embrace the flaws of those articles, which you have so carefully cherry-picked. Also, by "mouthpiece" I take it means you think that this is nothing more than an extension of Obama's own media organization or something? That is, of course, a ludicrous assertion that is utterly without merit. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The entire argument is about whether they are flaws at all, so let's not start applying labels which are the subject of debate, unless you can show clear consensus across all such articles. As for cherry-picking, the ones that only have one example provided had them occurring early in the article, which is why I didn't bother looking for a second.

Yes, the existence of the others is only one part of your argument, but you brought them up as counterexamples to my objections, so I simply demonstrated how they were not counterexamples.

By "mouthpiece", I mean to say that allowing only his views on his opinions makes the article about as useful as a link to his website, since it's probably updated often. What does this article offer if it's just a restatement of what he says about things? If it's his legislative record, that can be shown more accurately with a link to a second website (listing senator voting records) which I'm sure exists.

Calm down. You didn't respond to my point about Undue Weight. ---Raijinili (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

These are not only "his views", but also his policies and the positions derived from his legislative record. As I have already stated above, that is not the same as his voting record. His legislative record encompasses bills he has sponsored and cosponsored during his political career. Votes are another matter completely, because they are not an accurate record of his political positions. Voting is often controlled by the party whip, so a politician may vote for something he dislikes or disagrees with in order to acquire a vote for something else he agrees with more (a trade, if you will). Sometimes a politician is forced to vote for something he is against because it forms part of an Omnibus or Appropriations bill that includes lots of other stuff that he is for. So a politician's voting record is an exceedingly poor indicator of political position. And I did respond to your claim of undue weight in an earlier comment. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I would expect a senator voting records website to have the sponsors and cosponsors, so I didn't see the need to include that. I can't imagine a site detailed enough to have , but I admit I've been disappointed by websites before, so fair enough. I clarify my statement with "websites giving full details about bills in the Senate, including sponsorships, specific senator votes, amendments, and committees which make those amendments."

You say "derived". Please give me a specific example of what you consider to fall under this, so I can respond.

You responded to my earlier claim of undue weight. I responded to that response. From what I can see, you claimed that this did not have to follow Undue Weight because it presented no views, and I responded that official positions are a view on actual position. --Raijinili (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed, that this article should concentrate on Obama's positions, not their policy effect or what opinions people have of them. Outside views are okay in terms of analyzing and getting to the heart of things - neutral independent reliable secondary sourcing is better than simply picking and choosing among Obama's diect statements. But outside opinions, either reported directly by primary sourcing or coverage of those opinions, are not relevant and would turn this article into something else that is far less encyclopedic. One thing to note, as I've pointed out before, is that "positions" is a nebulous thing because it encompasses campaign promises and platforms, official statements, legislative proposals, actual official acts, and coverage of Obama's actual beliefs and motivations on things. That's a lot of different things to wrap up in a bundle, and we should be clear to distinguish among them.Wikidemon (talk) 05:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm talking about opinions about what his opinions are, rather than opinions about the stances themselves (i.e. whether or not he supports <topic>, rather than what other people think about his support of <topic>). --Raijinili (talk) 07:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, then in the abstract I would think that cogent news analysis in the context of a news story by a reliable source is useful. Editorials, op ed pieces, blogs, partisan things, etc., would be subject to all the usual concerns over reliable sourcing. Further, as an editorial decision, I would avoid any "news about the news" style coverage, and stick with Obama's positions themselves, not try to document the views of all the commentators (though there may be appropriate places in Wikipedia for that, it's a fair call to say that this article sticks with Obama himself). Wikidemon (talk) 08:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

...what? --Raijinili (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

What I said... Wikidemon (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

It's just that you said "Obama's positions" and "commentators", and I'm not sure what that second half of your comment means. Your edit comment and first half seem to be supporting outside opinions on what his positions are, though. --Raijinili (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I gave it a try by putting some of those outside sources into the article once. Someone else took them out. I won't edit war, so I'm done with that. Also - Ron Paul, whom I wrote in for President in 2008, is a liberal! Heh heh. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia implies he's described as Conservative and not Liberal.

The above statement was meant to be humorous somehow. I'm not really sure how. --Raijinili (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ron Paul is actually libertarian. He favors drug legalization, and voted against the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, and all these corporate bailouts. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Political position and voting record

I don't really care how you word it as long as it is accurate, but a voting record is an important part of a politician's political position. Here is the content that needs to be readded appropriately. Thanks. "While In the U.S. Senate, Obama voted with his own political party 97% of the time. ref Measuring McCain And Obama's Bipartisan Efforts, NPR, July 2, 2008 /ref The American Conservative Union gave Obama a rating of 8%. refTesting the Water, Obama Tests His Own Limits, The New York Times, December 24, 2006 /ref" The rating given by the American Conservative Union is also notable and wholly NPOV. It is what it is. And finally, of course, please add Democratic party affiliations to the introduction. This is an encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Political positions are many things, but being a member of a political party, and a statistic about voting with one's party, are not political positions. There is no harm in an aside somewhere that Obama is Democrat, but that does not elucidate what his positions are. Describing the President as Democrat or Republican puts an undue emphasis on the parties. He is America's president now. If Obama's 97% voting record in the senate can be sourced as anything noteworthy it makes the most sense to mention it in the article about his senate career. Wikidemon (talk) 02:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

"Democrat" doesn't mean anything by itself. It's just a label. It doesn't tell you much about Obama's positions on specific issues. It wouldn't improve the article by applying general labels, and may in fact be bad for it, since people would look at the statistic and unconciously make conclusions, based on their own feelings, which aren't relevant in this context. The point of this article seems to be to expand on the positions, rather than summarize them. --Raijinili (talk) 20:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted material

Personally I just love it when people claim that ABC news is an unreliable pro-life website and so all refs to it must be deleted. At last the truth is out! When can we start the global search and destroy on all references to ABC? (We can delete the entertainment shows of ABC also I trust?) Hcobb (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The reference you quoted was from the National Right to Life Committee website, not ABC news. There is no way a pro-life group can be neutral about abortion issues. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is the part you deleted refing to ABC news.

On January 23, 2009, President Obama signed an Executive Order rescinding the Mexico City Policy, thereby allowing American taxpayer dollars to fund international groups which promote and perform abortions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hcobb (talk • contribs) 01:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. That would be because your text is not supported by the source, since your emphasis is on abortion rather than family planning. You make it sound as if Obama signed the order to promote overseas abortions, which is complete nonsense. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

And yet the source says

If organizations received government funding, they would "agree as a condition of their receipt of federal funds that such organizations would neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations."

Which is an exact match for the words "promote", "perform" and "abortion" by a "respected" news site. Hcobb (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The executive order seeks to restore aid payments to international family planning groups without restriction. It has nothing to do with promoting abortion - that's what the Reagan/Bush orders stated, not the Clinton/Obama orders. You are synthesizing a conclusion that favors a pro-life stance instead of being neutral. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Then fix it in place instead of just deleting well refed material that speaks directly to the subject at hand, please. Hcobb (talk) 02:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not my job to fix your mistake. I am merely making sure that WP:BLP is not violated. Besides, this is not a "political position". -- Scjessey (talk) 02:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do you keep saying "Could you please provide a citation?" when you'll delete the material even with the citation? Isn't that bait and switch? Hcobb (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Promise not to raise taxes on people earning less than $250,000

The article mentions Obama's promise not to raise taxes on people earning less than $250,000 a year. In the name of balance, I added info from The Wall St. Journal and Associated Press saying that Obama broke that promise when he signed an increase in the cigarette tax. But someone else keeps erasing it. The person who keeps erasing it left a threat on my talk page, so I feel that I am being harassed. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not a "threat". It is YET ANOTHER standard, templated warning about your non-neutral agenda-pushing antics. This information you seek to shove into this article is (a) not a political position, and (b) your personal (and inaccurate) synthesis. If you are incapable of editing political articles without bias, please avoid doing so. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Since the article already mentions his promise, why should the article not also mention that he broke that promise? And since the Wall St. Journal and Associated Press both said that he broke that promise, it's not "synthesis." And since the information is true, relevant, and well sourced, the only "bias" is from the people who keep erasing it. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Associated Press is NOT a POV source. If you think my entry is biased, then FIX it, but DO NOT ERASE IT. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Which part of "this is not a political position" do you not understand? The FIX is to ERASE IT because it is in the WRONG ARTICLE. Also, it falsely claims that Obama raised taxes on smokers, when in fact this is part of a pre-Obama administration budget. Also, it's too bad for the smokers, who should quit. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it was written before Obama was President. What does matter is that as President, Obama signed it - he could have vetoed it, but he chose to sign it. This is relevant to the article on his political positions because he promised not to raise taxes on people who make less than $250,000, and he broke that promise. Your claim that smokers should quit is your own opinion that has nothing to do with the article. Personally, I think all recreational drugs should be legal, but that no one should actually use any of them - but that's not relevant to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This may come as a shocker, but I have to agree with Grundle here. This article should not be limited just to things that Obama says he is going to do, but it should include things that he has actually done as well. I don't see anything in the AP article that clearly marks it as an opinion piece. You could argue that the wording is a bit on the salacious side of things, but it wouldn't be the first time the AP has taken a hard tack in its reporting of Obama. I'm not a fan of Grundle's wording, mind you, but Obama did promise to not raise any taxes on families making less than $250k and as the article notes a significant portion of smokers make well less than that.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 15:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Grundle2600 (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

AP news articles are not bylined. Opinion articles are. That's how you determine which is which. I don't really have a problem including it, though, making sure it's clear that it's AP's opinion that a universal individual sales tax == the income taxes on families that Obama promised not to raise. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's all irrelevant. He said he wouldn't raise taxes on that group. Here he raised taxes on an item. Whoever it effects is irrelevant. He didn't specifically go out and raise taxes on the under-250K group. Grsz¹¹ 17:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's the quote of what he said:

"Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes... you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."

By raising the cigarette tax, he broke his promise.

And it's an article, not an opinion column. Read it for yourself.

Grundle2600 (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You were just told above why it is an opinion piece, and not an article. Also, taking the "I won't raise your taxes" pledge and claiming that that pledge is "broken" by raising taxes on a product that some people may use is about as fallacious as one's logic can get.. Tarc (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The name given is the name of the Associated Press reporter, not the name of an opinion writer. Read the article - it's a news article, not an opinion column. And read the Obama quote - he promised that none of their taxes would be increased. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It is an opinion piece. "Their taxes" does not mean "a tax on any possible product that a person may ever buy in his or her lifetime". Please stop being disruptive. Tarc (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV states, "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial; for examples and explanations that illustrate key aspects of this policy, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ." Grundle2600 (talk) 13:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Proof that it's a news article, and not an opinion column:

• The entire piece is written in the third person.
• It says "7:43 PM" next to the date. Opinion columns only have the date - never the time.
• It says, "WASHINGTON" at the beginning. News articles list the city - opinion columns don't.
• It has a slide show with pictures.

This is a news article, not an opinion column.

Grundle2600 (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this information is very interesting and important, but I agree that it does not belong here. Maybe it can be added in a more neutral tone to Presidency of Barack Obama?  EJNOGARB  14:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll do that. Thanks for the suggestion. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I added it, but someone else erased it. Then a third person put it back. Why do people keep saying it's POV to include well sourced info that Obama raised the cigarette tax by 62 cents per pack? To not include such info would be POV. NPOV says all well sourced info must be included. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the wrong place to discuss edits to Presidency of Barack Obama. Please do so at Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is the ideal location for information on when Pres. Obama's political position diverge from his campaign promises. Otherwise ALL references (direct or implied) to campaign promises should be excised. That is NPOV. If the editors insist that this is not the place for comparisons with Obama's campaign promises vs his political positions (it could become unwieldy) then I would like to link to a new page from here specifically created for that purpose. Any feedback on that? Manawyddan (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

As a general matter, Wikipedia is the wrong website for trying to show that a politician's official acts differ from their campaign promises - usually that is WP:SYNTH that degenerates into partisanship. I agree that acts count more than deeds in assessing a politician's positions, and add that we should be clear in this article to make the distinction betweeen acts, promises, legislation, public statements, etc. To the extent the difference between a politician's statements and his deeds, or criticism of the same, is well covered by netural, reliable secondary sources it may rise above that threshold, and then we have to decide where to put it. Where that criticism concerns a specific act or piece of legislation in which the politician took a primary responsibility, it is best housed in the article about that incident. For example, criticism of Bill Clinton and Janet Reno's handling of the Waco siege is housed mainly in the article about the event, not articles about the politicians. Wikidemon (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. One stipualtion however: Saying that a policy action CONFORMS to a campaign promise is as much a WP:SYNTH as saying it does NOT so conform. I suppose this is increasingly irrelevant if the consensus is that this this article should be entirely revamped ([Platform vs. Actual Political Positions]), but in the meantime the references to campaign promises need to be excised.Manawyddan (talk) 14:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I modified the information on the "Making Work Pay" changes with details from the IRS website. It seems to me that the language should be modified about this topic generally. It is not a tax cut. That's just what the administration calls it. It is a revenue expenditure. It's only difference from the Bush-era tax rebates is that it is delivered via withholding rather than coming in the mail. Also, maybe a larger percentage goes to people who pay no taxes at all. I'm not sure about that. Anyway NPOV should dictate that references to MWP should be based on what it is, rather than what the administration chooses to call it.Manawyddan (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Campaign Platform vs. Actual Political Positions?

