Changes

'''21 - 2009, 12/18, 04:16-21:''' Hoary entered the conversation, providing a voice of reason to the increasingly heated discussion. He suggested that I focus on whatever argument was strongest of the 3 suggested additions proposed, and also rebuked Ouroboros Cobra's snide remark earlier. His response to me in the Coverage of Controversies section was:

'''21 - 2009, 12/18, 04:16-21:''' Hoary entered the conversation, providing a voice of reason to the increasingly heated discussion. He suggested that I focus on whatever argument was strongest of the 3 suggested additions proposed, and also rebuked Ouroboros Cobra's snide remark earlier. His response to me in the Coverage of Controversies section was:

You want the article to have three additions. One of these you say needs better sourcing, and another in part concerns reasons why another candidate failed (reasons that you haven't linked above to Obama at all). Perhaps you should concentrate on whatever you think is your strongest point. Phrase it persuasively, and it might persuade. -- Hoary (talk) 10:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

:You want the article to have three additions. One of these you say needs better sourcing, and another in part concerns reasons why another candidate failed (reasons that you haven't linked above to Obama at all). Perhaps you should concentrate on whatever you think is your strongest point. Phrase it persuasively, and it might persuade. -- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hoary Hoary] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hoary talk]) 10:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

In response to Ouroboros Cobra's rude comment to NoHitHair in the NPOV section, Hoary replied:

::In response to Ouroboros Cobra's rude comment to NoHitHair in the NPOV section, Hoary replied:

I don't understand how the second half of that could be imagined to be helpful. -- Hoary (talk) 10:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 21

I don't understand how the second half of that could be imagined to be helpful. -- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hoary Hoary] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hoary talk]) 10:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)  

 

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=332468805&oldid=332466645#Further_commentary Source 21]

'''22 - 2009, 12/18, 05:14:''' I replied to Hoary in the Coverage of Controversies section, reiterating that the Obama page displayed a noticeable absence of controversies, even those that had figured prominently in the news media:

'''22 - 2009, 12/18, 05:14:''' I replied to Hoary in the Coverage of Controversies section, reiterating that the Obama page displayed a noticeable absence of controversies, even those that had figured prominently in the news media:

Well, in the article itself, it states about the 2004 Senate Campaign, "Two months later, Alan Keyes accepted the Illinois Republican Party's nomination to replace Ryan. A long-time resident of Maryland, Keyes established legal residency in Illinois with the nomination. In the November 2004 general election, Obama received 70% of the vote to Keyes' 27%, the largest victory margin for a statewide race in Illinois history." For so major an event in Obama's life, the election to the U.S. Senate, this race is effectively covered in about 3 sentences, and glosses over the reasons why Keyes came to Illinois and the fact that the election was virtually over, seemingly to portray Keyes as negatively as possible. In essence, it is bringing up the carpetbagging stuff again and the concept that Obama won in a landslide, without mentioning anything about why Keyes came or why Obama won that way. There are no details given, it is vague, and again that's a major election in his history being glossed over with a few sentences. I don't see why adding a few more paragraphs about the election circumstances would be a bad thing.  

 

As for the sourcing, I think I provided adequate sourcing (earlier articles by the Chicago Tribune and Houston News both provide evidence) but expect one or 2 more major sources might be ideal given that this was a less-reported-on issue. I still think all 3 should make it into the article.  

:Well, in the article itself, it states about the 2004 Senate Campaign, "Two months later, Alan Keyes accepted the Illinois Republican Party's nomination to replace Ryan. A long-time resident of Maryland, Keyes established legal residency in Illinois with the nomination. In the November 2004 general election, Obama received 70% of the vote to Keyes' 27%, the largest victory margin for a statewide race in Illinois history." For so major an event in Obama's life, the election to the U.S. Senate, this race is effectively covered in about 3 sentences, and glosses over the reasons why Keyes came to Illinois and the fact that the election was virtually over, seemingly to portray Keyes as negatively as possible. In essence, it is bringing up the carpetbagging stuff again and the concept that Obama won in a landslide, without mentioning anything about why Keyes came or why Obama won that way. There are no details given, it is vague, and again that's a major election in his history being glossed over with a few sentences. I don't see why adding a few more paragraphs about the election circumstances would be a bad thing.  

