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. -- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hoary Hoary] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk: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. -- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hoary Hoary] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hoary talk]) 10:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)  

: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]

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

: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.  

: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)  

 

: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]

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

: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.

: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.

: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.