Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Grundle2600 (talk | contribs) at 13:48, 27 September 2009 (→Medical marijuana). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 May 2009. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Template:Community article probation

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography United States: Presidential elections Low‑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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections. 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 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

Template:Pbneutral

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Political positions 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, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months

DEA Raid

There seems to be some quick editing on this - latest version is here. I don't support this as presently worded. The edit summaries seem to suggest that this is introduced as evidence of "flip flopping" or actions contradicting words. It is not for us to make those claims, and the source does not tie this raid to Obama's drug policy (but rather the announcement last week that such raids would not happen). Introducing the sentence with the word "however" is a clue that we're performing SYNTH and creating POV here. See WP:AVOID#However, although, whereas, despite. Further, there is usually no contradiction between believing a criminal law should be changed, and enforcing the current law as long as it remains on the books. If city council decides to increase the speed limit from 30 to 50 miles per hour on a road, the cops will give out tickets for cars going 40 until the signs are changed. Even if one could find reliable secondary sourcing, that is not the subject of the article. So there is a weight and relevancy issue here. The subject here is what Obama's political positions are, not characterization of Obama as being hypocritical, indecisive, contradictory, or whatever. In an article on medical marijuana in California, or the federal drug policy, this one raid might deserve a brief mention. If we do decide that this is important enough to include, a neutral way to say it would go something like "In June, 2008 the DEA announced that it would no longer lead raids against medical marijuana dispensaries. A clinic in San Francisco was raided the next week" (after which, no raids were performed for x years? or "a series of raids were conducted over the next month" or whatever the future brings - this should be updated when we know more). Wikidemon (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Wikidemon (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

As an alternative to these edits by Grundle2600 and Dr.enh:

• 19:13, 10 May 2009 Grundle2600 (talk | contribs) (→Marijuana decriminalization and medical marijuana: Reason magazine claims that a news article in the San Francisco Chronicle proves that Obama has not kept his promise to stop the DEA raids)

• 01:37, 16 June 2009 Grundle2600 (talk | contribs) (→Marijuana decriminalization and medical marijuana: I'm the one who created this section. Now I'm adding this new info for balance, to show that Obama has flip flopped.)
• 04:05, 16 June 2009 Grundle2600 (talk | contribs) (→Marijuana decriminalization and medical marijuana: Maurice Hinchey (D-New York) asked Obama to clarify his statements, because the DEA conducted a raid after Obama said they would stop)
• 18:41, 16 June 2009 Dr.enh (talk | contribs) (→Marijuana decriminalization and medical marijuana: actions contradict words)

I substituted:

• 19:25, 16 June 2009 Newross (talk | contribs) (→Marijuana decriminalization and medical marijuana: remove misleading, out-of-context statement; restore statement of official policy; restore four of six references supplying context)

  On March 26, 2009, Obama administration U.S. Department of Justice spokesman Matthew Miller said the Department's official policy is: "We will not prioritize federal resources to target medical marijuana facilities unless they are violating state and federal law." "We're not enforcing state law," Miller said. "We're enforcing federal law, but only for those facilities that violate both state and federal law," he added. Miller said the new policy was a significant departure from the Bush administration, which went after dispensaries that did comply with state law.

But even this is an Obama administration U.S. Department of Justice policy—not a political position personally articulated by and sourced to Obama—and so, like Grundle2600 and Dr.enh's DEA raid WP:SYNTHESIS, does not really belong in this article. Newross (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The criticisms of my edit are flawed readings of Misplaced Pages policy.

"However" is appropriate and not POV. Structures where two alternatives are contrasted are more likely to have this problem than situations where the word is used to emphasize a notable change. (From WP:AVOID#However, although, whereas, despite, bolding is mine.) Saying X, then doing not X, and then saying X are notable changes.

There was no WP:SYNTHESIS in my contritution. I did not say, A(cited) and B(cited), therefore C(not cited). I said, A(cited) and not A cited. No synthesis.

