Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:03, 29 May 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Presidency of Barack Obama article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 45 days

Template:Community article probation

	Barack Obama (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Barack ObamaWikipedia:WikiProject Barack ObamaTemplate:WikiProject Barack ObamaBarack Obama

United States B‑class High‑importance

This 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 Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present.

Bills signed into law

Continued updating:

• Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2011 (HR 1079), March 31, 2011. Extension of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, including taxes on aviation fuel, domestic and international ticket taxes, and taxes on cargo shipped by air. Extend Airport Improvement Program (AIP). The FAA has been operating under a series of temporary extensions.
• Dept. of Defense Appropriations Act of 2011, April 14, 2011. This is the spending bill negotiated behind-the-scenes by congressional leaders and the Obama Administration. It would keep the government funded until the end of the 2011 fiscal year while cutting $38 billion in spending authority below 2010 levels. The Congressional Budget Office estimates it will lead to an increase in outlays of $3.3 billion over 2010 levels. All federal departments besides the Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs would face cuts under the bill.

Is this a good idea for the article?

Three days ago the Washington Post published this article, which includes the following:

"Obama campaigned on what he called 'the most sweeping ethics reform in history' and has frequently criticized the role of money in politics. That hasn’t stopped him from offering government jobs to some of his biggest bundlers, volunteer fundraisers who gather political contributions from other rich donors. More than half of Obama’s 47 biggest fundraisers, those who collected at least $500,000 for his campaign, have been given administration jobs. Nine more have been appointed to presidential boards and committees."

Since the Washington Post article specifically uses the word "ethics," and since this[REDACTED] article has a section called "Ethics," and since the Washington Post is about as reliable a source as one can find, I propose that this information be added to the article. It's certainly notable and relevant enough.

What do others here think of this proposal?

55 fifty-five (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The article points out that the administration appointments have been in line with those of previous administrations. So I fail to see how this is notable. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It's notable because Obama promised that he would be different, and have higher standards, than previous administrations. The Washington Post article specifically points out that Obama's actions have contradicted his promises. What's the point of even having an "ethics" section if it can't point out that Obama broke his promises? 55 fifty-five (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

One article does not a story make. Besides, Obama's standards have been higher. For example, no previous administration has done anything like this. And this whole "broken promise" thing is a canard. Do you believe, for example, that if Newt Gingrich became President that he could arrange for gas prices to drop to $2.50 as he has promised? Candidates make all sorts of promises that never pan out. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

No, writing articles from the point of view of political commentary is not encyclopedic. Quack. Wikidemon (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a .gov link which means it's from the federal government. Of course the federal government would say good things about itself. I'd trust the Washington Post over the federal government any day of the week. 55 fifty-five (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way, if you came here from a solicitation on a Free Republic "activism" thread by a banned editor to help him insert the material we keep reverting, we take WP:NPOV pretty seriously and agenda accounts are not welcome. Remember if you are truly adhering to NPOV it should be impossible to tell from your edits whether you voted for Obama or not. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's the policy link. Antandrus (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much for that. I don't want to get in trouble. I won't edit this article, or any other controversial political articles. And this will be my last edit on this talk page. 55 fifty-five (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I have informed my colleagues at Free Republic that it is against[REDACTED] policy to do what a few of us had been doing. We are sorry and did not mean to break any rules. That being said, I still question the validity of a[REDACTED] article that mentions various promises made by the President (such as his promise of no more bailouts), without simultaneously mentioning that he broke those promises. My edit on that particular promise was reverted. Likewise, the section on Wall St. reform does not mention that Obama has gotten more donations from Wall St. than any other candidate in the past 20 years, even though this is the case. The transparency section does not cite the multiple examples of Obama's non-transparency, or mention that Transparency International said that corruption was rapidly increasing under Obama, even though this is the case. These omissions, and many others, can be found here: freerepublic dot com/focus/f-news/2853412/posts . And like 55, this is my last edit on this talk page. Peas 447 (talk) 07:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Notability and inclusion

I noticed that one incorrect standard (notability) has been used to exclude material from this article. In Misplaced Pages, notability is a requirement for existence of articles, not for inclusion of material in articles. The primary standard that applies for the types of inclusion/exclusion debates occurring there is wp:npov including wp:undue. North8000 (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Notability is a perfectly acceptable standard for inclusion or exclusion, just not the policy. One could say, for example, that something isn't notable enough to satisfy WP:WEIGHT. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