How much of this article was made up of obama's campaign platform? Because I believe it's become painfully obvious that his platform differs greatly (read: he lied) from his actual political decisions as a president. --207.161.1.158 (talk) 04:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This article draws elements from his statements and legislative record as a state senator, US senator, presidential candidate and his presidency over a period of many years. If you have any specific concerns relating to what is written in the article then please bring them up here, but if all you are doing is using a Wikipedia talk page as a platform to call Obama a liar then perhaps you should create a blog or something instead. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

That question doesn't seem to be in good faith. There are references in the article you can check yourself if you wanted to know where each position came from. --Raijinili (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The more I read this article, the more convinced I am that it is woefully off-track. It claims to be about Obama's Political Positions, but it does not differentiate between positions before being President and Afterwards. For example, an entire article could be written on Obama's evolving positions on the Iraq War alone. I think this is why some readers believe the article is biased. The whole of it implies that Obama's positions are monolithic. In fact, it could be that the reason Obama's tax policies don't mesh with his campaign promises is because his opinion has changed. In that case, while he did break his promise, he didn't "lie" (a terribly misused word over the last 6 years). I recommend this page be used as an index of Obama's positions and to split them all up into individual articles. Then ALL the positions he has taken on an issue can be documented.Manawyddan (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely, although there is a rather simple explanation! Most of the article was written before the election and nobody has made the effort to update it. When it was first written there were not many editors watching it. Now it has a lot of eyes on it so there is a slower, more gradual consensus process. That's fine for fine older articles about fixed subjects like Sigmund Freud (I mean, how much does the world's understanding of Freud change from day to day?) But gradualism is a problem for articles like this one that need to be fundamentally rewritten - it's stale, and (with all due respect to all our hardworking volunteers) nowhere near finished. One solution is to create those individual articles first, then chip away at this one piece by piece, issue by issue, to turn it into more of a parent article with lots of links. The "evolving position" (or "lie" or whatever you want to call it) makes sense to track on an issue by issue basis, where it is very relevant. Wikidemon (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Specificity

I agree that this article could be broken up a bit, but I am deeply concerned with the proposed level of specificity. There most certainly does not need to be a separate article for each political position (such as the one being created specifically on Iran). I think certain positions need to be grouped. For example, we only need a single article on Obama's positions with respect to taxes, and perhaps another with respect to energy, and perhaps another with respect to foreign policy - that sort of thing. It would also like to see this worked out here before we rush off and start doing it, as Manawyddan has rather boldly done. There is no rush. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree. However, I think a new page about changes between his campaign platform and current positions isn't out of the order as long as it doesn't become overly charged with negative sentiment.  EJNOGARB  17:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

From what I can see, the article already has a splitting, into Economic, Foreign, and Social policies. Can't you just use that first? --Raijinili (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I flatly disagree about the need for a rush. The policies of any administration are subject to change on a dime. Scjessey says specifically that there is no need a separate article on Iran. If there is no need for one on Iran then it is hard to imagine that any would be. Shall I mention in this section that candidate Sen. Obama famously declared that "little" Iran was "no threat" to the US and two days later declared that it was a "grave" threat. In the case of Iran, I did little more than move the article from the body to a separate article. If there are fellow contributors here who think NO change to the structure of this article is necessary, then they should say so. Don't try to kill the change with calls for "cooler heads to rule". If the change needs to occur, then it should occur forthwith. I'm asking for a GOOD FAITH discussion of this issue.Manawyddan (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you look to build a consensus for such changes before proceeding. Throwing caution to the wind in a hotly-contested article that falls under the Obama-wide article probation is certainly not a good idea. Patience, discussion, consensus, and then implementation. Let's go topic by topic, and let's keep things sensibly grouped together so that we don't have eleventy-billion articles. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It is hotly contested because the article is totally in the woods. You yourself have already agreed that "the article should be broken up a bit". So "specify" exactly what you mean by that or get off the dime. I am attempting to build a consensus by detailing exactly what I think should be done and why. You are attempting to derail discussion by saying "I agree. Let's not do anything right now." If you have a plan for getting this article back on track so we can stop the endless fights about what policy CHANGES should not be included in an article about Obama's POLICIES then I'd like to see it. Otherwise, I don't see how you are participating in this discussion. --Manawyddan (talk) 05:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Your belligerent response is unnecessary, and I don't appreciate being given instructions by an editor with so little Wikipedia experience. This article is about Obama's political positions, either stated by Obama (or surrogates) or derived from his legislative actions. It is true that the article needs to evolve, but the kind of changes we are proposing should be carefully worked out here first. We need to build a consensus for how this article should evolve (how many parts, how divided, etc.) before turning our attention to specifics. Let me repeat: there is no rush. We do not need to document every little day-to-day change in policy as soon as it happens. It is better to take our time to get it right, rather than rush in and created a mess. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You still have not offered a single detail regarding what you would like to see as opposed to what has already been offered. tick, tick, tick.Manawyddan (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I started this thread offering my thoughts on how it should be done, and I maintain that view. I think the article should be split up into sections that roughly mirror the existing sections. For example:

1. Social policy positions of Barack Obama
2. Foreign policy positions of Barack Obama
3. Economic policy positions of Barack Obama
4. Domestic policy positions of Barack Obama (some things in "social" and "economic" sections, such as the environment, seem out of place)

I'm not sure this is the correct approach, but it can certainly act as a reasonable starting point for a discussion. We will need to seek agreement for how the article should be split, what the sub-articles will be called (the above are only suggestions), and what goes into what article (there will obviously be some overlap, and perhaps some redundancy). Drop the "tick, tick" crap, BTW. There is no deadline for this to be completed by, and that sort of thing is very disruptive and hostile. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

See? That wasn't so hard, was it? I don't see why we need to agree about the sub-articles at all. That should be hashed out on the individual articles. That's the advantage of splitting them off from the main article. The only issue to be resolved at this point is to confirm how the new articles will deal with the *all* the positions that Barack Obama has taken on the individual subjects; that is, to repair the current article's defect of mixing campaign/presidential policies without reference to previous, different positions & policies. The best way seems to be to pick a topic (the current topics are perfectly reasonable starting points) and to list the various documented positions chronologically. This plan will require minor shaping as we go along, but it is a good direction to commit to.

For the record, I fail to see how managing four more expansive articles is easier than managing 20 very discreet articles. Either the information is true, unbiased, and applicable to each article or it isn't. I think this plan is building needless disputes into its design. But if this will move the changes forward, then I'll get behind it.

---Manawyddan (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I simply expanded on what I had already said. There was no need for the snarky comment that started your response. The "defect" that you perceive was not in the original article as it stood for a considerable time, but has evolved since Obama was inaugurated. The notion that we could need "20 discreet articles" is ludicrous, frankly. It would lead to a mergefest because of massive redundancy. This difference of opinion highlights the need for caution, and we must avoid rushing into creating new articles and deleting chunks from this one until the concept has had the chance to mature with the benefit of opinions from other editors who have been involved with this article. Please remember that the entire Obama topic is under article probation, so we must not proceed with anything potentially controversial without first building a solid consensus. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Both of you should stay on topic. Pretend it's a different person commenting each time, if you have to. --Raijinili (talk) 01:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Which of my comments went off topic, exactly? And we'll exclude this one from that question. For that matter, which of Manawyddan's did? As far as I can see, we are both discussing how to improve this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You are discussing how to improve the article, but you are also discussing each other's actions long after the fact. For example, "There was no need for the snarky comment that started your response." This will only distract from the main point, and it's easier for a neutral party to get you both to stop than one of you to ask the other, so I'm asking you to stop as a neutral party. --Raijinili (talk) 03:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I read the situation differently. Manawyddan and I are "hotly" contesting our positions, but we are definitely moving toward a compromise that should lead to a consensus (once others have a chance to weigh in). This did not dissolve into a meta discussion until you wandered in with your random comment - a comment more suitable for user talk, I should add - without offering anything on topic. Thanks for making a little molehill into an unnecessary mountain. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Slice and dice

However you cut it, there are going to be lots of new articles on Obama, the presidency, various issues, positions, scandals, events.... I think "positions" is close enough to "presidency of" that the two will step on each other's toes if not careful. But one way or another, we will have to divvy things up, and the broader articles like "presidency/administration of" or "political legacy/position" or "image" will end up being parent articles. If we think this through carefully now it will avoid a lot of trouble later. Changes between campaign platform and actions in office is actually a quite notable issue - which is an intersection of some long-term/legacy questions about Obama with the matter more broadly for politicians, political theory, etc. I think all of these are very valid questions. I'm thinking more and more like we need to take a few steps back and look at the bigger picture of how Wikipedia can cover such broad topics. The fact that the daily minutia of partisanship, politics, and mechanics of the presidency is inappropriate for the parent articles doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't cover it. All of this stuff easily sails past notability guidelines, so that's not the issue. If Obama trips over his new dog, or his undersecretary of whatever gits into a tiff with a libertarian journalist from Bulgaria, there will be hunreds of articles about it the next day and enough raw material to write a decent article. We need only to make sure we organize the information in a useful way, and that we have enough interest, attention, etc., to actually write it well and fit it into our broader organizational schema. Wikidemon (talk) 03:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

What are your thoughts about creating four sub-articles, such as those I outlined in my comment timestamped 14:17, 23 April 2009 above? Do you think this is the way to go, or do you think we need even greater granularization (or less)? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that if you quarter a zombie, now you have four zombies. I have two alternatives in mind, and I'm not sure either will be very popular. Wikidemon (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I am intrigued. There's nothing I enjoy more than unpopular suggestions! -- Scjessey (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Option 1 is to avoid entirely the creation of articles that track recent aspects on the presidency - wait until the dust is settled on each before we attempt to determine its notability, relevance, balance, context, etc. Depending on the issue that might be a couple weeks or a year. Option 2 is to use a "timeline of the presidency" master article that does not distinguish by type of event (biographical, personal, public perception, political position, foreign policy, controversy, etc.) but simply links to every child article that is sufficiently notable and relevant. Looking through the CNN and Fox News headlines of the moment I see

• Report: North Korea reprocessing fuel rods (North Korea nuclear program)
• Clinton makes surprise visit to Iraq (Administration's handling of Iraq war)
• Clinton says string of attacks won’t deter strides (Iraq war)
• The politics of 'torture' heat up Washington (torture controversy)
• Obama, Democrats Eye Tactic to Shield Health Care Plan (health care reform)
• First 100 Days: Unfilled Positions Threaten Obama's Ambitious Agenda (administration appointments)

Each of these is a notable subject that deserves (and already has probably) its own article. We could simply link them all to the timeline with respect to the timeframe when they are relevant to the Obama administration. There would probably be a number of summary articles on broader topics, but we can sort that out later. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Your ideas would take us in a whole different direction from what I expected. If anything, it reinforces the opinion I stated above about how important it is to invest some time in considering all the options and getting plenty of opinions before plunging into any significant changes. I need to mull this over for a bit, and my head is already starting to hurt. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Option 1 strikes me as totally unworkable and not very useful. It will become a constant and unending freeforall over "when the dust has settled" on every single issue. If you like Obama and a policy is unpopular, then the dust will never settle. For those who don't like him, the dust will never settle soon enough. And the opposite will be true for popular policies. In the meantime, someone who would make use of an article like this will find it useless because it will never reflect the administration's current policy.

Also, the documentation on each policy will become harder to find over time.

Option 2 requires very little argument because it requires much less analytical filtering. a) It's a policy statement or action. b) It occurred.

And because it is put up immediately c) the article is current and therefore useful. That's the value of a wiki. Not even published scholarly works attempt to "wait until the dust settles" because in real life, the dust never settles ("What do you think of the American democracy?" "Too early to tell.")

Manawyddan (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how it could work like that, for several reasons. First of all, Wikipedia articles are not supposed to necessarily reflect current events, and they certainly shouldn't be updated "immediately" some change occurs. That sort of thing is for Wikinews, per WP:NOTNEWS. Secondly, this is a sub-article of the Barack Obama BLP, and as such it is supposed to be written from an historical perspective. That means that we need "time for the dust to settle" in order to gather and summarize a preponderance of reliably-sourced opinion on a given position. Thirdly, while it is important to show current political positions, it is equally important to show how these positions have evolved over time. You cannot adequately achieve that without "analytical filtering". Fourthly, you do not want an article (or group of articles) that skews toward only the most recent stated opinions. Finally, we must be careful to distinguish current actions of the Obama administration with political positions he has stated. The two aren't necessarily the same thing. For example, the reality of the situation in Iraq has meant Obama must keep more military personnel in country that he stated he would prefer - his position hasn't changed, but events have forced him to act differently from those positions. You can see why this is a huge can of worms, and why plenty of consideration and discussion is necessary before we move into a specific direction. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I do NOT see that. Defining "political position" as what someone SAYS they believe works for a candidate. It doesn't work for someone in office. It would be Orwellian to define Obama's political position today as wanting to pull US forces out of Iraq within 16 months of taking office (his campaign position) when he has in office adopted the Bush policy whole-cloth. If Obama adopted a "position" on the campaign trail (a very easy thing for candidate to do) and adopted a different position when making actual policy, then that is a change in position. The change needs to be noted and when the policy change caused a significant stir that stir should be noted as well. The only way to address the political positions of Barack Obama from an historical perspective (as you seem to define it) would be to shelve this whole article until 2 years after he left office. Since that is not reasonable, we need a method for documenting the constantly evolving positions of his administration that is --as much as possible-- "turn-key" and can keep up with the changes week to week, month to month.

I don't anticipate you and I arriving at a middle ground regarding these two methods (Option 1 or 2). It is going to be one or the other. How can we move forward to arrive at a decision?