Obama's stated policy: his administration will not enforce these laws. Obama's currect, actual policy: his administration is enforcing these laws. To quote Scjessey 02:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC) above on this talk page: the scope of this article is "Political positions of Barack Obama - for political statements and actions made during his entire political career, including stuff while he was not holding public office" (my bolding). The current wording is biased, in that it fails to include the actions of Obama's administration. --Dr.enh (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that says that Obama has a current active policy of enforcing the marijuana laws, that Obama has stated a policy position not to enforce these laws, and that the two are in contradiction (or are in any way related)? If you don't find that all in the same source, it's synthesis. Wikidemon (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I did find this pretty easily: "President Obama, who had pledged to back off federal raids on medical marijuana users and sellers...despite some Drug Enforcement Agency raids that were conducted soon after Obama transitioned into office.". I assume more digging would yield more of the same. - Schrandit (talk) 06:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It's relevant that a U.S. House member who supported Obama's original statements has expressed concern over the ongoing raids, and gave Obama an official written request for him to clarify his position on the subject, so I have added this to the article.

On June 9, 2009, the House Appropriations Committee approved a provision written by U.S. Representative Maurice Hinchey (D-New York) that asks Obama's administration to clarify its position on the subject. Hinchey stated, "I've been greatly encouraged by what President Obama and Attorney General Holder's public statements in support of state's determining their own medical marijuana, but remain concerned about the matter since the federal government has still continued raids in states that permit the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes."

Grundle2600 (talk) 02:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is not going to become your personal laundry list of "Obama did this, but some people say that happened, "Obama said this, but some people say he did that instead" criticisms. It is simply not going to happen, grundle, and until you understand the why's and the how's of editing policy, this is is just going to run on and on in endless frustration. Look at Political positions of George W. Bush for example. The Iraq war is arguably the most divisive position the man took in his 8 years in office. All it gives is a blurb about what he did and why he did it. I'd be just as opposed to a parade of lefties cramming stuff in there about yellowcake, the Surge, or al-Qaeda as I am opposed to...pretty much everything you've done here. Tarc (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused by this stance, Tarc. Hasn't it been agreed that a Political Positions article has nothing to do with actual actions of Pres Obama, and only to do with declarations of position? You bring up a good point with the George Bush Political positions of George W. Bush article. It says "George W. Bush's political positions have been expressed in public statements, and through his actions as President of the United States." So, if Pres Obama's stated position and his actual policies don't merge, is it SYNTH to mention them both? If not, which should be the preferred position? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manawyddan (talk • contribs) 20:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we should use that statement in the Bush article (which has been in existence many years longer than the Obama article) as an example of how to write the Obama article. Since it's OK for the Bush article to include actions as well as words, then it's also OK for the Obama article to mention actions as well as words. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Another DEA raid

Reason magazine reports, "Last week, the Drug War Chronicle reports, the Drug Enforcement Administration made its first arrests related to medical marijuana since Attorney General Eric Holder promised not to prosecute people who are complying with state law." Grundle2600 (talk) 06:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

In May 2008, Obama campaign spokesperson Ben LaBolt said that Obama would end DEA raids on medical marijuana in states where it's legal. Source: San Francisco Chronicle Grundle2600 (talk) 16:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

When Is It SYNTH

The Political positions of George W. Bush article says "George W. Bush's political positions have been expressed in public statements, and through his actions as President of the United States." So, if Pres Obama's stated position and his actual policies don't precisely merge, is it SYNTH to mention them both? If not, which should be the preferred position?Manawyddan (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

An editor can't say "2 + 2 = 4". He needs a reliable source for the "4". PhGustaf (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Manawyddan - thank you for pointing that out. When I added the quote of Obama's campaign promise to stop DEA raids on states that legalized medical marijuana, no one objected. But when I later added that the raids were still continuing after Obama's inauguration, and a quote from a Democratic member of Congress asking Obama to clarify his position, someone else erased it. When a politician says he takes one side on an issue, and his actions are in support of the other side, the article should mention both. The fact that the Bush article and the Obama article are being treated differently is quite interesting. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Beyond the all important "If you have a problem with how things are done on the GWB article, take it up there, not here, otherwise stop whining about it" reminder, how one handles rhetoric vs. actions is always going to be a difficult issue. One of the areas where Grundle2600 got into trouble was with the use of words like "However" when expressing the differences between Obama's rhetoric and his actions, which tends to create a false dichotomy by highlighting the differences. There is also going to be situations where an action complies with one bit of rhetoric while also violating another. An example of this would be the "cigarette tax" that Grundle tried to push in earlier as showing that obama violated his "No new taxes for anyone making less than 250k". Even though Obama was talking about payroll taxes, some have interpreted that as being no taxes at all and as a result, when Obama signed the bill that raised cigarette taxes, they pointed at that tax and did the hand waving and complaining about Obama violating his campaign promise. However, even if he did violate the no new taxes promise, the raising of the cigarette tax is in compliance with his promise to lower health care costs. The higher a pack of smokes cost, the less people smoke, the less likely they are to get lung cancer and the other health care issues they incur, thus reducing health care costs, etc. --Bobblehead 18:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I don't have any problem with the Bush article. It's the Obama article that I have a problem with, for not being as honest about hypocrisy as the Bush article is. Secondly, on the cigarette tax thing, no one has ever cited proof that Obama was only talking about income taxes. Third, when Associated Press quoted Obama's promise not to raise taxes on people making less than $250,000, it was the same article that suggested that by raising the cigarette tax, Obama may have been breaking his promise. Fourth, I think it's open to interpretation if Obama broke his promise or not, and I just wanted the readers to have all the facts so they could make up their own mind. Fifth, I eventually cited a single source that pointed out Obama's hypocrisy on the marijuana thing, so there was no need to use the word "however."

This is what I had added to the Political positions of Barack Obama article. Please note that it's all from one article, so there is no synthesis:

On June 9, 2009, the House Appropriations Committee approved a provision written by U.S. Representative Maurice Hinchey (D-New York) that asks Obama's administration to clarify its position on medical marijuana. Hinchey stated, "I've been greatly encouraged by what President Obama and Attorney General Holder's public statements in support of state's determining their own medical marijuana, but remain concerned about the matter since the federal government has still continued raids in states that permit the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes."

And this is what I wanted in the Presidency of Barack Obama article:

Early in his presidency, Obama signed a law raising the tobacco tax 62 cents on a pack of cigarettes. The tax is to be "used to finance a major expansion of health insurance for children", and "help some to quit and persuade young people not to start". Some considered this tax increase to contradict a previous statement that Obama had made on September 12, 2008, in Dover, New Hampshire, where he had said, "I can make a firm pledge... Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes... you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime." It was reported that the tax disproportionately affects the poor, who are more likely to smoke than the rich.

Please note that it's all from one source, so there is no synthesis. And also please note that Obama said "any of your taxes." Therefore, your claim that he was only talking about income taxes is exactly the opposite of what the source states.

Grundle2600 (talk) 21:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we should use that statement in the Bush article (which has been in existence many years longer than the Obama article) as an example of how to write the Obama article. Since it's OK for the Bush article to include actions as well as words, then it's also OK for the Obama article to mention actions as well as words. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems very reasonable. The some might be needed to be directly attributed to avoid a Who? tag.--Die4Dixie (talk) 02:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

consistency on wikipedia topics has always been a huge problem. for the love of god people, If the article of the president you hate isn't held to the same standard of the one you love and you don't fight to get them consistent then you are worthless as an editor.--71.82.133.21 (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't "love" Bush. I voted for Harry Browne for President in 2000, and Michael Badnarik in 2004. And I don't love McCain either - I voted for Ron Paul in 2008. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Health care

According to breitbart, in 2007, Obama said that his plan would eliminate private health insurance. In 2009, he said that his critics who claimed that his plan would eliminate private health insurance were wrong. This should be included in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Jerry picked snippets don't mean shit. (excuse my french but the latter is my favorite phrase). Are there any WP:RS's that picked it up? If the answer is "yes" please provide them; If the answer is "no" forget about it.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Breitbart is a legitimate source. The quotes are accurate - they even have a video of Obama saying it. They did not "cherry pick" anything. The information is relevant and well sourced, and should be included in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Politico has this new article on this topic, which quotes Obama as having said, "I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be, potentially, some transition process: I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out." That's a very reliable source, and it's very relevant, so it should be included in the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, still nope. Heck, if you actually read the article you would have read that article, you would have read that the statement is being called a misstatement and is actually refuting the statement. Brothejr (talk) 13:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a verifiable fact, from reliable sources, that Obama said those words. There's even a video of him saying those words. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

And there are videos, statements, and responses that says he doesn't believe it anymore. This is mainly a game of dirt digging to provide more fuel for a political fire. We are not here to fuel various lobbying groups fight against health care reform nor do we report every little bit of dirt on the president. We are also not here to publish "The Truth". On a final note: this dirt digging of yours Grundle2600 is getting a bit old. Every time you try to bring up some "new" piece of dirt on Obama, weakens your argument and causes us to ignore you more. Please take that as a helpful hint. Brothejr (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

They aren't saying that he "doesn't believe it anymore" - they are saying that he never said it in the first place. Since he did say it at one time, and since it was quoted by politico, and since there is video evidence of it cited by breitbart, it should be added to this article. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about Obama's political positions. The evidence from breitbart and politico shows that Obama said those exact words regarding a political position. Therefore, the statement should be in the article. Misplaced Pages:NPOV states, "All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors... The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with the conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic found in reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic, each must be presented fairly... all of the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, and not just the most popular. An article should not assert that the most popular view is the correct one, nor should this be implied by mentioning some views only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions... Misplaced Pages is filled with reliably sourced non-neutral statements, so the elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy solely on the grounds that it is "POV". Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but should not endorse any particular point of view. Instead, articles should provide background on who believes what, and why, and on which points of view are more popular. Detailed articles will often contain evaluations of each viewpoint, but these, too, must studiously refrain from taking sides... All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence... Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves... When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion..." Grundle2600 (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to say the only problem here is your own POV and how it seems you have issues separating your own bias from editing neutrally. NPOV does not mean we must go and counter every good thing with every bad thing. The one portion of NPOV you are forgetting is the issue of weight. We cannot give more weight to a negative view/criticism/etc then is portrayed in the mainstream media. Brothejr (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm asking for a few short quotes to be included in the article, not a 20 page essay. When a politician cites two opposing positions on an issue, the article should cite both. To cite one but not the other is a violation of NPOV. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Split?

This article is now 160 internets kb long. I propose that its three main sections be split off into Economic, Foreign and Social political positions of Barack Obama, with a precis of each left here. What say you? Totnesmartin (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely getting heavy and if not now, within the next 6 months will need to be split. Another possibility (as the majority of the article concerns campaign positions) is to split it into the campaign positions versus the presidential policies. This might make more sense as we've kind of meshed two different subjects here under the umbrella of "political positions." --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a possibility - then one of the articles would be permanently stable, and one would grow, perhaps to split next year as you say. But it would mean two articles, both still very big. Let's see what other people think before we rush into this. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Envrionment

A search for "environment" hits twice: a tangential remark about Antarctica, and a link to an external website. The link is broken. Barrack Obama has positions on the environment, they are political ones, and they're important. They are of course tied into his energy and other policies, but should be explicitly laid out. Also, the dead link should be removed.

The Obama administration has committed $2 billion in loans to support offshore oil drilling. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

So, how do you suppose the (apparently aptly named) hotair.com rates as a reliable source? PhGustaf (talk) 02:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. That's an excellent point. However, Fox News has also reported on it. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Obama wants to raise taxes on the middle class

The New York Times just reported, "Although cast as a tax on gold-plated insurance policies for the well-heeled, it has prompted anxiety among the middle class... The supposedly Cadillac insurance policies include ones that cover many of the nation’s firefighters and coal miners, older employees at small businesses — a whole gamut that runs from union shops to Main Street entrepreneurs... Under the Baucus plan, insurers selling a plan costing more than $8,000 for an individual and $21,000 for a family would have to pay a 35 percent excise tax on the excess amount... The tax would be levied on insurers — or on employers that act as their own insurers. Either way, the tax would very likely be passed along to workers in even higher premiums than they pay now... On Sunday, President Obama... defended the tax." This should be mentioned in this article, because it contradicts Obama's claim that he would not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 per year. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like, in your never-ending quest to find defamatory material about Obama, you've confused him with Max Baucus. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It says that Obama supports Baucus's proposal. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is unbalanced.

Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view states, "All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors."

In cases where Obama has taken one position on an issue, and then later taken the opposite position, NPOV requires that the article cite both positions. To cite one position without citing the other, violates NPOV. I have cited examples of this in the talk page (some of which is now archived).

I plan to fix this problem as a way to improve the article. The wikipedia policy that I just quoted says that this is "non-negotiable."

Grundle2600 (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, a fundamentally flawed interpretation of WP:NPOV. Tarc (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

And it's perhaps unwise to approach wikipedia editing with a "plan". If your plan involves a return to your old posting modus, your return from your ban is likely to be short. PhGustaf (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Tarc, wikipedia's NPOV policy is stated very clearly, and my understanding of it is accurate. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

PhGustaf, if Obama expresses two differing positions on an issue, why do you think the article should only mention one and not the other? Grundle2600 (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm right!!!! (just kidding, I haven't even said anything yet) Anyway, I think the main problem with the article is that it's at a deadlock, because every single change gets a lot of scrutiny and discussion, so we can't keep the article updated as fast as events are occurring. It's outdated. Secondarily, I think that the structure of the article is flawed, which only makes it harder. I mentioned this a few times months ago. That when Obama says or does something, is it a "position", an "opinion", a "belief", a "policy goal", a "promise", a Presidential "act", etc? The word "position" is kind of murky and nonspecific. So the whole premise of the article is a bit off. Perhaps candidates for office can be said to have "positions", i.e. formally stated principles, credos, or indications of approval or disapproval of given issues, plans, and laws. But once someone is in office, what really counts is what they do, what they say, and how they operate, not what they formally say as their position on things. Wikidemon (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That's why I think the article should cite their words and their actions. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Reason magazine is a reliable source.

The Chicago Tribune said that Reason magazine is one of the 50 best magazines. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You know full well that opinion articles are not reliable sources for anything other than the opinions of their author. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Politico and Breitbart are reliable sources.

And so is the video of Obama that is linked to from one of those sources. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

A video by Pam Key on her NakedEmperorNews.com website—featuring intentionally misleading, out-of-context quotes by Obama and others—is not a WP:RS.

• A Pam Key NakedEmperorNews.com video does not become a WP:RS when Andrew Breitbart features it on his Breitbart.com website.
• A Pam Key NakedEmperorNews.com video does not become a WP:RS when Matt Drudge features it on his DrudgeReport.com website.
• A Pam Key NakedEmperorNews.com video does not become a WP:RS when Matt Allen at Politico.com reports that it has been cited by Linda Douglass (White House Office of Health Reform director of communications) in a video on the White House "Health Insurance Reform Reality Check" webpage as an example of intentionally misleading, out-of-context disinformation.

Newross (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Breitbart and Politico are reliable sources, and anything that they cite, including the quote and video, are valid material for the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I added the POV and Advertisement tags to the Health Care section because this paragraph was removed from that section:

"In March 2007, Obama said, "I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be, potentially, some transition process..." "

Grundle2600 (talk) 13:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Newross, since you claim the quote was taken out of context, please explain what Obama meant when he said those words. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Medical marijuana

I added the POV and advertising tags to this section because this part has been removed:

"In August 2009, the DEA raided a medical marijuana grower in California, a state where medical marijuana is legal."

Grundle2600 (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

For those who claim that Reason magazine and the San Francisco Bay Times are not reliable sources, here are some more sources: Associated Press, Los Angeles Times, Lake County News, NORML, and stopthedrugwar.org. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

1. House Panel Approves Hinchey Provision Requesting Clarification from Obama Administration on Medical Marijuana Policy, enewspf.com, June 9, 2009
2. House Panel Approves Hinchey Provision Requesting Clarification from Obama Administration on Medical Marijuana Policy, enewspf.com, June 9, 2009
3. Promises, Promises: Obama tax pledge up in smoke, Associated Press, April 1, 2009
4. Barack Obama vs. Drudge Report, Politico, August 4, 2009
5. Obama Explains How His Health Care Plan Will ‘Eliminate’ Private Insurance, Breitbart, August 3, 2009
6. DEA Arrests Medical Marijuana Grower in California, Reason magazine, August 28, 2009
7. First DEA Medical Marijuana Arrests by Obama Admin, San Francisco Bay Times, August 27, 2009

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Low-importance
• Unassessed United States presidential elections articles
• Unknown-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles