Jump to content

Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
External criticism: Obama supporters at Wikipedia have censored information about his “transparency” http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3186809/posts
Tarc (talk | contribs)
Undid revision 620101662 by 173.75.156.15 (talk)- Sorry, Grundle, not gonna happen.
Line 82: Line 82:
::If a banned editor has been erasing content, then that content should be added back to the article. [[Special:Contributions/71.182.236.185|71.182.236.185]] ([[User talk:71.182.236.185|talk]]) 01:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
::If a banned editor has been erasing content, then that content should be added back to the article. [[Special:Contributions/71.182.236.185|71.182.236.185]] ([[User talk:71.182.236.185|talk]]) 01:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
:::The banned editor has bee trying to ''add'' content deemed unsuitable by others. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 03:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
:::The banned editor has bee trying to ''add'' content deemed unsuitable by others. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 03:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

==External criticism: Obama supporters at Wikipedia have censored information about his “transparency”==

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3186809/posts

Obama supporters at Wikipedia have censored information about his “transparency”

Wikipedia’s article Presidency of Barack Obama has a section called “Transparency.” The section contains various claims by Obama about how supposedly transparent his administration is.

A crazy person who lives in my apartment building added some examples of Obama’s non-transparency to the section. However, the Obama supporters at Wikipedia erased them, and banned the account of the person who had added them.

This is the content that was added and then erased:

In February 2013, ABC News White House reporter Ann Compton, who covered Presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, both Bushes, and Obama, said:

“The president’s day-to-day policy development… is almost totally opaque to the reporters trying to do a responsible job of covering it. There are no readouts from big meetings he has with people from the outside, and many of them aren’t even on his schedule. This is different from every president I covered. This White House goes to extreme lengths to keep the press away.”

In October 2013, Compton said that Obama was the

“least transparent of the seven presidents I’ve covered in terms of how he does his daily business.”

In May 2013, the New York Times wrote:

“With the decision to label a Fox News television reporter a possible ‘co-conspirator’ in a criminal investigation of a news leak, the Obama administration has moved beyond protecting government secrets to threatening fundamental freedoms of the press to gather news.”

In May 2013, the Washington Post wrote:

“To treat a reporter as a criminal for doing his job — seeking out information the government doesn’t want made public — deprives Americans of the First Amendment freedom on which all other constitutional rights are based.”

In October 2013, New York Times reporter David Sanger said:

“This is the most closed, control-freak administration I’ve ever covered.”

In August 2013, the Obama administration illegally seized documents from the home of Audrey Hudson, a reporter who lived in Shady Side, Maryland.

Michael Oreskes, a senior managing editor at Associated Press, said:

“The Obama administration has been extremely controlling and extremely resistant to journalistic intervention.”

In February 2014, the Obama administration announced that it planned to put government employees inside TV stations and newspaper offices to monitor their activities.

In March 2014, New York Times reporter James Risen said Obama was

“the greatest enemy of press freedom that we have encountered in at least a generation.”

During one year of Obama’s presidency, from 2013 to 2014, the U.S. ranking on the World Press Freedom Index fell by 14 places, dropping from #32 to #46.

In November 2013, 38 major news organizations sent a letter to the Obama administration complaining about its lack of transparency. The letter was singed by all the major broadcast and cable networks, wire services, online services and newspapers, including the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the McClatchy Co., which owns 30 daily newspapers across the country.

In July 2014, 38 media organizations (not necessarily the same ones) sent a letter to the Obama administration complaining about its lack of transparency. That letter can be read here.

In July 2009, White House reporter Helen Thomas said:

“The point is the control from here. We have never had that in the White House. And we have had some control but not this control. I mean I’m amazed, I’m amazed at you people who call for openness and transparency and have controlled… Nixon didn’t try to do that… They couldn’t control (the media). They didn’t try. What the hell do they think we are, puppets? They’re supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them.”

[[Special:Contributions/173.75.156.15|173.75.156.15]] ([[User talk:173.75.156.15|talk]]) 14:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:14, 6 August 2014

Template:Community article probation

WikiProject iconBarack Obama (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
WikiProject iconUnited States B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


Drone wars and Prism surveillance missing

There is nothing in this article about America's waging drone wars in the Middle East and Africa and nothing about the PRISM mass surveillence program. Can it be added or not? I believe this is the top current discussions about Obama's presidency at least at the moment. Nyttkonto (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck getting the drone war mentioned. Obama's supporters are really adverse to mentioning that policy on wiki.
Yep, and if you keep up that line of posting, we'll track you down and debate the issue in your lounge room. HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that these are huge issues worth inclusion. In both cases I think that they were continuations of previous practices (neither was initiated by him), and coverage should acknowledge that, but continuation is also a decision. North8000 (talk) 01:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re 'huge issues worth inclusion'. Yes they are. Remember truth is not a criteria for inclusion. Worse, Wikipedia isn't really always on top of WP significant events. It takes a core of non POV dedicated editors per article to make a great balanced article. Equally again a small group can keep a article like this safe and bland. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 10:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First African American president makes no sense

