Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama

initial comments

Why is the Obama Cabinet- template only half-filled? It includes only some of the secretary nominees Obama has made. ABC101090 (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

What were the three documents he signed right after he sat down, after the inauguration ceremony? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.202.89.108 (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe atleast one was his nominations. Grsz¹¹ 19:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Current event template

Is this really a current event? Presumably he will be president for the next 4 years, with new developments practically every day. How long do we plan to have that template up there? --Ryan Delaney ^talk 00:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

He was just inaugurated today, so...Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It would make sense on that account to have a current event template on an article about his inauguration, but not about his Presidency, which is and will be ongoing for years. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 21:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Expectations for first 100 days

I have merged information from the discontinued "Barack Obama's first 100 days"-page, per the AfD discussion. I have also made a thorough rewrite, so as to avoid crystal balling, and simply report on the centrality of the term and public expectations of the period. Lampman (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

pay freeze

I added information regarding the pay freeze and stricter lobbying rules he's announced on his first day, but I'm not happy with the way I've worded it. So if anyone can make it sound a bit better, please do. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I changed the language a bit; I think it's good now. --Bleemsz (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, thats definitly better. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Actions and Accomplishments

Morning- I'm wondering if it would be prudent, considering the President's proclivity for instituting frequent, substantive, effectual Executive Orders, to make a sub-heading or list of the Order's with a brief summary for each.

Hello- I changed "Legislative Action" to "Actions and Accomplishments". The term "Legislative Action" does not really apply here, and a more broad range of the president's actions can be described here. I hope people will continue to update this section as the president continues to make history. InterwebUsr (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

hello- President Obama repealed executive order 13233 of Nov 2001, which preserved executive privilege beyond 12 years, and authorized review of former president Bush's presidential records which he had claimed executive privilege. this means that if President Obama decided Bush's privileged records are not a matter of national security, he may disclose such information notwithstanding the former presidents claim of privilege. the order is available here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ExecutiveOrderPresidentialRecords/ I do not know how to edit wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.6.131 (talk) 07:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks! I'd just added it in. rootology (C)(T) 17:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of "fixBunching"

It's true that right-margin items being stacked through the use of "fixBunching" must be of approximately the same width in order not to cause excess blank space. This is because the fix puts all these stacked items together into a unified column. To rectify this problem, I've now moved the right-margin Obama cabinet table down the page. Please note that until "fixBunching," my friend's browser on his Apple would show no edit buttons for each section; instead all of the article's section buttons were bunched together toward the bottom of the page. "FixBunching" provides the standard fix for this problem. For more info, see Template:fixBunching. ↜Just me, here, now … 03:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of word "torture" POV

In this article, this sentence struck out to me as a POV misstep:

"but the Bush Administration still supported the torture of prisoners of war and other federal detainees, as former Vice-President Dick Cheney admitted in a December 2008 interview"

In order to keep it npov, I would suggest changing it to harsh tactics. Thoughts? Rapmanej (talk) 08:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

What is harsh tactics? Beside, Obama referred to this as "the US will not torture". Waterboarding, for example, wasn't considered as torture by the Bush's admninistration, but is, by Obama's. Kromsson (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Multiple treaties and conventions to which the United States is party, such as the United Nations Convention Against Torture and the Geneva Conventions, define waterboarding as torture. The Bush administration does not consider it torture, but it is torture. --Josh Atkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 18:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Barack Obama

Based on a suggestion on Talk:Barack Obama, a new baby Wikiproject has been formed:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Barack Obama

Please check it out, watchlist it, join and sign up. Let's get some GAs and FAs going out of this! :) rootology (C)(T) 20:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Added a section on the Presidency

It seems to me that it makes the most sense to have a broad section on his Presidency and subsections dealing with foreign policy and domestic policy to allow for easy research. Researchers shouldn't have to read through the entire article to determine actions by the administration that deal with a specific issue. I would like to see a more detailed review of these issues but I don't have a lot of time to do so. I hope others will add to the foreign policy section, create a domestic policy section. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 22:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Administration and Cabinet