Manawyddan (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a shame that you already anticipate a lack of agreement between us, and it is also a shame that you seem to think it is "going to be one or the other." You've made some pretty sweeping statements there ("adopted the Bush policy whole-cloth") that would seem to indicate that you have a bit of an agenda. Also, historical perspective does not mean we wait until events have passed into history. It means that (a) we allow sufficient time to accumulate reliably-sourced opinion (usually a week or two) before documenting an event, (b) we write in the past tense, and (c) we carefully consider the weight of new information so that we don't skew the article in favor of it (per WP:RECENT). I realize that you disagree with what I define a "position" to be, and perhaps that needs to be decided before we can even consider how we can move ahead with these other concerns. I have deep concerns about this evolving into a massive information dump of the kind you are suggesting. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

What I was proposing as option #2 is neutral as to the content of the articles, speed of creation, etc., just a way to organize information in child articles in a timeline-style format as the top level "presidency of" rather than trying to cover everything in depth or divide things off the bat into several different topic areas. I'm not sure how a "political position" article fits into that hierarchy at all, because it is presumably something that addesses an issue globally throughout the presidency, and period before and after. This article would likely be off to the side, in a different tree of articles related to Obama. Wikidemon (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey, I do not not have an agenda. I don't want to get into the details of the Obama's Iraq policy, but you spoke of allowing "time to accumulate reliably-sourced opinion" on political positions and I can present of thick stack of such opinion from the Right, Left, and Center that backs my summarization (which appears self-evident to me, I admit). If we're only talking about one or two weeks, that strikes me as being as fast as anything is resolved in wikipedia, but there's still going to be a diversity of opinion on whether something was a "change". So the best bet is ensure that new changes in policy are quantifiable. In the case of Iraq, the issue is easy: It's the difference between all troops out by May 2010 or 50,000 troops still there by 2011 with the final status and dates being open-ended. In the case of Iran, it will be trickier since we will rarely have something as emphatic as the "Iran is no threat"/"Iran is a grave threat" flip that we had during the campaign. Probably we will see very few documentable changes there unless something bad happens. It's in the case of things like tax rates that the real fights will occur with some authorities asserting that the pledge of no increased taxes for households making less than $250K is negated by his cap-and-trade policy and others saying it isn't. All sides of such disputes should be represented. In that case, there will be short periods of "information dump", followed a few weeks later by a clean-up/merge phase where we pick a representative source for each side (there could be more than two or three).

So, the timeline format makes sense for this. To assert that the political positions of Barack Obama are whatever the administration SAYS they are, regardless of what it DOES, begs the question of why we need a wiki on the issue at all rather than links to www.barackobama.org---Manawyddan (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing should ever be added to a BLP-related article like this one without reliable sources, regardless of whether or not things are "obvious" or "true". And it is not the job of this article to offer opinions or sides to any political position. This article was conceived as a place to put the political positions of Barack Obama, either explicitly stated or derived from legislative (and now executive) activity. Other articles should be used for comparisons of position with action, if necessary. This should not become a dumping ground for "all sides of disputes" et al. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ummm...you're the one who used said we needed to wait for the the "dust to settle" and "time to accumulate reliably-sourced opinon". Now you don't like that idea. You've had a change of position. Okay. This is a location to document the political positions of the chief executive officer of the US government. To claim that documenting both what his administration says it would like to do as well as what it actually does and seeks to do would make this article a "dumping ground" is like saying a dictionary with its multiple definitions of a single word is a dumping ground for etymological relativism. Rather than complain about what you think this article should not be, I'd like to hear what you think it should be. If you think it should do no more than re-state whatever is on the President's campaign website, you should not attempt to buttress your argument with slurs against the other side. --Manawyddan (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me clarify what I said, and explain exactly what I think this article (or subsequent group of articles) should be:

• Broadly-speaking, this should be a list of political positions.
• The list should come from statements Obama has made about his positions, but also it can be derived from his legislative and executive actions.
• When his legislative or executive actions differ significantly from his stated positions, this difference should be briefly explored here - significant differences would likely receive coverage in other Obama-related articles, so the "exploration" could form a brief summary of that analysis.
• Absolutely nothing should be in this article unless it comes from a reliable source.
• Political positions cannot be derived from Obama's voting record.

I think that about covers it; however, I reserve the right to refine this later if I think of anything else or something useful emerges from our continued discussion. I am extremely keen to solicit opinion from other editors before embarking on any radical changes. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this 100%. Particularly, I think Obama's voting record in the Senate is immaterial. This is about the political positions of PRESIDENT Obama. Furthermore, I think that 2 weeks is about as fast as the fall-out from a change of position can be assessed and recorded. However, I don't think an article should be on lock-down until some arbitrary point where the group assumes "the dust has settled". A change in position will involve people updating the article with documentable content; Then the article will be consolidated with eliminate redundant or (on retrospect) irrelevant information. But I think that splitting the details of this article into discreet subarticles is the best way to control "information dump". Most of Obama's policies will not change, but events will happen that significantly color them and expand on them. Separating major articles will make it more self-evident what is gold and what is dross. Furthermore, Obama's position on Iran or his position on Pakistan might not be comprehensible with his Middle East policy as a whole. That's just the way things work. An apparent contradiction in the same article would invite editors to attempt to explain why that is. But IMO that is a waste of time. If Iran and Middle East are separate articles, we can avoid any reference (or fights over references) to seeming contradictions, because no explanation probably exists. The beauty of a wiki (I write technical documentation in wiki-format all the time) is that you don't have to worry so much about hierarchy. Bundling major positions causes us have to needlessly worry about that----Manawyddan (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear why you think Obama's political positions with respect to Iran would need its own article, or even one for the Middle East. I'm pretty sure a "Foreign policy positions of Barack Obama" article would be sufficient, divided into sections covering regions. It's not like we are talking about dozens of different policy positions per nation. If specific "events" occur that are notable enough to force a change of political position (North Korea conducting a nuclear test, for example), I am sure these would get their own articles. Obama's political position would only be one aspect of such an article. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)Well, what does need its own article is the Durban Review Conference on racism, which many nations boycotted and at which Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave one of his typical anti-Israel speeches. The administration's position on that is worth noting. There have been many other diplomatic and a few military and economic incidents between the US and Iran during the Bush and now Obama presidencies, most of them with some administration involvement. Books could, and have, been written about various US presidents and the way they deal with Iran. But how to organize that information? It is a relatively small part of overall US foreign policy, or of Iran's nationhood. Iran – United States relations as a parent article suffers from a lot of the same organizational issues we do: recentivism, what to include, how to describe partisanship in a neutral way. We cannot, should not, give this full treatment in a broad summary article like "positions of" or "presidency of" - individual incidents probably don't even merit a single word or link. But how to navigate from here to there for people who want to examine a subject that cuts across the grain of the article structure? That's the organizational question. Wikidemon (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess that is what bluelinks, templates and categories are for. Certainly exploring the minutiae of specific relationships between the United States and other nations is not for this article (or any split derivatives), but I would think that relevant related articles will be linked within the text, if appropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any of those methods would yield much of the diffuse information Wikipedia already has about the subject of Obama's dealings with Iran, which is a notable subject if not a very good candidate for an article. Bits and pieces of this are all over the encyclopedia, generally not categorized either as Obama or Iran-related, or in templates as such. As for wikilinks you would have to do a search I'm not sure is very practical: a "what links here" kind of thing that compiles the links from a broad list of Iran-related articles to a broad list of Obama and US government-related articles. I really don't know what the answer is, but I suspect that a timeline-style article might at least make it a one-to-many wikilink relationship rather than a many-to-many relationship. Wikidemon (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

SQL-style reasoning? I like it! -- Scjessey (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I am putting down my chit that I agree with Scjessey regarding what this article should be about (see 15:09, 28 April 2009). And I also agree with Wikidemon for why the article needs to reformed (see his two posts above). Going back to the Iran example, in the next year there are going to be many events, statements and occurances IN Iran, INVOLVING Iran, and ABOUT Iran on which the administration will take a POSITION, as Pres Obama did at Durban II. The same will be true for Iraq and for the Middle East. Trying to merge the administration's positions on all those topics will lead to a cognitive traffic jam. Thus they should be split off into topics of their own. It will probably not be necessary to do that for EVERY topic on this page. But there should not be a great concern whenever if someone feels that it would be easier to branch an article off rather than maintain it along side similiar but quite distinct topics. And that is my vote. I am open to other nominations and why they are better than this one. --Manawyddan (talk) 07:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Re-examining the Iran section, I'd like to offer it further as an example of the problem with this article as it is. It mingles and jumbles statements from 2004, 2006, and 2007 willy-nilly to produce a coherent policy description. What authority did the editors have to do this? Wouldn't it have made more sense merely to say "In May 2004, Sen Obama said so-and-so." "In Sept. he said so-and-so." If more refining of the statements on Iran are required, then there should be a sub-headings in the Iran section "Nuclear Program" and "Support for Hezbollah" and the applicable statements would be documented chronilogically. This avoids the current after-the-fact arranging that is not at all divorced from authoring. --Manawyddan (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward

The biggest problem we face right now is that this article has become long and rather unwieldy. We must make a decision as to whether or not we should go down the route of documenting Obama's positions (as we are now), or a superset of positions that includes actual policy decisions and actions. If we are keeping to just positions (which helpfully limits the scope), I would like to propose that we create the following sub-articles:

• Public policy positions of Barack Obama - which in large part would summarize:
  • Economic policy positions of Barack Obama
  • Social policy positions of Barack Obama
• Foreign policy positions of Barack Obama

Public policy is a more accurate term for domestic policy, and it could cover things that are not a good fit for social and economic policy (such as environmental and educational policies, which straddle both). I am reluctant to expand the scope of these articles to cover actual decisions and actions, because technically these are not specific to Barack Obama. By this I mean that if the president decides (and pushes through legislation) to strip mine the moon, because he is the democratically-elected leader of the nation it ceases to be his policy and becomes an action of the United States. So there is a world of difference (no pun intended) between Moon policy positions of Barack Obama and Moon policy of the United States. That is why I think we should stick with only the stated (and derived) policy positions, and not get into the greater scope of decisions and actions. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree that your implied definition of the term "position" is an accurate term for an actual executive rather than a candidate for an executive position. So here's my vote: I don't think the article is too large or unwieldy for what it is, or at least for what Scjessey thinks it is intended to be. I think that what it is has become irrelevant with the election of Barack Obama (unless this article is meant to describe the campaign positions of Barack Obama in 2012). So if the gist and direction of the article is not be changed, then I see no point in dividing it up.--Manawyddan (talk) 06:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Energy policy

I wish to add the following to the Energy Policy section, but I will not do so if a consensus objects to it:

Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle that his proposal would make building new coal power plants so expensive that anyone who tried to build one would go "bankrupt." However, he aired a TV commercial in Kentucky that depicted him as a strong friend of the coal industry.

Grundle2600 (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Convert Grundle's refs into hotlinks as there is no ref section on talk:

1st link: [2]

2nd link: [3]

--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

/facepalms

We have the SF Chronicle piece that, apart from the opposition caterwauling, is a simple recounting of Obama's opposition to new coal-powered plants, along with a "if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it" statement, a part that you seem to have left out. The WPost article has some info on his alternately angering both enviro and coal lobbyists, but it still appears to come out to a similar message of not favoring new coal plants unless they make use of clean coal or similar technology. What you're trying to do is set-up a contradiction between the former source and the latter, one that simply is not there. Tarc (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll take that as a vote against putting it in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't "set up" the contradiction. It was Obama, not me, who said that he opposed and supported coal. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "vote" at WP but there is something like discussion, common sense and consensus for or against inclusion of material.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Right - we "vote" to get a "consensus." Do you think the material should be included or not? Grundle2600 (talk) 01:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

No, we don't "vote" for consensus. Occasionally we "vote" to get a picture how editors feel about an issue but "consensus" can only be reached by good and reasonable arguments. Do I think it should be included somehow? I have to look into this further before replying. I'll try to do it now but time wise I'm on ET so I can't promises any response soon, although my initial thought is "no" (but that can change). One thing I can tell you right away: If included at all it needs [ops, something is burning on my stove (real life kicking in)...... Ok, wasn't that bad :) and I can go on with my comment ;) ] strong RS's (which I didn't check yet) and written in a NPOV of course. Anyway and again, without pre-justice it doesn't look like it can or should be included. Just my personal opinion right now and I can't and shouldn't say anything more w/o checking the sources.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

After checking the sources:

First link: Gosh, it already was discussed last year (and as old as the source).

Second link: Still from the election, nothing new and already discussed (last year).

So no, I'm not for inclusion. I thought there are new sources regarding this but as it turns out it is just a rehearsal of "old stuff".--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is encyclopedic - the fact that the sources are from last year should not matter. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

What is Obama's position on coal? It depends on whom he is speaking too. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Obama's position on coal power is not currently discussed in this article. It is a position he has taken, so it should be documented. It is ludicrous to argue that a position should not be included because Obama took the position a year ago. That is simply an inviable argument. The SFC citation should include both his opposition to "new coal power plants" as well as his affirmation of using coal in a "clean way". No attempt should be made explain what Obama meant by "in a clean way" unless he has clarified it himself. The article should neither attempt to rectify the two positions nor to present them as contradictory. Let the positions speak for themselves. The section should also include initiatives that the President or his administration is currently pursuing that are applicable, such as Cap & Trade.--Manawyddan (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There aren't "two positions" in either of the articles. The creation of a disparity in positions is entirely a creation of Grundle, and due to policies on synthesis, cannot appear in the article. Tarc (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Tarc, we have two quotes from the same speech (I haven't been able to locate yet a verbatim of the entire speech so we're relying on the SFC's presentation of the second qualifying statement). One says that new coal plants will not be economically viable under the Obama administration. The other says that Obama is open to coal energy technology if it can be done in "a clean way". YOU do not know what he means by "a clean way", so the only way you can merge the two quotes into a SINGLE position is by extrapolating them in your own mind. People do this all the time regarding politician's they like a lot or detest. It MIGHT be true that Obama's "clean way" position syncs nicely with his "coal plant builders will go bankrupt" position. But they are two separate positions (not necessarily contrary positions) regarding the issue of coal power.--Manawyddan (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, "a clean way", has a rather simple, well-known meaning, there's no ambiguity about it. There are not two separate or contradictory positions here. If there's any in-mind extrapolating going on here, it isn't on my end. Tarc (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Not true. Actually, as you can read in the post you linked to, environmental activists consider the term "clean coal" to be misleading. They say it is not really "clean". Sen Obama did not use the term "clean coal". If he had that would have clarified a lot. I don't know of any time when he has endorsed "clean coal" technology. At least, not the current state of the art of clean coal technology. Do you see how easy it is to assume you are hearing something that was not actually said? That sort of ambiguity is the bread and butter of politicians but it has no place in Wikipedia.---Manawyddan (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

However, even if you are correct about what Obama meant by "a clean way" (and I suspect you are not), it is still "two positions". One position is regarding how he intended to phase out "dirty coal" plants and the other is a position on "clean coal". Still, Obama's statement reported by the SFC is not a unambiguous endorsement of "clean coal". "A clean way" might refer to currently non-existing technology.---Manawyddan (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is quite true, actually. There is no basis in reality for Grundle's initial claim of a contradiction in Obama'a coal policy. I think we're done here. Tarc (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Wrong again. All you have done is to remove yourself from the discussion, which is greatly appreciated since your last reply is gratuitously argumentative. It does not address any of the discussion presented to this point and reverted to your original unsupported assertion. It is know-nothingist. As I count it, we have two "votes" in favor of adding the section "Energy Policy" and in favor of including Grundle's cited article. And we have one against (The Magnificent Clean-keeper) although he hasn't weighed in recently.--Manawyddan (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is not a vote. That is not how Wikepedia works. See WP:NOTDEMOCRACY if you still don't get it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm against the inclusion. Grundle has tried to synthesize "confusion" from two different issues. In the taped interview, Obama essentially states that building a coal-fired power station without using any technology to significantly cut emissions would be a foolhardy investment. In the other piece, Obama is referring to technology that he hopes will lead to zero emissions by using underground storage. These are consistent positions that do not contradict one another, yet Grundle's language (use of the word "however", for example) suggests a conflict. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

← Obama has quite clearly said that he is a supporter of "clean coal" technology.[4] I'm also not seeing a dichotomy in opposing existing "dirty coal" plants and supporting "clean coal" plants... Regardless of whether or not "clean coal" is actually clean or even feasible, it is being sold as such by supporters like Obama. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point, Bobblehead. 1) The Obama speech and the policy paper you have presented did not exist simultaneously or even close in time. Speech in January. Paper in September. 2) The policy paper implies that what Obama means by "clean coal" is "zero carbon" which does not currently exist. 3) "The dichotomy that regardless of points 1 and 2, we still have two positions. Not all supporters of Obama's "dirty coal" policy support "clean coal" technology...even if the technology could be created to provide "zero carbon coal facilities" (whatever that means). His plan for eliminating "dirty coal" is a fiscal/tax policy. His plan for "clean coal" is an R&D policy. Two positions which are connected only in that they both effect the coal industry. It is quite possible for one to be implemented and not the other.

What I am getting at is that people in this article are willy-nilly combining and contrasting policy statements often a widely divergent times and situations to arrive a their own flavor of "Obama's political positions". This is not documenting. It is authoring. It's a problem with maintaining NPOV when writing about politicians that people who really like or dislike one will combine their statements and actions arrive at a political position that fits their pre-existing view. They do this because politicians are constantly attempting to "frame" their policies without "boxing themselves in". This is hurdle can be mostly avoided. Create a sub-heading under Energy Policy called "Coal". Then create two sub-entries: "Conventional Coal" and "Clean Coal". Place his statements regarding each in chronological order, excising only those that precisely repeat previous positions...unless the positions are interposed with a significantly divergent one.---Manawyddan (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't let the date stamp on the link I provided confuse you, that is just the date the energy policy itself was published during the campaign. Obama's campaign website has had references to clean coal on it since at least February 12, 2007.[5] Additionally, just because people don't agree with him on all his positions does not mean there is a "dichotomy" in his position. Most people that support his cap and trade position, but oppose "clean coal" oppose clean coal because of how environmentally destructive the coal mining process is and thus they oppose all forms of coal usage. You also appear to not know what "clean coal" is. Clean coal is not a different kind of coal, but is a different process for managing the waste produced by power plants that use coal. I'm not going to go into the details of what clean coal is (the article does it better than I could), but being in favor of a cap and trade system that regulates the amount of carbon a coal power plant can release into the atmosphere and of "clean coal", which supposedly eliminates all carbon emissions, are both in line with each other. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I just want the article to document the facts. If that makes it look like Obama is contradicting himself, that's Obama's fault, not mine. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Obama isn't contradicting himself. He's opposed to the release of carbon into the atmosphere (cap and trade system) and supports developing technology that will make it so coal power plants don't release carbon into the atmosphere.. Nothing contradictory there. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Setting all the people / process matters aside (again, folks, the talk page isn't the place), I oppose all this material on two grounds. First, it does not matter what Obama told anyone, we are trying to say what his actual position is. If we don't know, we don't know. But this page is not supposed to be a chronicle of the Obama's statements to different sources. Using sources in this way borders on original use / use of primary sources. Second, cherypicking statements that appear contradictory (in this case, when they aren't really contradictory but in any event it does not matter whether they are or are not) is not encyclopedic. According to some people's definition of WP:SYNTH it is synthesis - juxtiposing two facts that may or may not be related, so that the reader makes a connection not in the sources. Whether you come out and say explicitly "Obama contradicted himself" or leave that implicit, it supports an unsourced conclusion. The right way to indicate Obama's position is: Obama is a supporter of X, Y, Z, and in various ways as indicated by A, B, C. The wrong way to write this article is Obama told A to X. However, Obama later told B to Y. Wikidemon (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should not juxtapose positions in order to create an impression. But this entire article does more than that. It does not present Obama's political positions as "Obama is a supporter of X, Y, Z". It say Obama is a supporter of X Y Z. In 2002 he said something like X. In 2004 he said something very similar to that. And in 2007 he said another than similar to that." When someone posts a source that might undermine that "Obama is a supporter of X", he is accused of "juxtaposing". But this entire article does that.

Wikidemon, if you truly believe that this article should follow the format of "Obama *is* a supporter of X, Y, Z then why not just redirect readers to www.barackobama.com where the information is stated quite concisely and will be updated in a timely manner?--Manawyddan (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You are fond of repeating that idea, but this article does not seek to simply copy that website. While there may be some duplication between the two, this article is free of the spin on barackobama.com because it relies primarily on reliable sources. As has been previously stated, if we are going to get into comparing positions with actions (and other comparisons) we are talking about vastly extending the scope of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to add his position on "clean coal technology" as it is stated on his own website but I am opposed to contradicting synth and OR. As I pointed out (further above), this issue was discussed before, maybe not here but it was out there quite a while ago, although regarding my comment, I missed that there is (at least by now) no entrance about it. On his site he states under the headline "Create Millions of New Green Jobs" "Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology." and in more detail "Obama’s Department of Energy will enter into public private partnerships to develop five “first-of-a-kind” commercial scale coal-fired plants with clean carbon capture and sequestration technology." This could be added in a separate section (or in an existing one?) w/o synth, OR or POV concerns. I don't have to mention that this should be backed up by an independent RS if possible but if not, I don't see any problem as long as we point out the source.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Scjessey, what is Barack Obama's position on troop deployment in Iraq? During the campaign it was to remove all US troops from Iraq within 16 of taking office. So now, as President, his implemented POLICY is to bring down troop levels to 50,0000 within 19 months of taking office as circumstances on the ground permit. So is his campaign position no longer applicable for this article, because "it is no longer his political position? Or are his current actions in office not applicable because he would like (we suppose) to do something different? If we document that his position during the campaign was X and his policies in office are Y, is that juxtaposing or being comprehensive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manawyddan (talk • contribs) 15:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You know what would be really great? Is if this article had a section called Foreign policy in which there would be a subsection on Iraq that detailed Obama's policy on Iraq. Or better, yet how about an entire article on the Obama administration's foreign policy that had a section on Iraq. Oh wait, there already is. :P --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This is both nonresponsive and apparently ignorant of the discussion that has gone on up til now. Spend time reading this whole thread and thinking of an answer to the points I just posed rather coming up with snarky comments. See Wikidemon (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC) and Wikidemon (talk) 03:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC). Foreign Policy on Iraq, does not address the POSITIONS Obama has taken on Iraq over time. This article addresses the positions Obama has taken since he was a candidate including those he has taken since becoming President. Obama's positions have changed a great deal since he opposed the original Senate resolution in 2002. In 2004, he said that while original intervention was wrong we had an obligation to bring Iraq to a state of stability. In the campaign he had a more severe position and as president another. These are all "political positions of Barack Obama". They don't belong in an Iraqi foreign policy article because non-Presidents don't have "foreign policies". I feel like I am trying to tell Christian editors why an article called "The Doctrines of the Bible" is an inappropriate topic. Imagine that this hypothetical topic included subheadings like "Salvation" and used verses selected from among the 66 book of the Protestant canon to define it? Critics would be correct in reminding them that the books they are citing were written over a great deal of time, under different circumstances. Like any politician, Barack Obama's poltical positions have changed...evolved...over time. An article like this that doesn't address that leaves a false impression. It wipes away all history and controversy related to deriving whatever position is the most current in favor of presenting that position as though it has always existed as is.---Manawyddan (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you even read the Iraq section in this article, or are you just complaining to complain? It includes his opposition to the war in 2000 and that he would have voted against IWR. That in 2004 he went to "I don't know" when asked how he would have voted on IWR. That he submitted a bill in 2007 to phase out all combat troops by March 31, 2008. That he said on the campaign trail in 2008 that he'd remove all combat troops in 16 months, then later "refined" that to include that he would listen to the recommendations of the commanders in Iraq to determine if 16 months was feasible, etc. The only thing missing is that earlier this year he announced he'd have all combat troops out of Iraq in 18 months, missing the 16 months he said during the campaign but he's still meeting his promise to have the combat troops out by Summer 2010. Before you go about complaining that I don't know what's going on with the discussion, how about you actually know what the frak you're talking about? I also highly suggest you go back and read the comments from Wikidemon you pointed at. Namely the bit where he says the article is a bit stale. When dealing with BLPs, Wikipedia is always out of date. There is always going to be a need to balance between the "OMG!!! I just saw on Fox News that Obama hates kitties!!!!! It has to be in the article now!!!!" crowd and the "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Even though this happened some months ago, it is far too soon to determine the historic significance, so it shouldn't be included in the article" crowd. This is especially true when you have a highly trafficked subject like Obama. But from what I've seen of this article, it does include Obama's positions on topics through time, it just doesn't present it as the false dichotomy, such as the one at the start of this section, that you and Grundle would like to include them as. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Before I go further, I want to make clear that IMO the contributors are not to blame for the severe deficiencies in this article. The general layout is to blame. The Iraq subsection does not do as you say it does. During the campaign, President Obama promised to withdraw "one or two divisions" each month over a 16 month period starting from when he was sworn into office. A "division" is 10,000 soldiers or more. In a sixteen month period that is a minimum of 160,000 soldiers or every US soldier in Iraq. He even said that an imminent genocide was not reason enough to keep US troops there. It is fatuous spin to deny that Obama was encouraging people to believe that he intended anything else but to leave US personnel in Iraq numbering the hundreds or even tens. Not in the tens of thousands. Jon Stewart even mocked the administration for openly declaring that they were removing "all combat troops" from Iraq by merely re-designating the 50,000 troops still there as "not combat troops". The article elides Obama's contradiction between then and now.

But again, I don't blame the contributors for the fact that the current article goes far beyond NOT placing two facts next to each other to imply a contradiction (it freely juxtaposes statements to imply a monolithic lack of contradiction, and leaves out statements and facts that might REVEAL a contradiction). The problem is the organization of the article itself in which editors are encouraged to freely combine statements widely divergent in time and audience to CREATE comprehendable political positions, while stepping on statements and events that would make those positions appear untidy. ---Manawyddan (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

*facepalms* Not all of a division deploys at the same time, they are generally rotated in at a brigade level. So pulling out a division does not necessarily mean 10,000+ troops are leaving Iraq. As an example, the 20,000 troops that were deployed into Iraq as part of the 2007 troop surge consisted of 5 brigades from 4 divisions, so if you look at just those troops involved in the surge, withdrawing a "division" could mean anywhere from 4,000 to 8,000 troops depending on which "division" was withdrawn. I'm not sure how many divisions are currently in Iraq, but I have the feeling it is quite a bit more than 16. As far as Obama classifying 50,000 troops as "non-combat troops", I believe the saying goes, if they aren't out in the field conducting combat operations, they aren't combat troops. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* You are only being argumentative. From the AP:

"He said during the campaign he would withdraw two brigades a month. At the height of his Democratic primary contest with Hillary Rodham Clinton, he said he would remove troops by the end of this year, before reverting to a 16-month pledge."

Since this is a report about the President's plan to draw down troops to 50,000 by 2010, this is the AP juxtaposing facts to create an unstated (and unavoidable) impression; which is, that we are up to three political positions now. --Manawyddan (talk) 05:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)