He's *half* African American. That's like me saying that a glass is full or empty when it's only 50% full. It is neither full nor empty. Obama is either white AND black, or neither. A more correct statement would be that he's the first president with a parent of African descent.MisterZed (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Barack Obama/FAQ#Q2, and well as the talk page of the Barack Obama and and its archived discussions on this subject.--JayJasper (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do we distinguish African/American from African-American? Hcobb (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what "African/American" refers to. Tarc (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of people seem to have trouble understanding what "African-American" refers to. HiLo48 (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no definition. In this case most seem to accept 1/2 African-American as being African-American and that sounds like as good of a standard as any. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did anybody repeal the One-drop rule? But can Mr. Obama really lay claim to the heritage of Africans in America the way Mrs. Obama can? Hcobb (talk) 01:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sort of tangential meandering is about as pointless as discussing Who is a Jew? on someone else's article talk page, though. We're not here to debate or distill historically contentious conversations on racial and/or ethnic identity, we're here to write articles based on what reliable sources say about a subject. Regarding this particular subject, not only do the preponderance of sources use the African-dash-American descriptor, but the subject self-identifies this way as well. That is a one-two punch that the pro-biracial crowd simply is not going to overcome, which is why this is a perennially-denied request. Tarc (talk) 01:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do those thinking that there is some sort of "pure" African-American race understand the history of black slave ownership, where white plantation owners took their pleasures with the female slaves, whose children were then obviously brought up by the black families? Many modern, self identified African-Americans would have some European ancestry. HiLo48 (talk) 01:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has been suggested on Talk:Barack Obama that Obama speaking publicly about this event should be stated on this article. For reasons unexplained, Obama feels great affinity with Martin, stating that if he had a son, he would look like Martin, and that 35 years ago, he would have been Martin. The President has said nothing about the vast majority of the thousands of people who are shot dead in the U.S. every year, so it is notable that he spoke directly to the media on a few occasions about Martin and the connection he feels to the case and to Martin personally, despite having never heard of him before his death and having very little in common with him. 94.197.30.250 (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Illogic much lately? - Wikidemon (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your response makes no sense. I think that Obama's public statements on the Zimmerman-Martin case should be mentioned in this article - do you agree or disagree? 94.197.250.144 (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's way too early for that. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written from an historical perspective, otherwise they smell of recentism. We need to see where this thing develops, what kind of coverage it gets, whether or not the Martin killing is taken up by the DoJ and what happens as a result. Then we will be in a better position to put something in this article about the matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. All Obama Wikipedia articles should end coverage as of January 20, 2013. After he leaves office. His second term could be covered. No joke. Listen to Scjessey or reject his proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.38.179 (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Within a few weeks we'll likely know if Obama's personal identification with Martin and statements about race, the federal inquiry about possible civil rights violations, and involvement in efforts to diminish stand-your-ground laws, is a major event in the Presidency. My hunch is that it is. I was just objecting to the silly jabs about Obama not having heard of him before the event. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

White House visitor logs

I just added the following to the article's section on White house visitor logs:

In June 2010, the New York Times reported that Obama administration officials had held hundreds of meetings with lobbyists at coffee houses near the White House, in order to avoid the disclosure requirements for White House visitors, and that these meetings “reveal a disconnect between the Obama administration’s public rhetoric — with Mr. Obama himself frequently thrashing big industries’ ‘battalions’ of lobbyists as enemies of reform — and the administration’s continuing, private dealings with them.”[1]

QbR54190dfcv (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's an inaccurate summary of what the source says. The article doesn't say that those meetings were held "in order to avoid the disclosure requirements for White House visitors". It's original research to say that. Try again. HiLo48 (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's Grundle2600. Tarc (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Across From White House, Coffee With Lobbyists, New York Times, June 24, 2010

Why have all the additions from the past three months been reverted?

The edit history shows that everything that has been added to this article in the last three months has been reverted. Why is this? 71.182.236.185 (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On edit: That thing about coffee directly below was not part of my comment, and I don't know why it's there. 71.182.236.185 (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It can be fixed by adding a {{reflist}} to the appropriate section. As for the reverts, it is because a banned editor has been obsessed with this article for 4+ years now. Tarc (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If a banned editor has been erasing content, then that content should be added back to the article. 71.182.236.185 (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The banned editor has bee trying to add content deemed unsuitable by others. Tarc (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]