In the above you/they were implying that it is[REDACTED] standard for inclusion, which is incorrect. Further, notability has a specific meaning in wikipedia, wp:notability, and it is certainly not correct to invoke that as a standard for exclusion of material. And, from the looks of this article, who lot of excluding has been done, basically the whole other half of the story. North8000 (talk) 12:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

If a story gets very little media coverage, it isn't notable. Covering it would constitute a violation of WP:WEIGHT. I use the word "notable" for convenience, and I shall continue to do so if I wish. I can see from your last comment that your real objection is about what you think is missing from the content of this article, and that you brought up notability for different reasons. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, your substitution of IBF (inventing bad faith) for WP:AGF misfired into a baseless insult, linking to wiki-lawyering. At least it's clear what plane you operate on. Regarding use/non use of the term by you, I think that the clarification I posted will help resolve the issue either way. North8000 (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

You basically said in your earlier comment that "notability" was the reason only "half the story" was featured in the content of this article. The implication is that you think the dozens of editors who have worked on this article over the years have not followed WP:NPOV. Perhaps if that comment hadn't been so insulting to all those editors, I would not have needed to point out your apparent agenda on this talk page. If you have anything useful to contribute to the improvement of this article, please do so. Otherwise, please play elsewhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a complete scrambling of what I said. What I essentially saiod was: 1. Implying that notability is a criteria for inclusion / exclusion of material is not proper. 2. bsereving that the article is missing 1/2 of the story. On your last point, saying that 1/2 is missing is not "insulting" everybody who has done anything here. To clarify, for the folks that built the half that IS here, good work. For the folks that worked to keep out the missing 1/2, not so good work. North8000 (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a common Misplaced Pages colloquialism, not a misuse of anything. We certainly can and do use standards like the nature and extent of coverage of an item, as well as its appropriateness and relevance to the subject of the article, to decide whether a particular verifiable fact merits inclusion in the article. Different editors arrive at the point of WP:CONSENSUS along different paths, some invoking WP:WEIGHT (itself an important context but used here outside of its strict context) and WP:NPOV, and others describing a matter as encyclopedic or not. To avoid confusion I personally describe the concept as "noteworthiness" to avoid any implication that I've misread WP:NOTE, a question of whether a particular fact is worth noting in an article as evidenced by how reliable sources treat it in connection with the subject matter. Anyway, this is a terminology issue not a content issue. If the question is whether it's worth pointing out that some people are disappointed / critical / observe / etc., that Obama's campaign promises having to do with government transparency do not at this point seem to have come to fruition, then yes, I think it is worth a very brief mention in the context of discussing the issue of transparency. However, the "he broke his promises" thing cannot be stated neutrally about any politician as fact, as that kind of thing is campaign rhetoric and not historical account. If the rhetoric rises to the level where it makes a difference, then it can be mentioned in campaign articles. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Undue? Not.

This was removed as UNDUE and "not supported":

Journalist Ron Suskind interviewed Anita Dunn for his 2011 book, Confidence Men: Wall Steet, Washington and the Education of a President. Dunn said, "This place would be in court for a hostile workplace because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women."

UNDUE? Hardly. This was extensively covered by ABC, CNN, WaPo... Need I go on? Most of these outlets are firmly in the tank for Obama. "Not supported"? Huh? It's basically a quote. Anyway, the Vice President of the United States responded to it! On the record!!!!! Biden said:

"Obviously, they didn’t talk to Michelle Obama or Jill Biden. Because if there’s sexism in the White House, the person engaging in it is in trouble.” -- Joe Biden.

This is not some administration mouthpiece: this is the Vice President of the United States--only a heartbeat from the Oval Office.

Hey Wikidemon--why don't we just forego the part where you start throwing out irrelevant WP policy shortcuts for the next several days, and skip right to the part where my position prevails and the content is readded. Wuddya think? – Lionel 21:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Reading the sentence "Most of these outlets are firmly in the tank for Obama" makes me question your intentions. Check your personal biases at the door. As to the specifics of this, is this one person's opinion sufficient for due weight? What's the purpose of including this? I'm unconvinced. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I doubt asking Lionel to be unbiased is going to lead use anywhere. I will point out that Anita Dunn denied making that accusation, and the Washington Post released the actual transcript(of the one portion Suskind would let the Post listen to).