I think this section should be expanded; as of now it just says that he hasn't nominated any Supreme Court justices, so the cabinet template extends farther down into the next sections than it should. In my opinion, there should be information about his claims to "the most transparent administration in history," his ethics reforms, etc.. There also needs to be something about the confirmations of all his appointees.. Then when he does nominate justices, we can make a subheading like all the other Presidency articles do. After expanding it more, I think a br clear:all should be added so the template does not stretch into the next section.. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I changed the table to a double-columned format (also deleting this same table, functioning as a navigation template, from the bottom of the page). ↜Just me, here, now … 22:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, somebody has changed this one for the Template:Obama cabinet, which is fine. (However note that I've restored from this contributor's edit the nav template previously at the bottom of the page-- namely a version of Template:Obama Administration personnel that's lacking its cabinet-level officers section -- in order to avoid redundancy and also to provide links to personnel not a part of the Administration's cabinet.) ↜Just me, here, now … 22:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The current template in this section is a navbox that should be at the bottom of the page, not in the article text. The only template I've seen (there are several that need to be merged - one for the article text and one for the bottom of the page) that looks remotely suited to go into this location is {{Obama cabinet infobox}}. It is only one column, though, and because of the lack of content in this section, that template extends too far into the subsequent sections. I think the best way to go about this would be to greatly expand this section (best option) or to modify the obama cabinet infobox template to have two columns instead of one. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Bah i should make sure i press save before closing the tab.Anyways.I don't see how his lack of Supreme Court nominations adds anything to the article, i mean its not like he cant actually name anyone right now.I was also gonna comment on the table, and ask if was suppose to look like it did, but i see it has been changed, it's better like that imo.Now that i looked at it again, shouldn't there be some kind of mention next to Robert Gates stating that he is staying from the previous cabinet? Durga Dido (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I just added a new table (though not in template form because I didn't want to add to the 9034037408 templates already out there) to this section. It has a 2-column format and isn't a navbox, so it looks like it belongs there more. I think the old navboxes that were at the bottom of the page can be restored now, but I don't remember the templates; can someone do this? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I've temporarily transcluded your wikitable's coding to the Template:Obama cabinet infobox (that is, until such time as its former Navbox format is usable in an article). ↜Just me, here, now … 21:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Presidency began at noon

Constitutionally speaking, Obama's presidency began automatically at noon, january 20, rather than at the moment he was inaugurated. While the inauguration is a constitutional requirement to exercize his powers, it is not a requirement to hold the office. The expiration of one term and the beginning of a new is automatic and defined in the Constitution as taking place at exactly noon of jan 20.Supersexyspacemonkey (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right,but why have you stated this?I looked at the page and didn't see any mistakes,did you see one or are saying just so future editors will know that? Durga Dido (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Actions and Accomplisments

I noticed that the Actions and accomplishments section is already quite detailed for a man who's only been president for under a week. Would it be useful to create something like Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama to fit all this in, so that this page's section can eventually just focus on the most important stuff? Joshdboz (talk) 07:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well the closing of Guantanamo is pretty important, because it shows where he wants to go ,The "gag rule" part is pretty important, but seeing as this rule just keeps getting put on and off depending on the president it might not be so important.Not sure if him retaking the oath should even be in this section of the article,The pay freeze,the proclamation and the desire to review last minute regulations don't seem so important in the greater scope of the article.I would say yes a new page would be a good idea.Durga Dido (talk) 07:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at the page another time and saw that at the bottom after administration and cabinet table,it talks about his presidency 2009-present, here it talks about what he has done,foreign policy stance,wanting to close Gitmo, Showing what he wants to do concerning the middle east,abortion funding.It also divides each part into their own section,which is much better then what is in the actions and accomplishment part, it also is much better for future additions and make it easier to follow,Later on when Obama does more on abortion stuff for example we can just change the title to "abortion" and then add whatever it is that needs to be added to that section instead of making a new one for it.Seeing that I think for now we should keep this info here, in this format, I also think we should remove the actions and accomplishments, because whatever we add there would likely also be added to his presidency 2009-present, and if it is not added it is more then likely that it should be added.Then in the future we might have the need for a new page for this info,but i think we should try in this way first. Durga Dido (talk) 09:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The timeline is great, but since it's named Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama, it should go under the Presidency section. The First 100 days section on this page will go into more detail at this point than the Presidency section will because the Presidency section will cover 4 full years whereas the First 100 days will only cover 100 days. Actions and Accomplishments is a subheading of the first 100 days, so it will go into much detail.. maybe even so much as to necessitate Timeline of the First 100 Days of the Presidency of Barack Obama. I don't think we need to shrink the section just yet, but I wanted to make the distinction between the First 100 days section and the Presidency section clear. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah i see it now, i didn't notice that it was part of his "first 100 days" in that case i think that the section is correctly there.I change my position and also think we shouldn't trim it down for the time being.To Joshdboz i think for the time being we should just hold with the idea of a new page, lets continue on this page and see what happens, in time it will be clear when a new page for your idea. is neededDurga Dido (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Tomorrow will end his first week in office, so I think we should shorten the section after tomorrow to be something like "In his first week, Obama...." instead of talking about each day. We won't need 100 paragraphs in this section (for each of the first 100 days).. the day by day thing can go on Timeline of the Presidency of Barack Obama. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Issues on the page

Sorry if i may seem over zealous with these pages, but i would still like to help make the article better.I have seen some things on the article that I think could use some change or should be addressed.I have put them together but have bolded the important parts to make it easier to see what the point addresses:

1. Transition Period states that Timothy Geithner was chosen amidst a financial crisis,I don't think it actually adds anything to the article at this location.
2. Inauguration talks about a "House Wing" in the capitol where the President's Room is, is that the name of the wing or is this an error?
3. Inauguration talks about Obama using the Lincoln's bible to commemorate Lincoln but, the reference does not actually say that.
4. No offense to the guy, but why does the opinion of one person Clive Stafford Smith matter that much to be used as a reference to one of the expectations of the president,I don't want to say we should simply remove it, because that is something a lot of people want to see happen ( the closing of Gitmo, not specifically in 100 days) but i think we should use something diff that talks about more people.
5. Actions and accomplishments section should be removed and info that is there should be moved and added the Presidency 2009-present section, trimmed where needed and dumped/moved where needed.

Durga Dido (talk) 09:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Should there be coverage of Obama's "West Wing"?

Or Executive Office of the President. Eg see "West Wing on steroids in Obama W.H.", January 25, by Jonathan Martin. (And if so, what should its "header" be?) ↜Just me, here, now … 16:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• There should be a brief section dealing with this since numerous books will be written on Obama's philosophy of governance. There are already numerous books dealing with past Presidents, the power of the Chief of Staff and members of the West Wing compared to other Presidents. As we can see the issue of how he governs will become a major issue and scholars will write books about it for the next 30 years ranging from discussions of the role of his Chief of Staff, the role of the Cabinet and sub-cabinet as compared to his White House staff. I'm already sure that Obama has read several books on how different President's governed before being sworn in. Should he set up Committees, task forces, use special envoys or give his Cabinet officers more or less power in selecting their assistants. Here are some more articles dealing with this: Transition Holds Clues to How Obama Will Govern and Obama Signals Shift in Governing Philosophy Edward Lalone | (Talk) 22:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Foreign Policy

Is it really necessary to have the long quote of his inauguration speech in this article? Should it not be summarized into a few sentences? I also don't think there should be so many subheadings under the section. As the "Policies" section grows, there will be an increasing number of subheadings, so I think all the sub-subheadings (Guantanamo, Abortion, etc) should be removed, and just leave the "Foreign Policy" section. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 03:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• I will leave it to your discretion but as someone who does a lot of research your way of doing thing is bothersome. I don't have time to read through an entire section which will get longer over time or will not be comprehensive to deal with the administrations foreign policy. Also, it seems that entire sections that will have increased importance over time have been removed. The Middle East being one of them. The Middle East peace process is already significant and has consumed large amounts of news coverage. Just today, the President and Secretary of State met with Special Envoy George Mitchell who will be leaving for a Middle East tour including a meeting with President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 21:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• It is a typical practice to address issues in separate sections including one for domestic policy, foreign policy and to have any subsections necessary to address broad issues within those categories until the section gets large enough to warrant an article of its own. There will likely be a Foreign Policy of the Obama administration article which addresses each of these issues. That article is likely to be broken down into sections dealing with regions, countries and specific conflicts or foreign policy issues of his administration. So at minimum I think we need to restore the Middle East subsection since we will likely add a section for Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Middle East peace process. The Guantanamo section should also be included but the abortion section should never have been put into a separate section because it is not broad enough and will not result in significant news coverage like the Middle East and closing of Guantanamo will. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 21:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• The entire quote from the inaugural address should remain until the sections dealing with each point can be created and parts of the quote can be inserted into those sections. Summarizing someone else words into a few sentences is original research and I think we should avoid that. His words can be interpreted in different ways by different people so let's not get into a discussion of which summary is correct. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 21:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said there except for the part about including the address text. I don't see any original research in the current summary; in fact, most of it is directly quoted from the speech. Yes, I agree we need to wait for more information (he hasn't even been in office a week yet), and when substantial information is made available for a new section or summary style article, we will make one. For the time being, there isn't really enough information to warrant breaking it up (even though we will need to later). --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I added one more sentence dealing with his call to those who cling to power through corruption and silencing dissent. Please feel free to edit this sentence. I still think that the summary is fairly biased including the sentence I added but we can work that out later. I think there may be enough coverage to include a Middle East subsection. Already there are several issues which aren't addressed in the article including an upcoming trip by Special Envoy George Mitchell and the missile attack on Pakistan but I will let someone else draft those issues for inclusion. Edward Lalone | (Talk) 22:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I've activated the Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration article (which was previously a redirect to here), as an article of that form exists for GWB, Clinton, and Reagan, and because there's already need for it to contain material being put into various other articles where the level of detail is unwieldy or inappropriate. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Great start on the article. I hope to help out as things unroll. Joshdboz (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"Legislation passed"?

It seems to me that none of the items in the "Legislation passed" section are legislation: they are all policy decisions. I think the term "legislation" means bills passed by Congress (the "legislature " which deliberates about the decision) and then signed by the executive to become a law. I think that we should separate out Obama's policy decision from the list of bills he signs. If wwe are going to have a simple chronological list, then we should consider factoring it out to its own article since it is likely to get lengthy.--Spellage (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to clean up the Legislation passed section as Spellage kindly said, what Obama has done up till now would not be considered a legislation, even though they the force and effect of law.The Go ahead on the missile strikes should definitely not be there because, he doesn't have to sign a law for the strikes to take place, he just orders it.The memorandums are even more out there because while they are legally the same as EO's there is still a difference, hence the different naming.I think in order to keep the first 100 days we need to see what should make it on the list and what should not make it on the list.And we should be sure to name/list them correctly. Durga Dido (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think "Legislation passed" is a good title for this section. I like "Actions and accomplishments" more. Can anyone tell me what was POV about that? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Administration and Cabinet

Very important presidential assigned positions in the admisistration should be included. I started to put in Fed Chair, Sepcial Envoy to the Middle East, Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistanetc. (Since someone started to undue these changes I stopped.) These assignments are just as important as "official cabinet" and ARE part of the administration as the title of this section states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.131.140.124 (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

By all means, add them into the text, but the title of the table to which you tried to add them is "Obama Cabinet." Only cabinet-level members should be added here. I'm all for adding other members of the administration... just in the text not the table. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that other positions of note should be identified. The Fed at this time is one, and so is George Mitchell. These can be added separate, and I think I'll try now. Grsz¹¹ 22:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Other notable positions

Who decides what is a "notable position"

Envoy to mideast? Fed? CIA? National Intelligence? Surgeon General? Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration?

Without defined criteria, any person that Obama appoints could be on this list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.39.103.200 (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Repetitive sentence strucure

On Jan 21, Obama....

On Jan 22, Obama....

On Jan 23, Obama....

I know this is the natural tendency, but it's terrible writing and awful to read. Can we figure a way to make this into more integrated prose?--Loodog (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I had actually written "the very next day" for one of those, but someone said that violated NPOV, and changed it to the exact date. Here is the edit in question. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Then just write the "The next day". There's no need for the "very". :) Sijo Ripa (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Lobbying reform and tax payment concerns

It seems to me that much of the information in this section (particularly about cabinet members' tax concerns) should be moved, perhaps to another article or to a new section on this page. This is a subsection of policies, and whether or not a nominee paid his/her taxes has nothing to do with policy. Perhaps this should be moved to a subsection of Administration and Cabinet - something like a section named "Tax concerns" maybe? --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is already in a section called ethics, where else would you propose it should go? Newguy34 (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that talking about the effect of the controversies in the artcile is unnecessary, but I have added a bit more balance, which will hopefully address your concerns. Newguy34 (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I just told you where I proposed it should go. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, but the application of the policy that the president laid out is relevant. While it's current placement is perhaps not perfect, it flows rather well. Cutting it to another section would affect the readability, it seems to me. Thoughts from others? Newguy34 (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I was bold and edited the page. I tried to keep the flow of the original section as much as possible, and I believe the information's new location is more suited. This diff shows the edit. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Newguy34 (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review - First 100 days

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 4 for a DRV on a First 100 days article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The redirect has been overturned. If anyone thinks this article has too much detail in sections, you can move it over there for events that occur in the next 77 days.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Robert Gates

Gates or any other person, who moves seemlessly from one cabinet to another, shouldn't have the tenure from the other cabinet shown. Gates should be shown in this article, as Secy of Defense, 2009-present & thus Secy of Defense 2006-09 in the Bush cabinet. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

For example: it would look odd to have all of John Adams' original cabinet, as being shown serving since 1789. Or Andrew Johnson's Secy of State as serving from 1861. This covers the George H. W. Bush article, too. Dick Thornburgh shouldn't bee shown as 1988-93. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If i understand what you are saying is, that we should only put starting dates as late as when Obama his administration started, I agree with you, If we however keep it as is, I think we should keep something noting him staying from the previous administration as is shown by the **, if the 2006 date goes then i think the notation should too. Durga Dido (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The asterisks is OK. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

How does one 'edit' the Cabinet section? GoodDay (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link: Template:Obama cabinet infobox. ↜Just me, here, now … 08:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I've fixed up Gates' tenure in the Obama cabinet. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

It's cool trivia to mention that Obama became Prez at 12:00 EST. But is it necessary to mention this occured before he took his oath of office? I'm guessing that all US Presidents, did not take their oaths of office at the exact momment of terms beginning . GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

Wikipedia NPOV policy states, "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia 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."

Some of you keep erasing this paragrpah form the Lobbying Reform section:

U.S. Congresswoman Hilda Solis (D-California), Obama's nominee for Secretary of Labor, was a board member of an organization called American Rights at Work, which lobbied Congress on two bills that Solis was a co-sponsor of - the Employee Free Choice Act, and the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act. Furthermore, Solis did not reveal her board membership to other House members on her financial disclosure forms. [79]

You claimed that it was "irrelevant" and that it contained "weasel words." But when I asked you explain why it was "irrelevant" and what "weasel words" it had, you never answered.

Erasing relevant, well sourced info violates wikipedia NPOV policy. Please stop doing this. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The Solis edit, I just undid[1]. At the basic level, it's far too much info here on Solis; that level can go in her article. This article will encompass all of Obama's first four years, and possibly eight. A paragraph on the career and alleged lack of disclosures by one person that's now just nominee is way too much for a summary article like this. Hilda Solis is where it could go, not here. She's at the moment a historical footnote out of the next four years. rootology (C)(T) 14:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Grsz¹¹ 14:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Then why does this article even have a section called "Lobbying reform"? And why does the section mention William J. Lynn III, William Corr, and Mark Patterson? Did you erase the entry on Solis because she's a woman, and you think that women aren't supposed to be held to the same standards as men? Grundle2600 (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Look dude, it's assholes like you that make the world a sucky place to live in. You muckrake and bring up crap to intentionally try to make people look bad. No one said anything about keeping her out because she was a woman; I thought we were mature enough not even to think about that. It's people like you that keep sexism, racism, and pretty much any kind of stereotypical hatred going. Get off your soap box and think positively. No one lives to attack you; frankly, we don't give a damn about you or even care if you're here or not. We all want to get along and can do so if we just stop pulling out the race, gender, orientation, etc. cards.. hell, just burn the cards up - why do we need cards?

You talk about NPOV, but from your contributions to this and other articles, it's obvious that you try to insert your opinion into every single article to which you contribute. Wikipedia is NOT an opinion article; go to CNN (or in your case Fox News) for that. This site states facts in an OBJECTIVE way. Yes, you add facts, but you put a subtle spin on them that implies ideas not actually present in the sources you cite. I'm fine with allowing the information about Solis to remain in the article; in fact, I just copy edited it to remain in there. This kind of stuff has been happening many times over the past few weeks, and frankly, I'm tired of it. Either learn to write objectively, or stay off of this site. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)