Also, I notice that the information about the 2008 Presidential Campaign on John McCain's page is more detailed and mentions lobbyist criticisms, but here avoids mentions of the much more prominent fiscal issue in Obama's campaign, public financing. Again, reading different pages for candidates on both sides one can see very different treatment, whether comparing Bush:Obama, McCain:Obama, Palin:Obama, Keyes:Obama, etc. Noticeable negatives are stated on the other pages, but never on Obama's, quite noticeably. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 11:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 22

 

:As for the sourcing, I think I provided adequate sourcing (earlier articles by the Chicago Tribune and Houston News both provide evidence) but expect one or 2 more major sources might be ideal given that this was a less-reported-on issue. I still think all 3 should make it into the article.  

Also, I notice that the information about the 2008 Presidential Campaign on John McCain's page is more detailed and mentions lobbyist criticisms, but here avoids mentions of the much more prominent fiscal issue in Obama's campaign, public financing. Again, reading different pages for candidates on both sides one can see very different treatment, whether comparing Bush:Obama, McCain:Obama, Palin:Obama, Keyes:Obama, etc. Noticeable negatives are stated on the other pages, but never on Obama's, quite noticeably. --[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jzyehoshua Jzyehoshua] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jzyehoshua talk]) 11:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)  

 

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=332473693&oldid=332468805#Coverage_of_Controversies.3F Source 22]

'''23 - 2009, 12/18, 06:36:''' Tarc in a comment to the Coverage of Controversies section revealed why he was so opposed to the edits, apparently he had made a hasty and incorrect assumption that the discussion was about abortion, rather than bothering to read what I was actually saying.

'''23 - 2009, 12/18, 06:36:''' Tarc in a comment to the Coverage of Controversies section revealed why he was so opposed to the edits, apparently he had made a hasty and incorrect assumption that the discussion was about abortion, rather than bothering to read what I was actually saying.

In response to the earlier "Both of which deal with 2 major parts of his entire history", I will say that, no, they really don't. "Abortion as infanticide" is a fringe opinion, and will not be given equal weight alongside mainstream POV. The other part is, astill, just a criticism of being a Chicago politician. Nothing special. As to comparisons with other articles, perhaps you could head on out there and improve those if you feel they are flawed, rather than making this article worse so they will all match.Tarc (talk) 12:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 23

 

:In response to the earlier "Both of which deal with 2 major parts of his entire history", I will say that, no, they really don't. "Abortion as infanticide" is a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FRINGE fringe opinion], and will not be given equal weight alongside mainstream POV. The other part is, astill, just a criticism of being a Chicago politician. Nothing special. As to comparisons with other articles, perhaps you could head on out there and improve those if you feel they are flawed, rather than making this article worse so they will all match. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarc Tarc] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tarc talk]) 12:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)  

 

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=332473693#Coverage_of_Controversies.3F Source 23]

'''24 - 2009, 12/18, 06:38:''' I replied to Grsz, pointing out that Wikipedia's BLP (Biographies of Living Persons) policy is no excuse for omitting factual information regarding them, just that it has to be factual and well-sourced; properly presented:

'''24 - 2009, 12/18, 06:38:''' I replied to Grsz, pointing out that Wikipedia's BLP (Biographies of Living Persons) policy is no excuse for omitting factual information regarding them, just that it has to be factual and well-sourced; properly presented:

So then, you are saying Wikipedia would support my removing anything negative about a person, regardless of its factual basis? So the fact that George Bush started a false war over WOMD, I could remove all reference to that on his page? Because it is the same scenario here. There is factual, well-sourced basis for historical criticism of Barack Obama that can be stated objectively in a reasonable manner. Just because the Republicans use mudslinging all the time against him, doesn't mean there are no criticisms of Obama. It's just that so much of their junk is flying around that their stuff gets discredited and when they actually find something that is valid, it's like the boy that cries wolf, and nobody listens. Anyway, I just don't like it that Obama's being treated specially here and anything negative of him can't be written. I hardly think Wikipedia intends to allow a policy where anything written negative about anyone can be deleted for no other reason than making everything positive about everyone. And no, I'm not saying I want to remove all negative stuff about everyone, just pointing out that it seems ridiculous such a standard is being applied here. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 12:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 24

:So then, you are saying Wikipedia would support my removing anything negative about a person, regardless of its factual basis? So the fact that George Bush started a false war over WOMD, I could remove all reference to that on his page? Because it is the same scenario here. There is factual, well-sourced basis for historical criticism of Barack Obama that can be stated objectively in a reasonable manner. Just because the Republicans use mudslinging all the time against him, doesn't mean there are no criticisms of Obama. It's just that so much of their junk is flying around that their stuff gets discredited and when they actually find something that is valid, it's like the boy that cries wolf, and nobody listens. Anyway, I just don't like it that Obama's being treated specially here and anything negative of him can't be written. I hardly think Wikipedia intends to allow a policy where anything written negative about anyone can be deleted for no other reason than making everything positive about everyone. And no, I'm not saying I want to remove all negative stuff about everyone, just pointing out that it seems ridiculous such a standard is being applied here. --[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jzyehoshua Jzyehoshua] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jzyehoshua talk]) 12:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)  

 

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=332481212#Further_commentary Source 24]

'''25 - 2009, 12/18, 06:40:''' Naturally I reacted in outrage at Tarc's distortion of my points, and careless reading comprehension. Anyone paying any attention at all to what I was writing should have been able to recognize the issue had nothing to do with the general abortion debate, but dealt solely with newborn children born after botched abortions who had been left to die without medical care. After all, the reason the BAIPA which Obama had voted against had passed overwhelmingly was precisely because it was not part of the usual pro-choice/pro-life abortion debate, but dealt with something EVERYBODY recognized was wrong, newborn children being left to die as testified before Congress by nurses Jill Stanek and Allison Baker.

'''25 - 2009, 12/18, 06:40:''' Naturally I reacted in outrage at Tarc's distortion of my points, and careless reading comprehension. Anyone paying any attention at all to what I was writing should have been able to recognize the issue had nothing to do with the general abortion debate, but dealt solely with newborn children born after botched abortions who had been left to die without medical care. After all, the reason the BAIPA which Obama had voted against had passed overwhelmingly was precisely because it was not part of the usual pro-choice/pro-life abortion debate, but dealt with something EVERYBODY recognized was wrong, newborn children being left to die as testified before Congress by nurses Jill Stanek and Allison Baker.

Umm... what are you talking about? I never said abortion was infanticide. We're not talking about babies INSIDE the mother's body here. The reason it's controversial with Obama is he supported the killing of children who survive abortions and are OUTSIDE the mother's body. Didn't you read what I wrote? --Jzyehoshua (talk) 12:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 25

 

:Umm... what are you talking about? I never said abortion was infanticide. We're not talking about babies INSIDE the mother's body here. The reason it's controversial with Obama is he supported the killing of children who survive abortions and are OUTSIDE the mother's body. Didn't you read what I wrote? --[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jzyehoshua Jzyehoshua] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jzyehoshua talk]) 12:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)  

 

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=332481346#Further_commentary Source 25]

'''26 - 2009, 12/18, 07:35-38:''' Tarc replied with a comment of "Time to move on", and continued to misrepresent one of the major bills over the past century, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, as being cared about only by fringe groups, apparently not having paid any attention to the media publicity it had gotten years earlier which had led to the sweeping public outrage which  led to its unanimous passage through the U.S. Senate including votes by such noted "anti-abortionist[s]" as Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, and Ted Kennedy. This was of course not something I appreciated.  

'''26 - 2009, 12/18, 07:35-38:''' Tarc replied with a comment of "Time to move on", and continued to misrepresent one of the major bills over the past century, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, as being cared about only by fringe groups, apparently not having paid any attention to the media publicity it had gotten years earlier which had led to the sweeping public outrage which  led to its unanimous passage through the U.S. Senate including votes by such noted "anti-abortionist[s]" as Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, and Ted Kennedy. This was of course not something I appreciated.  

Yes, I did, but that is what we call a distinction without a difference. This is not the proper venue to discuss anti-abortionist rhetoric though, this is to discuss the article of Barack. This sort of material is certain;y of pressing significance to Alan Keys, Operation Rescue and the like. But it has no bearing here. Tarc(talk) 13:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 26

 

:Yes, I did, but that is what we call a distinction without a difference. This is not the proper venue to discuss anti-abortionist rhetoric though, this is to discuss the article of Barack. This sort of material is certain;y of pressing significance to Alan Keys, Operation Rescue and the like. But it has no bearing here. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarc Tarc] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tarc talk]) 13:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)  

 

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=332488312&oldid=332481621 Source 26]

'''27 - 2009, 12/18, 07:40:''' Shortly afterward, WHSL replied in the NPOV discussion as follows:

'''27 - 2009, 12/18, 07:40:''' Shortly afterward, WHSL replied in the NPOV discussion as follows:

As OuroborosCobra correctly states, most information about Obama's presidency is contained in Presidency of Barack Obama. Since this article is supposed to be a biography that is intended to provide a brief look at his entire life, it doesn't make sense to put more about the presidency than is already there. Also, Wikipedia discourages criticism sections. They do not provide for neutral articles, and criticisms (cited of course) should be incoporated into the rest of the article. WHSL (Talk)13:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 27

 

:As OuroborosCobra correctly states, most information about Obama's presidency is contained in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Barack_Obama Presidency of Barack Obama]. Since this article is supposed to be a biography that is intended to provide a brief look at his entire life, it doesn't make sense to put more about the presidency than is already there. Also, Wikipedia discourages criticism sections. They do not provide for neutral articles, and criticisms (cited of course) should be incoporated into the rest of the article. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WHSL WHSL] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WHSL Talk])13:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)  

 

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=332488312#NPOV Source 27]

'''28 - 2009, 12/18, 08:00:''' I quickly addressed Tarc's assertions in Coverage of Controversies that this was not a major issue, pointing out that the bill had passed precisely because it was not typical of the usual abortion debate since it dealt with children outside the womb, not inside, fully capable of surviving if medically attended. I emphasized that it was for this reason Obama had been lying about his voting record on the issue since 2004, trying to cover up his activism in opposing the Born Alive bills, because of how ridiculously popular they'd been with the American public.

'''28 - 2009, 12/18, 08:00:''' I quickly addressed Tarc's assertions in Coverage of Controversies that this was not a major issue, pointing out that the bill had passed precisely because it was not typical of the usual abortion debate since it dealt with children outside the womb, not inside, fully capable of surviving if medically attended. I emphasized that it was for this reason Obama had been lying about his voting record on the issue since 2004, trying to cover up his activism in opposing the Born Alive bills, because of how ridiculously popular they'd been with the American public.

You may not consider it immoral that Obama supported leaving newborn children to die on hospital beds. But it resulted, as he said on the Illinois senate floor, in a situation where even normally pro-choice members of the Illinois legislature supporting the bill to stop such a heinous practices. It is why the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act passed, not even normally pro-choice Congressmen could conscientiously support such a form of 'rights' where newborn babies are considered fetuses. It is why Obama has had to hide this aspect of his voting record from people many, many times. He has tried various defenses, including:  

 

* A) I would have voted for the Federal version of the bill but the Illinois version lacked the same language. FactCheck.org addressed this distortion by agreeing that the NRLC was right - Bart Stupak introduced an amendment to make the Illinois version word for word identical with the federal one, but Obama never let it get in. He brought it up in the Health and Human Services Committee, that he chaired, and voted against it. Thus Obama was lying about that.

:You may not consider it immoral that Obama supported leaving newborn children to die on hospital beds. But it resulted, as he said on the Illinois senate floor, in a situation where even normally pro-choice members of the Illinois legislature supporting the bill to stop such a heinous practices. :

* B) The current Illinois laws already prevented such a practice. However, nurses Jill Stanek and Allison Baker both worked in an Illinois hospital, and were the key witnesses for the federal case - meaning this dealt with Illinois law first and foremost. This was pointed out in one of the earlier senate transcripts I provided, either the 2001 or 1997 one.

:It is why the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act passed, not even normally pro-choice Congressmen could conscientiously support such a form of 'rights' where newborn babies are considered fetuses. It is why Obama has had to hide this aspect of his voting record from people many, many times. He has tried various defenses, including:  

* C) We shouldn't be talking about divisive subjects and focusing on what unifies us, the issue is unimportant. This despite the fact that he consistently speaks much differently about it on the senate floor, addresses it before Planned Parenthood unabashedly, and is just unwilling to show himself about it to the general public.  

:* A) I would have voted for the Federal version of the bill but the Illinois version lacked the same language. FactCheck.org addressed this distortion by agreeing that the NRLC was right - Bart Stupak introduced an amendment to make the Illinois version word for word identical with the federal one, but Obama never let it get in. He brought it up in the Health and Human Services Committee, that he chaired, and voted against it. Thus Obama was lying about that.

Many of his other defenses are detailed here by Jill Stanek.[[23]]

:* B) The current Illinois laws already prevented such a practice. However, nurses Jill Stanek and Allison Baker both worked in an Illinois hospital, and were the key witnesses for the federal case - meaning this dealt with Illinois law first and foremost. This was pointed out in one of the earlier senate transcripts I provided, either the 2001 or 1997 one.

It is dishonest of you to try mentioning a lesser known group in conjunction with former U.N. Ambassador Alan Keyes in an attempt to continue your campaign to paint him as a fringe unknown, while avoiding the fact that the National Right to Life Committee, the primary pro-life group in the United States, has been tirelessly criticizing Barack Obama for years on this issue. You should be more forthright and forthcoming about this issue, rather than trying to deny the clear facts about this case. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 13:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 28

:* C) We shouldn't be talking about divisive subjects and focusing on what unifies us, the issue is unimportant. This despite the fact that he consistently speaks much differently about it on the senate floor, addresses it before Planned Parenthood unabashedly, and is just unwilling to show himself about it to the general public.  

:Many of his other defenses are detailed here by Jill Stanek.[[23]]

:It is dishonest of you to try mentioning a lesser known group in conjunction with former U.N. Ambassador Alan Keyes in an attempt to continue your campaign to paint him as a fringe unknown, while avoiding the fact that the National Right to Life Committee, the primary pro-life group in the United States, has been tirelessly criticizing Barack Obama for years on this issue. You should be more forthright and forthcoming about this issue, rather than trying to deny the clear facts about this case. --[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jzyehoshua Jzyehoshua] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jzyehoshua talk]) 13:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)  

 

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=332490834&oldid=332488530#Further_commentary Source 28]

'''29 - 2009, 12/18, 08:09:''' Tarc continued to misrepresent this issue as being a fringe one despite having been one of the major political events in the first half of the 2000s, and having figured prominently in the news. He disliked the Jill Stanek source because it was from WorldNetDaily, leading to the numerous mainstream sources I would soon bring in:

'''29 - 2009, 12/18, 08:09:''' Tarc continued to misrepresent this issue as being a fringe one despite having been one of the major political events in the first half of the 2000s, and having figured prominently in the news. He disliked the Jill Stanek source because it was from WorldNetDaily, leading to the numerous mainstream sources I would soon bring in:

All of which bears the stamp of a singular point of view and, as noted before, a decidedly fringe one at that. Anyone that approaches any wikipedia article on a living person with the intent to insert charges of "infanticide" into it in reference to the abortion debate is already starting off with two strikes against them, IMO. By the way, worldnetdaily is a sterling exmaple of an unreliable source. Anything "detailed" by WND cannot be used as a citation in a Wikipedia article, apart for basic factual statements about themselves. I think this is at a dead-end. Tarc (talk) 14:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 29a

 

:All of which bears the stamp of a singular point of view and, as noted before, a decidedly fringe one at that. Anyone that approaches any wikipedia article on a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP living person] with the intent to insert charges of "infanticide" into it in reference to the abortion debate is already starting off with two strikes against them, IMO. By the way, worldnetdaily is a sterling exmaple of an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS unreliable source]. Anything "detailed" by WND cannot be used as a citation in a Wikipedia article, apart for basic factual statements about themselves. I think this is at a dead-end. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarc Tarc] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tarc talk]) 14:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=332492006&oldid=332490834#NPOV Source 29a]

Abrazame also replied for the first time, in response to WHSL's earlier comment, but in the NPOV section, not the Coverage of Controversies section:

Abrazame also replied for the first time, in response to WHSL's earlier comment, but in the NPOV section, not the Coverage of Controversies section:

I wouldn't be surprised if it weren't mentioned in this response if three more editors had already posted here, because the economic literacy in this world is not the greatest, but this is a simple issue of recent memory of timelines: the AIG "scandal" is the result of a "bailout" that began in the late summer of 2008, before the 2008 election and during the Presidency of George W. Bush, and that—and not the Presidency of Barack Obama article—would be where this "scandal" bears mentioning. Whether someone who would suggest it be added here will actually go through with adding it there or not remains to be seen, but as with every subject raised at this page, I would highly recommend actually reading an article on the subject before suggesting its addition here.

:I wouldn't be surprised if it weren't mentioned in this response if three more editors had already posted here, because the economic literacy in this world is not the greatest, but this is a simple issue of recent memory of timelines: the AIG "scandal" is the result of a "bailout" that began in the late summer of 2008, before the 2008 election and during the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_George_W._Bush Presidency of George W. Bush], and that—and not the Presidency of Barack Obama article—would be where this "scandal" bears mentioning. Whether someone who would suggest it be added here will actually go through with adding it there or not remains to be seen, but as with every subject raised at this page, I would highly recommend actually reading an article on the subject before suggesting its addition here.

Wikipedia, in fact, has an article about AIG to remind readers such as yourself of this timeline, and it notes that AIG disclosed "a list of major recipients of collateral postings and payments under credit default swaps, guaranteed investment plans, and securities lending agreements" including Goldman Sachs and Société Générale, again, something that transpired in 2008, prior to the presidency of Barack Obama.

Wikipedia, in fact, has an article about AIG to remind readers such as yourself of this timeline, and it notes that AIG disclosed "a list of major recipients of collateral postings and payments under credit default swaps, guaranteed investment plans, and securities lending agreements" including Goldman Sachs and Société Générale, again, something that transpired in 2008, prior to the presidency of Barack Obama.

Finally, the upper amount involved in the AIG "bailout" is $182.5 Billion, some of which actually purchased mortgage-based assets (thereby not technically part of a "bailout", but instead a "buyout", the sort of investment it's not unheard of for the government to make) and some of which is an as-yet unused credit line (and so still actually in the hands of the U.S. government and not AIG). So it is some fraction less than one-twentieth of the "trillions" that you characterize it as being. Again, getting your facts somewhere within the ballpark before making an editorial suggestion would vastly improve your chances of not being considered an uninformed ideologue simply out to smear someone with revisionist history.

 

To the contrary of your accusation of POV in favor of Obama, I would say is there not a negative POV advanced by failing to mention in this article that the major banks have now all paid back their TARP "bailout" money to the government ("taxpayer") with interest? I would ask is there not a pessimistic or negative POV advanced by failing to mention in this article that the DOW has risen almost 4,000 points since March lows? Is there not a negative POV advanced by simply noting an unemployment number, yet failing to explain that new job losses, which had risen throughout the last couple years of the Bush administration to 700,000 a month by the time Obama took office, have decreased profoundly ever since? It's no surprise that the sort of people suggesting negative POV at this article miss the negative POV already there, but it's a disappointment that those battling the negative POV are so unaware or ambivalent about the imbalanced negativity in the article.

:Finally, the upper amount involved in the AIG "bailout" is $182.5 Billion, some of which actually purchased mortgage-based assets (thereby not technically part of a "bailout", but instead a "buyout", the sort of investment it's not unheard of for the government to make) and some of which is an as-yet unused credit line (and so still actually in the hands of the U.S. government and not AIG). So it is some fraction less than one-twentieth of the "trillions" that you characterize it as being. Again, getting your facts somewhere within the ballpark before making an editorial suggestion would vastly improve your chances of not being considered an uninformed ideologue simply out to smear someone with revisionist history.

Recently, I substantively responded, with references, to erroneous comments in a conversation about the Stimulus, yet not a single editor here commented and after 14 days it was archived. The true POV is against adding positive facts, not the resistance to the sort of vague, unreferenced hearsay grudges that dominate these pages. Just every once in a while, we need to wrap our minds around an issue and respond with more than the stock "take it to Presidency" answer. I'd point out that nobody's really discussing anything at Presidency lately. The entire talk page there is two sections, with only a single, unresponded-to comment in the past month. Sometimes a thread can seem to include elements of specific responses to other editors, but when substantive, supported statements salient to a point of contention and relevant for article consideration are made, editors are more than welcome to weigh in with their acknowledgement of their veracity and relevancy to the article. When there was nothing going on but delinquency at both of these pages, it was hard to keep up with more substantive editorial discussions; now that there is so much less heat, let's acknowledge the light every once in awhile. Abrazame (talk) 14:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 29b

 

:To the contrary of your accusation of POV in favor of Obama, I would say is there not a negative POV advanced by failing to mention in this article that the major banks have now all paid back their TARP "bailout" money to the government ("taxpayer") with interest? I would ask is there not a pessimistic or negative POV advanced by failing to mention in this article that the DOW has risen almost 4,000 points since March lows? Is there not a negative POV advanced by simply noting an unemployment number, yet failing to explain that new job losses, which had risen throughout the last couple years of the Bush administration to 700,000 a month by the time Obama took office, have decreased profoundly ever since? It's no surprise that the sort of people suggesting negative POV at this article miss the negative POV already there, but it's a disappointment that those battling the negative POV are so unaware or ambivalent about the imbalanced negativity in the article.

 

:Recently, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_64#Stimulus_kicks_in I substantively responded, with references, to erroneous comments in a conversation about the Stimulus], yet not a single editor here commented and after 14 days it was archived. The true POV is against adding positive facts, not the resistance to the sort of vague, unreferenced hearsay grudges that dominate these pages. Just every once in a while, we need to wrap our minds around an issue and respond with more than the stock "take it to Presidency" answer. I'd point out that [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Presidency_of_Barack_Obama nobody's really discussing anything at Presidency] lately. The entire talk page there is two sections, with only a single, unresponded-to comment in the past month. Sometimes a thread can seem to include elements of specific responses to other editors, but when substantive, supported statements salient to a point of contention and relevant for article consideration are made, editors are more than welcome to weigh in with their acknowledgement of their veracity and relevancy to the article. When there was nothing going on but delinquency at both of these pages, it was hard to keep up with more substantive editorial discussions; now that there is so much less heat, let's acknowledge the light every once in awhile. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Abrazame&action=edit&redlink=1 Abrazame] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Abrazame talk]) 14:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)  

 

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=332492006#NPOV Source 29b]

'''30 - 2009, 12/18, 08:32:''' In the NPOV section, I agree with Abrazame that the bailouts were something to criticize Bush over, but pointed out that a Democrat-run Congress at the time also played a role, and that Obama himself shared a large number of similarities with Bush. I probably shouldn't have taken the bait, as it got off-topic, but I've always been interested in politics.

'''30 - 2009, 12/18, 08:32:''' In the NPOV section, I agree with Abrazame that the bailouts were something to criticize Bush over, but pointed out that a Democrat-run Congress at the time also played a role, and that Obama himself shared a large number of similarities with Bush. I probably shouldn't have taken the bait, as it got off-topic, but I've always been interested in politics.

All of which is true. Nevertheless, it was a Democrat-run Congress those last few years of the Bush presidency. And Obama voted in favor of the Bush tax cuts and TARP. He also voted in favor of ALL Bush's war funding requests.

:All of which is true. Nevertheless, it was a Democrat-run Congress those last few years of the Bush presidency. And Obama voted in favor of the Bush tax cuts and TARP. He also voted in favor of ALL Bush's war funding requests.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/22/obama_defends_votes_in_favor_of_iraq_funding/

 

In July of 2008 the Wall Street Journal even ran an article pointing out the similarities and suggesting Obama was Bush's third term.

:[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/22/obama_defends_votes_in_favor_of_iraq_funding/ http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/22/obama_defends_votes_in_favor_of_iraq_funding/]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121495450490321133.html

 

CNN meanwhile ran an article pointing out 20 similarities between Bush and Obama on policy issues

:In July of 2008 the Wall Street Journal even ran an article pointing out the similarities and suggesting Obama was Bush's third term.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/13/wall.bush-obama/index.html

 

Many people do not realize that Obama even copied Bush's state of the union address from 2000, when he said 'Juntos Pudemos' or 'Together We Can'. If you look into their backgrounds and personality types, you might find more similar than you'd think.

:[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121495450490321133.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121495450490321133.html]

PolitiFact also labeled as 'True' the statement by the McCain campaign that Obama supported the Bush campaign half the time.[[24]] It was noted in 2005 that Obama supported attacking Iran with missile strikes to stop their nuclear program.[[25]] --Jzyehoshua (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 30

 

:CNN meanwhile ran an article pointing out 20 similarities between Bush and Obama on policy issues

 

:[http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/13/wall.bush-obama/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/13/wall.bush-obama/index.html]

 

:Many people do not realize that Obama even copied Bush's state of the union address from 2000, when he said 'Juntos Pudemos' or 'Together We Can'. If you look into their backgrounds and personality types, you might find more similar than you'd think.

 

:PolitiFact also labeled as 'True' the statement by the McCain campaign that Obama supported the Bush campaign half the time.[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/513/ 24] It was noted in 2005 that Obama supported attacking Iran with missile strikes to stop their nuclear program.[http://www.antiwar.com/frank/?articleid=4521 25] --[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jzyehoshua Jzyehoshua] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jzyehoshua talk]) 14:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)  

 

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=332494774&oldid=332492643#NPOV Source 30]

== 31-40 ==

== 31-40 ==