“I remember once I told Valerie that, I said if it weren’t for the president, this place would be in court for a hostile workplace”

Also, Christina Romer denied making the statement Suskind attributed to her, and is quoted as saying:

“I can’t imagine that I ever said (that)....What was different in the Obama administration is that there were so many women in important positions and, when problems arose, the president worked hard to fix them. I felt respected, included and useful to the team.”

So no, the text Lionel added should not be included in the article. One could question just why Suskind left out certain portions of the quotes, but that probably belongs his article, or that of the book. Dave Dial (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying the item should be excluded because it is not true?– Lionel 02:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

UNDUE? Has to be a mistake

The Solyndra loan controversy is an alleged political controversy involving U.S. President Barack Obama's administration's authorization of a $535 million loan guarantee to Solyndra Corporation in 2009 as part of a program to spur alternative energy growth. Solyndra and the White House had originally estimated that this government guarantee of Solyndra's financing would help to create 4,000 new jobs. In early September 2011 the company ceased all business activity, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and laid off nearly all of its employees.

1. ^ Solar Energy Company Touted By Obama Goes Bankrupt, ABC News, August 31, 2011
2. Obama's Crony Capitalism, Reason, September 9, 2011
3. McGrew, Scott (September 2, 2011). "Solyndra to Declare Bankruptcy". NBC News.
4. Solyndra files for bankruptcy, looks for buyer. Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved: September 20, 2011.

Scjessey removed the above saying that it is WP:UNDUE. I can't believe that he's trotting out that policy again! It has to be a mistake. We have an entire article on this. There are hundreds of reliable sources about this. He's blocking even a brief mention??????? Surely Scjessey meant to use WP:IDONTLIKE, because WP:UNDUE obviously doesn't apply. Would you like to try another policy? What about NPOV? BLP? NOTNEWSPAPER? I don't think you're gonna get nuch traction from UNDUE.– Lionel 23:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Authorizing a $535 million loan guarantee to a company that later goes bankrupt does not appear to be a significant event in the Presidency of Barack Obama. However, it is a notable event and political controversy in and of itself, and as such has its own article. There are thousands (probably) of articles on subjects related to Obama and the Obama administration, and obviously we can't have a paragraph on each in any given article. Similarly, there are hundreds of millions of pages and hundreds of thousands of recent news articles about Obama, so not every subject about which a thousand articles are written gets on the main Obama page. We all know this is a partisan issue, with Obama's opponents using it as part of an effort to discredit him. Most of the recent coverage is about Solyndra as a campaign issue, not the underlying events. Is that effort a significant one vis-a-vis the overall weight of his Presidency? One could argue it both ways but on balance I would say no, there are dozens if not hundreds of comparably important items. On the other hand, if there were a passage about similar issues it might merit a partial sentence somewhere. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

See... I told you it was WP:IDONTLIKE!!! – Lionel 03:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not that at all. Wikidemon is absolutely correct. The so-called "Solyndra controversy" is only controversial when viewed through the lens of a campaign. America needs to invest in sustainable and renewable energy, but this particular investment didn't pan out. Other similar investments have been successful. That's the nature of business. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

With Obama himself having repeatedly touted Solyndra, it's hard to see how you can argue that it is WP:UNDUE to mention it here.William Jockusch (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Because it barely registers on the importance meter when considering the totality of Obama's presidency. Seriously, this is only of significance in the right wing echo chamber. A Google News search of "solyndra" yields 6,000 hits. Remove "fox" and "blog" from that search, and the number drops to only 3,000. Further pruning of right-wing sources reduces it to a mere handful. It's another fauxtroversy, dude. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

In trying to exclude this you are inventing a standard that does not exist in Misplaced Pages. And what a double standard is being pushed! Laws which are passed by the House and Senate (which do not report to him) and which he merely signed are listed in the article. But then an agence that is not only a part of his administration but which reports to him does this ill-fated loan and you pretende that it isn't germane beacuse it was doen by "somebody else". On top of that RS's cover that he was directly involved in in it, including pushing to expedite approval. North8000 (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Should the Solyndra controversy be included?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

The Solyndra loan controversy is an alleged political controversy involving U.S. President Barack Obama's administration's authorization of a $535 million loan guarantee to Solyndra Corporation in 2009 as part of a program to spur alternative energy growth. Solyndra and the White House had originally estimated that this government guarantee of Solyndra's financing would help to create 4,000 new jobs. In early September 2011 the company ceased all business activity, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and laid off nearly all of its employees.

References

1. ^ Solar Energy Company Touted By Obama Goes Bankrupt, ABC News, August 31, 2011
2. Obama's Crony Capitalism, Reason, September 9, 2011
3. McGrew, Scott (September 2, 2011). "Solyndra to Declare Bankruptcy". NBC News.
4. Solyndra files for bankruptcy, looks for buyer. Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved: September 20, 2011.

Arguments for exclusion of this content are not persuasive to say the least. Afterall, the controversy is notable, extensively covered in reliable sources and obviously relevant. But alas Misplaced Pages operates on voting, not quality of argument, and it's 2 against 1.

I am looking for "outside input" (per WP:RFC) to determine whether this content should be included or excluded.– Lionel 04:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• - Wikidemon (talk) 06:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: While all editors may participate, an RFC is a process for requesting outside input.– Lionel 08:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

- Wikidemon (talk) 09:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

apparently nobody is taking this proposal and RfC very seriously after 24 hours so I'll remove my own comments here.

• Of course it should be covered here. Large scale, immensely covered in sources, and as an action by and controversy of his presidency. How could this possibly even be in question? North8000 (talk) 09:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• Include per User:North8000.  Brendon is here 12:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Much has been made of this fauxtroversy by the right, but it has had zero impact on Obama's presidency. Hard to see how it could possibly be included in light of policy. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: While all editors may participate, an RFC is a process for requesting outside input.– Lionel 02:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the policy that you linked to? What you just said directly conflicts with it. Per policy weight is determined by coverage in sources. North8000 (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

With 18,000+ edits to Misplaced Pages, I'm intimately familiar with policy. The Solyndra fauxtroversy has received minimal coverage except in the right wing echo chamber. And since it's an outgrowth of a Bush administration policy, it isn't even an Obama-specific fauxtroversy. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

With almost 20,000 edits to Misplaced Pages, I'm also intimately familiar with policy. The ideology and political inclination of sources of sources is irrelevant. Whether content comes from the "right wing echo chamber" or whether it comes from the Socialist Party USA, if it is covered in reliable sources it is a candidate for inclusion. This is not just policy--it is a WP:PILLAR. – Lionel 02:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Point one - that's a spurious argument. Nobody's challenged the material's verifiability. The objection is undue weight. Simply counting news reports this is a minor issue as compared with the overall coverage of the president. Among reliable sources I don't see that conservative news outlets are any more apt to cover this than anyone else. 60 of the 19,700 Fox News archive pieces that mention Obama also mention Solyndra, .3%. 20 out of 11,700 NPR news articles do the same, .2%. At CNN it's 21 out of 14,000, about .15%. Where you see the difference is the unreliable sources. At Huffington Post, .2%. At Breitbart, 42%. That's the echo chamber. Point two, an RFC is a consensus process in which everyone gets to participate. It's not an end run around the editors - Wikidemon (talk) 07:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Reject as proposed but include in some form. The current wording fails per WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV and WP:COATRACK, and for mischaracterizing a political argument as an economic policy consideration. Here we have an event that resonated with the partisan media and became a minor talking point for Obama's detractors and opponents, and got modest but real coverage among the mainstream press. To the extent the press covered it in connection with Obama's presidency, it is mostly in the context of it being something the other team is using to embarrass him and impugn his integrity. That attempt was somewhat successful, and part of a larger campaign (both grassroots and organized) against federal stimulus spending. As such, a brief (perhaps half a sentence but definitely not a paragraph or article section) mention would be in order in the context of growing partisan opposition and public disenchantment with economic stimulus spending, which is indeed a significant issue in the presidency but not yet covered in this article. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

What rabbit hole have we jumped down here? In the Mitt Romney article they even covered that he had his dog ride on the roof of a car for a few hours 29 years ago. And here folks are trying to keep out a prominent,, widely covered mistake that lost over $500,000,000 of the taxpayer's money? North8000 (talk) 11:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

What? First of all, what some other article has in it has nothing to do with what goes into this article. Nothing. Secondly, there is a huge difference in the comparison you're making. I don't believe I would have advocated inserting the dog incident into the Romney article, but that was a decision Romney made, and not a decision most rational thinking dog owners would make. The loan process was initiated in 2005, and the President, or rather the Government, approve these types of loans all the time. The fact that the company went bankrupt isn't tied to any decision made by the Obama Administration. Right? Lastly, to be honest, I wasn't going to comment in this RFC because I didn't know enough about the subject to state whether this should be included or not. But the arguments here persuaded me to do some research, so I'm going to object to the current wording and inclusion. I do not like the biased manner it was inserted by Lionel(edit summary and wording) and I do not like North8000's reasoning. There is definitely an undue weight issue here, and this issue already has it's own article. I may be persuaded by more neutral wording from Wikidemon, but I have not seen such that I would believe deserves inclusion into this article. Dave Dial (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Solyndra should not be added because Seamus was included in Romney's article. It should be included because the coverage in RS linking Obama and Solyndra is overwhelming, compelling and exhaustive. It requires an enormous disassociation with reality to argue otherwise.

However the inclusion of Seamus and the bizarre objections to Solyndra does in fact highlight the undeniable double-standard at Misplaced Pages. Adding insult to injury is that the BLP policy requires a very high bar for inclusion! And still the dog got in. This content has no BLP implications! No matter how many RS support content, it will be suppressed if it is detrimental to liberal causes. – Lionel 03:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes my comparison to the dog incident was more to point out what has been happening here, and the double standards being applied to Obama and Romney articles. Basically the "Re-Elect Obama" folks working these articles outnumber the "Elect Romney" folks working them and that is being used to determine article content. Great way to make an encyclopedia. Of course the 29 year old dog ride incident is not the reason for inclusion of Solyndra. I first came here from a noticeboard where it was pointed out that at this article a group of people was essentially using their numbers to override wp:npov. When I first came here even my talk page comments pointing out the problem were deleted via warring. North8000 (talk) 10:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Space is an issue here, and I don't think you can justify several sentences for Solyndra when more significant policies get little or no attention in this article. Cash for Clunkers was a much larger program (six times larger), and more it was more successful, but there's only a link to the legislation. The automotive bailout was at least 100 times larger, and there's no mention of it. It also likely saved many more jobs than Solyndra lost. Even ARRA only has a few sentences. I don't see why we should devote space to an economically minor issue when much more important policies are given short shrift. I also object to the proposed text as POV. It reads as "Obama poured all this money into a company and said it would create jobs, but it went bankrupt everyone lost their jobs." Some investments go bad. This doesn't make scandal. (I realize there are other scandalous aspects of the story, but they aren't mentioned).--Bkwillwm (talk) 05:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose/Exclude - It's WP:RECENTISM. No one is going to look back at this 50 years from now and say "Gee... That whole Solyndra thing played a defining roles in BO's presidency". It's also WP:UNDUE. Sure there might be dozens of sources covering Solyndra's relationship to BO. There are hundreds that covering BO's relationship to Bo the dog. Should we include the dog in this article too? NickCT (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Per wp:npov, "played a defining role" is not the criteria that determines inclusion/exclusion, including due/undue. Coverage in sources does. North8000 (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Coverage makes it notable. A great volume of coverage, when compared to other topics related to the subject, makes it WP:DUE. Fact is, google testings "Obama Solyndra" yields 4,500 hits. Which makes it only slightly more popular than the white house dog. NickCT (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

And most of those hits are from blogs, Fox, Drudge, Newsmax, etc. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:Notability is the standard for existence of a separate article, not inclusion of material within an article. The relevant standard for inclusion in a case like this is wp:npov which essentiall/roughly say that coverage (not notability) is the criteria. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Nobody quoted WP:NOTABILITY. WP:UNDUE (part of WP:NPOV) is relevant here. You've tried this argument in an earlier section of this talk page already. When someone keeps banging on about the same thing while ignoring the consensus, it's called being tendentious. Please stop it and move on. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Quit that nasty BS/crap in the last three sentences in your post. You are trying to imply that notability is a requirement for inclusion of this material and I am telling that such is not correct. And even if there was a consensus to exclude that, that can't override wp:npov. And you are quoting wp:npov/wp:undue implying that it supports your desire to exclude the material, but in fact it does the opposite. That was the noted problem situaiotn with this article at the noticeboard which originally brought me here, implying that (alleged or actual) "consensus" can override wp:npov. It can't. North8000 (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• B-Class United States articles
• High-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of High-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment