Talk:American Jobs Act

Potential source

Here is a link to the White House Fact Sheet on the American Jobs Act, for those of you who want to parse this and update this stub: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/08/fact-sheet-american-jobs-act 24.15.6.162 (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Implications in International Economies

There is not enough information in these implications, which might be as wide as the 1929 USA Depression, which promoted Hitler´s rise to power, F. D. Roosevelt actions for USA recovery, or can be as far reaching as the Marshall Plan for the Post War 1946 Europe, that could be taken over by Stalin, if such Plan was not passed in the USA Senate of that time. MX -- AGS --- --Dagofloreswi (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

*Fact Sheet: The American Jobs Act

• Fact Sheet: The American Jobs Act — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.61.181 (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I edited the article today in the components of the act section, to address an inaccuracy and provide a neutral tone to the section. The article presented the $49 billion in extension of unemployment benefits 2x, but listing separately and within it's included heading of the $62 billion Pathways back to work. Thus potentially leading reading to believe the Act costs $49 billion more than it is supposed to cost. In addition the article at the top of this section listed the cost of the bill as "half a trillion dollars" which I believe to be biased and not overly helpful since that could be any amount, so I edited to list the total $447 billion, which readers can than judge on their own whether that is a lot or too much etc. Finally in the bottom of the section I added a sentence noting the totals of the components that are tax credits and spending and what percent of the total 447 billion they represent. I believe this provides a more balanced and neutral representation of the act. All of this information is based on the Fact Sheet. (Sorry if this is the wrong place to add to the talk, but the talk page is quite lengthy and convoluted. Irish Wolfhound (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Adhere to the neutral point of view

Editors are encouraged to adhere to the neutral point of view policy. Please propose any significant changes here and seek a consensus before altering the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to explicitly seek consensus to edit an article unless there's disagreement. Otherwise, consensus is assumed. Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss describes it well. hare j 20:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

There certainly is disagreement. If you look at the article history, there is something of a "slo-mo" edit war going on. My comment here was designed to promote discussion in the hope that agreement can be reached. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll admit I haven't been paying attention to the blow-by-blow of this article's development. Well, what is the disagreement at hand? hare j 00:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It's an NPOV issue. Some editors wish to have a criticism section for the comments political opponents. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

With edits like this, Joshua the Independent continues to use a combination of synthesis and poorly-written, poorly-sourced commentary that is neither neutral or appropriately weighted. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

When I added ", but in reality it is nothing more than a political prop, with no chance of passing because not even the Democrats will vote for it.

The American Jobs Act of 2011 (H.R. 2911) is a bill submitted by Congressman Louie Gohmert that would actually help create a lot of private sector jobs by slashing the corporate tax rate to 0%." it was specifically for the purpose of dragging this article toward a neutral point of view (NPOV).

Facts are neutral, political spin is not. The fact of the matter is that it is very difficult to keep spin out of political subjects, and perhaps the only fair thing to do is present both sides to acheive balance, and let the audience decide for themselves, until history bears out the truth, such as when I said "not even the Democrats will vote for it", as the bill failed to pass in the Democrat-controlled Senate. TodKarlson (talk) 02:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

No. It is not "fair" to have spin from both sides. It is better to have no spin at all. For example, the phrase "actually help create a lot of private sector jobs" is pure spin, original research and almost certainly false. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we both would agree that "spin" is a euphamism for "a lie done within some range of the absolute truth, with its direction determined to drive a desired outcome". I would love to have no spin at all, but that is probably impossible in the discuusion of anything beyond math, and certainly not politics. I submit that lowering taxes on the private sector encourages job creation, because it lowers the overall cost of doing business, therefore leaving more money in the hands of the business owners to expand and hire more workers. Look at the converse, if you raise taxes on a business, you take away money that could have been used to buy new equipment and hire workers. It is fantasy to think that a company is going to respond to a tax hike by bending over and grabbing their ankles. Do you disagree? TodKarlson (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I do, actually. Conceptually, lowering corporate taxes should be good for business for all the reasons you state. But when the economy is in the crapper, a business will not spend any of its money. Reducing taxes in a crap economy just takes the lost revenue out of the system. It will not create jobs. Businesses only hire people when there is a sense that the economy is improving. And the American Jobs Act doesn't say anything about raising taxes on business (unless you include the closing of a few loopholes that have allowed some business to avoid and evade taxes), so that part of your comment has a straw man component. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

So you think businesses are going to respond to a tax hike by bending over and grabbing their ankles? Before we can really debate this we need to get on the same page with terms. What do you think the economy is? TodKarlson (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about, although I note you have an unhealthy obsession with bending over (that's twice you mentioned the grabbing of ankles). The AJA does not raise taxes on businesses, so why are you asking me a question based on that premise? -- Scjessey (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

LOL! For now let's set aside whether the President's "AJA" is going to raise taxes, and see if we can establish a dialog starting with acheiving a consensus about what the economy is, how it works and the role the government has in regard to it. TodKarlson (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's not. We are stepping way out of the box in terms of what an article talk page should be used for. Please confine comments to how to improve this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right; this isn't the place to bring you over from the dark side of socialism. ;) So, going back to the point of this section.

I don't think pointing out the truth behind a bill isn't a NPOV. If it is, then a NPOV is impossible. For example, if someone says, "2 2=5", then to say, "No, 2 2=4", is in conflict with the original statement, but it is the correct answer. Math is by it's nature neutral, there's an easily definable "right" answer, however I think anything political is going to be very difficult to establish a truly neutral POV. TodKarlson (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

"Truth behind a bill" implies original research and a POV. So yes, it's inherently not NPOV. If you have come in with the agenda of promoting one view of this bill, then that's exactly what NPOV is meant to deter. Math is not neutral when you're talking about cherry-picked figures representing one political viewpoint or another. As the old adage goes, figure lie, and liars figure (not applying to you, just saying in general..). The best way to establish NPOV is to stick to who what when where how from reliable sources, and go easy on or avoid any post-analysis. Any time we start talking about what it "really means" or implying motive, or speculating about outcomes, we have crossed the line of wiki policy, and are most likely pushing a POV. You don't like the bill. We get it. But this isn't a forum, it's an encyclopedia. Selectively applying your set of figures is not "pointing out the truth" in any sort of universal manner.204.65.34.246 (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Math isn't neutral? I'm not talking about statistics. 2 2=4, no matter what your politics are, or at least it should. I said it wouldn't pass even in the Democrat-controlled Senate, and it didn't. It hasn't even been introduced in the House. Regardless, I give up, for now. I know that I will be proven right, because eventually the truth will come out. I'm curious how this article will evolve when that happens. TodKarlson (talk) 09:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

This whole "math" obsession you have is irrelevant. Original research is still original research, and it's even more of a problem when it is non-neutral. "Nothing more than a political prop" and "not even the Democrats" (my emphasis) is both original research and non-neutral. As far as the truth is concerned, I suggest you read and inwardly digest WP:TRUTH. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

BRD

I've made a WP:BRD edit to this article, taking it back to the last sensible version that had any support from editors. I propose that per WP:BRD, any changes are discussed here first. Please consider neutrality and weight in any proposed text. Changes proposed by Joshua give far too much weight to Republican opposition to the proposed legislation, and suffer from poor-quality writing and sourcing. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You got to be kidding... Opposition to the Republican Party? I am a Republican, you twit, I'm just telling it how it is in a balanced fashion. Poor quality writing? You're obviously a high school student. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua the Independent (talk • contribs) 19:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I must ask you to cease these personal attacks and edit warring immediately. You have not read my comment properly. I said that you have given too much weight to Republican opposition to the proposed legislation. The article must (obviously) be substantially about the American Jobs Act, not Republican opposition to it (see WP:WEIGHT). By including so much about Republicans, you are creating an imbalance in favor of the Republican point of view. Please self-revert your edits so that we can work constructively on improving the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Fox news as a source?

I am an ip-editor and have made a few productive edits, but if this is a WP:Battleground then it might just scare me off, so on other pages Fox is allowed as a source, but other articles it is not (often with nit-picking to admin essays or reference of WP:IAR). If the bill has its own page, I plan to throw in some republican neutrality (and I assure you not all Republicans are like Joshua, most are cool-tempered like me) however, if the article is merged into the Obama Sept 2011 speech to congress, then I'll wait until after the merge before I make up my mind. Can I get a definitive answer from someone who will/might revert the article if I use Fox news as a source? 67.77.174.6 (talk) 01:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The best answer is "it depends". Usually speaking, actual, real "news programs" on Fox have been ruled reliable at WP:RSN multiple times (despite the very vocal objections of many). A statement of fact from an opinion program from fox (like Hannity & Colmes) would not be acceptable, because they don't claim to be a news show presenting objective facts. The difficulty comes from those progams that combine news and opinion. So, basically, we have to look at the individual source, and, where there is disagreement, take the issue to the reliable sources noticeboard. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Qwyrxian, what about this page which I specifically had in mind? Is it fine for me to add things from that article and source it to Fox news accordingly? I specifically want to include how Obama is tying in the deficit committee into his jobs act, which only Fox news has the boldness/audacity to be critical about (more specifically, how it implies Obama is "spending" the 1.5 trillion which the committee is required to cut, by saying that this jobs act will be "paid for" because it will be deficit neutral--which I won't put in the article, I'm just declaring my bias as a republican, so I made the font small) so I'll tread safely and make a couple small edits tomorrow and see where we stand. Thanks in advance and I'll do my first new edits tomorrow. 67.77.174.6 (talk) 04:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with using that reference; however, we must make sure the article is properly weighted. This article is about a specific piece of legislation proposed by the President, and so most of the body of text should cover that. Of course it is okay to have a section detailing how the Republican party perceives this proposed legislation, but we should have a section of equal weight detailing the Democratic party reception of the proposed legislation as well. Consider these two approaches:

1. Bill
   • Address to Congress
   • Taking the bill on the road (or something)
   • Praise for the bill
   • Criticism of the bill
   • References
2. Bill
   • Address to Congress
   • Taking the bill on the road (or something)
   • Reception
     • By Republicans
     • By Democrats
     • By the media
   • References

I would prefer to go with the second approach for this article, and I think that approach fits in nicely with any weight or neutrality concerns. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

In rsp to 67..., yes, that appears to meet our reliable sources guideline. Of course, as Scjessey points out, criticism also falls under WP:UNDUE, so you'll need to work this out as a group to decide how much of that would be appropriate to include. My guess is, some, but not too much. Be sure that whatever you add, you distinguish between facts and the opinions of specific Republican politicians or commentators. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Surely an article on the bill should also say what the bill does! Now that we have some legislative text to work with, we can get working on that. hare j 21:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I was going to put a summary of the bill into the "proposed legislation" section, but I've had little available time to work on it and I wanted to find a couple of secondary sources to work with instead of just parroting the points on the fact sheet. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Budget Control Act

I've reverted an addition to the article that talked about the economic impact of the Budget Control Act of 2011, since it is a piece of independent legislation that has nothing to do with the American Jobs Act. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

How is it neutral to give a single (negative) detail on the house version?

(Transferred from Scjessey's talk page)

You give 15 bulletpoints on the obama version, but you may republicans look like idiots who all they think works is cutting corporate taxes to 0%? You don't [[WP:OWN } own]] the article, nor is your judgment neutral. It wreaks highly of WP:Synth by making it sound like republicans only provided a token plan, because you only include selective inclusion. You point it out in such a way that looks very POV to any credulous reader. How do you think it's neutral to portray facts in such a way to subtly elicit a POV? 67.77.174.6 (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I did not write the 15 point section. And which part of the section on Gohmert's bill is "negative" exactly? His bill does nothing except cut the corporate tax rate to zero. That's it. And that's all it says. So what's the problem? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that is like saying "the football player moves the ball to the goal line" or saying "the player reduces the yards to go for a touchdown from 30 to zero" and I'll find another example tomorrow, but I have to get ready for work. 67.77.174.6 (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Nobody has anything positive to say about Gohmert's bill, so I thought it would be better to simply say nothing to keep it neutral. 99.9% of mainstream media coverage describes it as a "prank". -- Scjessey (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

To 67.77.174.6: This article is about Obama's bill, the American Jobs Act. That's why there is so much about the American Jobs Act and only brief mentions of other similar bills. Gohmert's bill is adequately covered here. —Diiscool (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Is a "making the case" section just part of POV'ing the article?

I have this source but I want permission (concensus) or alternatively, discussion, about reworking the article, and moving the "making the case" stuff to the lead-in, where it describes the backstory, outlay, and segues to Section 2: the presdident's address. To have section four "legislative history" followed by section five "making the case" seems like we're pushing wp:synth to sorta promote the bill, or make it look like there's no reason not to pass it. Imagine if I said directions on how to make a bologne sandwich, then the next section was saying nobody is bothering to fold the top piece of bread to finish completing the sandwich--it sorta "begs the question" why not, when there has been made a half-concerted attempt underway? Wikipedia is not suppose to present failed acts of legislation in such a way as to put blame on those who are holding up the bill's passage. Why can't it have a "no big deal" pov, rather than assuming "if the bill isn't passed, then something must be wrong? I'll wait 4-5 days for discussion/consensus, since I don't want to encourage people to spend time on Wikipedia on the weekends. (from the recent wikipedia signpost) and here is a similar article which explains my point even better. Thanks in advance for any feedback to anyone who provides insights on the matter. 67.77.174.6 (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me try to answer your questions as best I can:

1. "Making the case" is just a section which describes Obama's efforts to "pitch" his proposed legislation. There's nothing "POV" about it, and it's perfectly okay where it is.
2. If you want to put something in about the procedural stumbling blocks (whether Republican or Democrat), obviously it belongs in the "Legislative history" section.
3. If you want to put something in about Democrats "balking" at the bill (as the source implies), create a section called "Reception by Democrats" after the similar one about Republicans and put it in there.

I can see no need to rework the article based on what you said and what you wish to add, although waving a source around without proposing any specific text makes it difficult for me tell exactly what you wish to add, which is why I gave you a 3-part answer. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Scjessey, #3 answered my question. I'll do it right after I finish eating, and tell me what you think in about 20 minutes. 67.77.174.6 (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I put a placeholder template, since I wanted to address a style/appearance issue. Do you now agree that the "Alternative Bill from Republicans" should go from a subsection (triple equals signs) to just a sentence added to the last paragraph to the one above it? I'll get back to expanding later, going to take a short cat nap. 67.77.174.6 (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think it belongs in "legislative history" since it refers specifically to proposed legislation. I've moved it there and restored the original title I had for the section. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I like your two changes, Scjessey! Looks great, 67.77.174.6 (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer to see the "Legislative history" and "Making the case" sections merged. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 19:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I really don't see how those two sections are related. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That would be even more pov, if you incorporate a pov section (making the case) with a neutral section (legislative history) which is why, if anything, the "making the case" section should be merged with the "lead in" not the neutral section! But after I expand the democratic reception section, the article should look "more complete" finally--we've done a lot of great work the last two days, but I think Scjessey has good stylistic sense, and he's right--the two sections are not related, unless you want to write an ostentatious article, which scjessey nor me want to write/own. 67.77.174.6 (talk) 07:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's put it this way: you're currently trying to divide up the history of the Act into two chronologically concurrent narratives. Fundamentally, I think that that's very difficult to do well without duplication. I think what I'm proposing may be clearer if I draft the merged paragraphs here (I have omitted references for brevity):

Extended content

History (or similar) President Obama began his campaign to get the bill passed on September 8, in Speaker Boehner's home state of Ohio, when gave a speech described as "fiery" in a Columbus high school that led to the audience chanting: "Pass this bill!". Obama then appeared before constituents of Eric Cantor's congressional district to press the Congress to pass his bill immediately. On September 12, he gave a speech in the White House Rose Garden in front of a group of teachers, police officers, construction workers and small-business owners in which he stated that "if Congress does not act, just about every family in America will pay more taxes next year. That would be a self-inflicted wound that our economy just cannot afford right now." He followed this up with a speech two days later at North Carolina State University, when he told college students "Every single one of you can help make this bill a reality. … The time for hand-wringing is over. The time for moping around is over. We've got to kick off our bedroom slippers and put on our marching shoes." At a black-tie dinner for the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, Obama pitched his jobs plan to Latinos. "The real problem isn't the members of Congress in this room," he said to an audience which included several congressional Democrats. "It's the members of Congress who put party before country because they believe the only way to resolve our differences is to wait 14 months till the next election." In anticipation of criticism that the legislation was motivated by the upcoming election, the President noted that the election is fourteen months away and that Americans did not have the luxury of waiting fourteen months for jobs to be created. Nonetheless, Obama's effort were insufficient to get Republicans to hurry the passag eof the bill, which was stalled in the Senate by Majority leader Harry Reid on September 27, who said "I don’t think there’s anything more important for a jobs measure than China trade, and that’s what we’re going to work on next week," with emphasis on taking up more tenuous legislation which is less likely to draw political attention. Indeed, on September 14, Republican Louie Gohmert introduced his own "American Jobs Act of 2011" into the House as H.R. 2911. The bill would repeal the corporate income tax. As a result of the lack of a consensus between parties, the bill has yet to be introduced or sponsored in the House of Representatives. Nontheless, on September 12, 2011 The Speaker pro tempore laid before the House a message from the President transmitting the legislative proposal, referred to committee and ordered it to be printed (H. Doc. 112-53).

In response to your point 67.*, I would say that having any section where one feels POV is acceptable does not work out well. At least a combined history section does not have the same "one side of the story" that a "making the case" section does (the opposing quotes being in the legislative history section at the moment). - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 20:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if my point is misunderstood--all I'm trying to say is that Obama only says positive stuff about his bill. I try not to spend too much time on the internet on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays so I'm going to lay off the article page (I may occasionally check the talk page, but not too much) as you get a different bunch of editors (mostly trolls, vandals, and haters--from my limited experience) so I'll visit the outdoors, breathe some fresh air, and get back to work Monday. I'll adress the rest of your points later, but most certainly I don't feel like POV is acceptable. Having a pov in an article imparts antipathy of neutrality, and goes against Wikipedia. I want to make this article less POV as possible, while making sure not to mislead the reader. There's still a lot of work to do, but I tend to see it the way Scessjay sees it (although I detested it at first) but if you look at his edits to other articles--the guy has talent and he's a pleasure to work with. The article is still unfolding and receives several edits per day, and is growing. I still plan to incorporate this link which came out today from Dick Durbin as well as taking a look at your proposals, which are worth a second glance admittedly. Now that I read what you're saying more, you might be onto something. Go ahead and show some more stuff, and let me see what ideas you got for how to divide up the information among sections other than how it is now? I don't see how you can execute your ideas without it creating the pov which a reader will get if he can not separate the pov and remove it from the "legislative history" which is like my bologne sandwich example. The "history" of something is factual, objective, and innately neutral. The "discussion of the bill" (i.e. the lead-in, and other sections) will be political, and it's great to give our readers this clarity, rather than make it like every other "camel article" (aka a horse designed by committee) of most of the junky, cluttered articles. Just look at how impressive our article's readability, simplicity, and brevity is:

1. The lead in is short, simple, and sweet!
2. The bill is well explained, well sourced, and covered in the "elements of the bill section"
3. The "background section" (which I did no work at all) is also brilliant because it is "optional" in reading, to a reader who wants a more narrow understanding.
4. The "president's address to congress" is beautifully well summarized
5. The "Making the case (pov) section" is Obama's own catchy rhetoric which is crucial in his speaking tour to sell the bill to the american laypeople.
6. Then there is the respective followups to Obama, namely the r'pubs and the dems.

I think the article really impressive, and all sections have good "weighting" and respective lengthiness. I'm still very curious how you envisage the execution of your ideas without amalgamating all the stuff which we want to keep "clean & organized" which your proposed 'history section' oversteps, and takes away from the delineation of the "making the case" section and the "history" section. 67.77.174.6 (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of what you had to say (and I'm certainly not going to criticise anyone efforts on the article so far). My central point is that separating the sections means arbitrarily unpicking two very related ideas: the information on the introduction of the bill to Congress (and the difficulties of its legislative history) with Obama's campaign for a speedy passage. Unless you have them in the same section, it's a recipe for disaster, because you end up with legislative dates without context, and a POV-ish campaign section that ends up duplicating elements of the legislative history for its context too. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 12:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Work to do over the weekend

Well I just got back from a relaxing weekend and I see there's a lot of work to do this week. Here are the cliffnotes:

1. I am not the same guy as user Woade--I am an orlando ip address, Woade is not
2. The Dick Durbin article from the new york times which I mentioned on Friday

I don't like to work on the weekends, but I'll be doing a lot of work this week (all 5 days) and I challenge us to bring this article up to "good article" status, which for all intents and purposes, just means that is has to be "better than the best" but not quite "featured article status" and one of the inclusion criteria is it needs an image. Before I merged the article of Obama's speech about this bill, I found a "locked in version" here which picture do you guys like better? I like the top one better but I dunno if I'm allowed to crop some of the side space. What do you say scjessey? (somebody chime in to this question, if he doesn't call it, otherwise i'm flipping a coin on Wednesday)

Next issue is that I feel slighted because somebody (a republican pov pusher) worsened my edits to the article, then scjessey removed not only that guys edits, but my original edits. It was like a one-two punch, and Woade set up scjessey for an alley-oop either knowingly or unknowingly but WP:AGF makes it a moot point, and water under the bridge. Basically the phrase "did not create as many jobs at the Obama Administration had hoped for" is neutral, but a republican pov pusher changed my original wording into something else, which made scjessey feel slighted, and we lost that neutral talent which I commended so highly of last week.

Finally, I'm going to ask some questions on Yahoo answers about legislative process--because we need to know what options are available for the outcome of this bill? Surely there are ways to bring it to an up/down vote right? I doubt this page gets as many readers as yahoo answers, so I'll ask there (but it doesn't hurt to ask here too). If we get this all done before Thursday and get it up to featured article status, I'll put in a request for Wikipedia spoken articles and ask if one of those guys over there can take care of it for me this weekend. I'm usually pretty good at soliciting help over there from time to time. 완젬스 (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Well that's a fine old mess you've made without seeking any sort of consensus. It needs quite a bit of sorting out, which I will try to do section by section. Would it have killed you to propose these wholesale changes here first? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, you can't just throw the baby out with the bath water 완젬스 (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't. I took the good stuff from what you wrote and moved it into the appropriate sections, and I deleted everything that was either (a) synthesis or (b) unrelated. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Fox News as a Source? (part II)

I'll try to "use but not abuse" Fox news as a source, because I had to skirt what I thought was highly substantive content relevant to the American Jobs Act, since I only used non-Fox sources (which we nicely went from 25 sources to 50 sources, btw) and sites like the NY Times tend to skirt things like how the Jobs Bill is one way Obama can "have his cake and eat it too" because if it doesn't pass, he can blame joblessness in 2012 on Republicans stalling his bill "which would have brought employment to X%" which is why there are 73 search results for me to peruse here but I dare not get my hopes up yet--so here is what I figure... There is a "story" "opinion" "blog" or "video" in the byline underneath each title, so I am wondering who opposes letting Fox news be used as a source, on interim basis, for "story-designated" sources? For example, there is an incredible resource available right here that responds to Obama's call for Republicans to show which provisions of the jobs bill they are willing to pass/reject. Tomorrow, I'll add a video which I shared on Jarry's talk page, beneath this paragraph because the current status of this negotiation/compromise between Obama/dems/reps is that Obama is asking earnestly republicans what they will work with him on, and the republicans will stand by their word on the Eric Cantor memo on the president's job's proposal. The day after tomorrow, I'll write the article on the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act of 2011 and provide the same diligent efforts I've shown today. I really want to include (with fox as a source) that Obama asked reps what they are willing to pass, and that the "endgame strategy" as a result of the Jobs bill will result in a compromise between republicans & Obama. 완젬스 (talk) 07:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

What you need to do is slow down a bit and let everyone else catch up. My concern here is that you have developed your own narrative, and now you are seeking sources to back it up. You've written long paragraphs and then thrown in a bunch of sources at the end, which adds a flavor of synthesis. Normally, each sentence you write will need one or more references immediately afterward. What you have added will need to be rewritten, but being Wikipedia it should be done collaboratively. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with Scjessey's WP:SYN analysis of the latest flurry of edits. Also, the bill is dead so I wouldn't bother with asking anyone on Yahoo about the legislative process (which you shouldn't need to do to work on this article anyway). —Diiscool (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've written of that yesterday, quoting Eric Cantor! 완젬스 (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to tidy it up a bit, and I've cut out the synthesis stuff. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

RE: "What you need to do is slow down a bit and let everyone else catch up. My concern here is that you have developed your own narrative, and now you are seeking sources to back it up. You've written long paragraphs and then thrown in a bunch of sources at the end, which adds a flavor of WP:SYN|synthesis. Normally, each sentence you write will need one or more references immediately afterward. What you have added will need to be rewritten, but being Wikipedia it should be done collaboratively." (place-holder, i'll reply to this in a few hours and erase everything which i've written fastly) but going to quickly point out my "process" briefly since you might be going to sleep soon, but what I do each day when i wake up is search "american jobs act" on google news, then only filter for "recent 24 hours" and since i do this every day, i never miss a thing. I usually read about 50 articles per day (after I wake up and instantly check Newser on my phone that is!) Any notion that I put the cart before the horse is a horrible thing to accuse me of... I don't synthesize, and hopefully this process I've shown you clears me of any further bad faith accusations. 완젬스 (talk)

Don't do that, because you end up falling foul of WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Please read these links to understand what the problem is with your approach. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, for some reason, it gave me a sense of relief that you at least acknowledged my process. I have read those two articles, and I was torn between making a new section "delays section" or just writing it under "legislative history" but there were unmanageable balancing issues. Unless the delays itself are independently notable (not enough for a standalone article, but enough for a section) then that's what I used to make my determination, which I tend to agree is behind the origination of this strategic jobs bill in the first place. 완젬스 (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Without intending to question good faith, I still think this and other instances do at least give the appearance of Synth....and sometimes feel like was mentioned, a pre-determined narrative cherry-picking information to back it up. I think we need to avoid even the appearance of impropriety/POV. If any of us has a pre-determined world view that needs to shape new information, rather than be shaped by it, I'd suggest we question whether we're fit to be editing political articles.204.65.34.246 (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

How to handle the article differences

I propose taking things slow (I don't work on weekends) and I'd like to address three points. The first point I'd like to address is this issue: # In August, Obama stated that he would run “against a Congress that’s not doing anything for the American people,” if lawmakers failed to pass his jobs bill, (from my work yesterday) and I included my source to back this up. Secondly, I have done a great job avoiding all Fox information on the article, and I've written the 2 sections exclusively using "beating around the bush" sources like NY times. If left-leaning newspapers are criticizing the jobs bill, and if I don't have to use fox, then that's how I wish to show the rest of you guys how I'm not using Fox except to reinforce/strengthen what the other media sources are already grudgingly reporting. Fox obviously says stuff a lot more critically, than reluctantly, but I've done all my work without any Fox news sources. Thirdly, I feel like nobody else is as passionate about this article as me. I feel like everyone is dragging their feet because this article does not reflect well on Obama, and I've done a very intentional job trying to be sensitive--but now I'm stomping my feet and saying to start being bolder and more engaging on the talk page. I have a temporary problem with user scjessey, but that I'm committed to working with him and improving our relations. The rest of you are all too silent, and I'm saying to start doing more work on the article, more edits to the talk page, more ideas & more passion when you're here on Wikipedia. This is not a boring place--it's a fun project that should get your blood flowing. This article is where the top 10% creme of the crop take from a variety of sources and induce an encyclopedic product for the rest of society to derive fair, objective information. This is the real deal, not just a computer interaction which takes place in a vacuous void--this is a contribution to an article which will hit millions of readers eventually. I just wish we don't have to have this stalemate when I really looked forward to getting a lot more done this week, but now I have to spend so much extra time making sure my efforts on the article page are safe through wasting long, sensitive posts on the talk pages, when I'm the type of guy who likes to get work done, not be stuck in meetings all day. I want to go outside, cut the red tape, and start working, without fear that I'll have to spend equal amount of time defending my edits, playing the wiki-etiquette social rituals that are customary for old-timers who have hijacked Wikipedia into something you serve into something that serves you. I don't like "quid quo pro" editors who think the website or the community owes them something due to their "status" and "prestige" and I hate that when I try to just work, work, work on an article. I'd almost say let's toss all our usernames into a hat, shuffle, sign-in on each others accounts, and work anonymously on the article rather than having people's skin in the game. I've edited other wikipedia articles in the past, and this type of red tape has got to be resolved so that this passionate editor can work on this article, the Yuan-currency article, and let me show you how much hard work I can do, all for free, because I want to work to make Wikipedia stronger, more readable & beneficial to its readers, and to be high quality work which means we all gotta have this same type of productive spirit. That's all I want. 완젬스 (talk) 03:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You have a narrative in your head, and you are trying to bend this article to fit that narrative. This article is supposed to be about the proposed legislation "American Jobs Act", and nothing else (such as legislation going on in the meantime). You also have a problem with synthesis, insofar as you write a paragraph that supports your narrative and then add a bunch of sources to the end of it that help to knit your narrative together. You need to break things up and source each separate statement in order to prevent synthesis from occurring.

You have accused me of ownership and edit warring (neither of which are even remotely warranted), while at the same time proclaiming your intention to eschew Wikipedia etiquette. You've complained about how "old-timers" have "hijacked" Wikipedia. That simply isn't an appropriate way to behave if you want to work with others constructively. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I detest WP:EQ because it is used & abused to block people's passions more than it protects the interests of those who want to mold, design, and shape Wikipedia to serve them. The same thing which draws everybody to editing Wikipedia is because they know how much good can be achieved through a few good faith edits to a weak article. I envision a wikipedia where there are 10,000 FA's, and 100,000 GA's. Maybe I'm too ambitious, but maybe it's just my passion. The point is, I detest coming across editors who have "paid their dues" a long time ago, and have since become more interested in making Wikipedia a more cozy encyclopedia, rather than a stronger encyclopedia. I have seen long-editors quit (and I'm glad they're gone, and I've even made some bad ones retire) but when they go, they leave with a rant about how bad Wikipedia has become, blah, blah, blah, blah, and they all leave a future warning about how much worse WIkipedia will become if blah, blah, blah, blah and I peg you as one of the "establishment Wikipedians" who I absolutely cannot stand that are still around. Where is your passion? Where is your child-like curiosity which made you a beginner at Wikipedia? You don't have it anymore--just look at your 2005/2006 edits to battlestar galactica, nascar stuff, dreamhost, Dale Earnhardt Jr, etc... That's why I love living in Orlando where I can borrow wireless from like 20 different public sources, and I can edit anonymously, and stay a beginner forever. I'll never make Wikipedia about [[WP:WIN]ning or making it about me. I like editing anonymously and just getting work done, but I'm always treated second-rate because I'm "new" whereas you wouldn't talk down to someone with a higher edit count, and use pre-judgment labels like "deleting worthless guy's sections of the article, because they are WP:Synth" and I will not stand for that. I have that "beginner's passion" like in the Josh Waitzkin video, and you can't out-last me because you're an old-timer who does more complaining than working. I want only one thing--to improve Wikipedia, and I never started this edit war--when you label my contributions as "synth" and then delete them, how do you imagine a passionate zealot will react? I'm not in the wrong--I've given you time--I have not clicked the "edit the article" button for 2 days, yet you still have not responded to my 1st bulletpoint, the one preceded with an emboldened hash tag. Then you accuse me of having narrative? Have you read WP:HORSE and did you not read my explanation? I even watched the white house press conference a couple hours ago. I do not have a narrative, and I didn't plan to add two more sections, but that's what the sources say was notable, relevant, and at issue with the failure to pass the jobs bill--are you familiar with how complicated that politics are? Because if you think government is simple, then you are the one who has narrative. The Yuan bill is just a way to turn away from unpopular legislation while Obama wraps up his speaking tour drumming up support for the American jobs act. If he can make it "popular" rather than unpopular, then all the dems will be happy to support it. You simply ignore my 3 bullet points, talk about Wiki-etiqutte and scold me to fall in line, bow down to the establishment elite, but you can't win because I know myself, I know I don't synthesize (and mind you, i have read EVERY wikipedia policy, and nearly every essay, even WP:SLEEP which I think is humorous) so you can't talk down to me, or ignore my 3 issues on the article which I'm trying to collaborate on. I will not let you own Wikipedia because passionate newbies are way more beneficial to Wikipedia than do-nothing, good-for-nothing etiquette police who think that Wikipedia serves them, rather than them serving Wikipedia. I look forward to hearing what you say about the Obama comment which I'm glad to find which of my citations (which you deleted) reported him saying that "that he would run “against a Congress that’s not doing anything for the American people,” if lawmakers failed to pass his jobs bill because the truth, no matter how inconvenient, will always inspire passionate people to defend it. That's what Wikipedia is--a place for workers to work--not a place for owners to boss everyone around and police/shape the interactions of hard-working people who are sick of the red tape. You have mislabeled my process by writing that I write whatever I want, then stick on a bunch of sources at the end, even though I gave a thorough explanation yesterday about how I google "american jobs act" and filter out the [news] tab for results only within the last 24 hours. You cannot own the article, and I've been extraordinarily generous by taking a 1-week cool-down on the "edit button" of this article, which I will start once again on Monday October 10th, if you are going to continue to put all my thoughts, contributions, motives, and presence here through a simple cookie cutter which instantly classifies me as "synth" or "narrative" or "nonsense" because you've mislabeled me today, yesterday, and I don't conform to your labels. I reject your classifications of my work as synth/narrative, and I do not like spending 100% of my efforts on Wikipedia trying to defend my edits on talk pages just because it upsets people who want to protect their pov in an article, and delete inconvenient realities like when Obama said "that he would run “against a Congress that’s not doing anything for the American people,” if lawmakers failed to pass his jobs bill so sorry if I don't fit any particular label. I'm a hard working Wikipedian who has done the merging work of two articles into this one, and I read 50 articles per day about the "American Jobs Act" so find yourself a better way to mislabel me, or sweep my quotation about Obama under the rug, dismiss it as irrelevant or not related to the jobs bill, but you know I've dealt with that type of treatment before from haughty editors, and I've won, and so too Wikipedia has won. 완젬스 (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you expect people to read this wall of text? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, I just read the wall of text and it has very little to do with the American Jobs Act article. 완젬스, do you realize that article talk pages are for discussion of the article at hand? They are not a soapbox for you to rant about how you perceive you are being treated by other editors in general on Wikipedia. This kind of diatribe is obstructionist and counterproductive. —Diiscool (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

No I don't expect everyone to read it, but I expect at least Scjessey to read it. I made 3 points, which I wish get feedback before I resume editing Monday. I've done a courtesy to scjessey by giving him one week of cooldown-blocking myself from editing the article, and I deserve a response from him to the larger poins, plus I hope my 3 primary points are not lost in the wall of text. 완젬스 (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I've read it, and I concur with what Diiscool said. You're meandering off into stuff which has little to do with this proposed legislation. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

1. "that Obama said he would run “against a Congress that’s not doing anything for the American people,” if lawmakers failed to pass his jobs bill Can we start with that? I do not like getting a productive work week derailed, and I promise that I'm here for the long haul. This week will be the only week I don't do a great job building the articles I work on. I'm determined, and when I know I won't give up, it makes it easier on me to persevere, because I'm no quitter. The wall of text is better than being a quitter and WP:DGAS because I only want to strengthen WIkipedia, and I know that requires collaborative editing, and contstructive team-building, which is why I mainly came to think of what to tell Scjessey on his talk page, but wanted to breifly address the wall of text issue here. Please give me a chance, guys. I'm a wonderful worker, and I love Wikipedia. You'll see that in me once we work out our cohesiveness issues, which can be accomplished in the next few days. 완젬스 (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

If you "love Wikipedia", perhaps you should consider editing on a broader scale (with some less controversial stuff, for example), instead of just this particular article. Right now, your behavior looks awfully like that of an SPA. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll get back to this article on Monday. I'd still like you to reply to the Obama comment (which he repeated in a press conference Wednesday "If Congress does something, then I can't run against a do-nothing Congress," Obama said at a White House news conference.") and I'll move onto the Yuan article after this article. I have asperger's syndrome so I'm only able to focus on one article at a time, and I obsessively read everything there is to know about it. If I seem like a single-purpose account, just look to user Steve Baker's article of the mini-moke. From June 2006 to Feb 2007 he eat, slept, and breathed around one article. Then it became a featured article, and he instantly quit, like how bobby fischer disappeared after becoming world chess champion. I am not a spa, I just have asperger's, and these article are just blocks. Plus I'm Korean, so I'm very passionate about hard work and computers. 완젬스 (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

You having Asperger's or being Korean is of no concern to me. All Wikipedians are expected to follow policies and guidelines in just the same way. You haven't asked me a question about the Obama comment for me to offer a reply to, just a statement. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Fine, if you're going to twist my arm, then Whale Wars is an article I have done a lot of work on from an orlando ip address. If you don't want to say anything about the obama comment until Monday, then so be it. You deleted my Obama comment from the article and didn't explain it then, so I'm asking you to explain why you prefer it be kept out of the article? I didn't want to mention being Korean/Asperger's until you called me a SPA, so go check Whale Wars edit history and you'll find I have done massive work to that page. I can name more articles, but I like to stay mostly anonymous. I'll be retiring this screen name after my work here on this article is done. So please tell me why you deleted my comment which belonged in the article? 완젬스 (talk) 01:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not interested in checking your edit history. I personally dislike your approach to editing from different usernames or IPs, although you are within your rights to do so. I've already explained that the paragraph with the Obama comment in it was removed because it was synthesis. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You still refer to the whole paragraph, but you're throwing the baby out with the bath water. I'm asking you about the obama comment itself, which you are not addressing. Are you against the Obama comment (which you deleted, along with the bath water) straight up, yes or no? We can talk all day about paragraphs & politics, but please answer my lone bulletpoint which I've been asking 4 times now. The obama comment, please respond seriously so I can reply to your response underneath. 완젬스 (talk) 08:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

1. In August, Obama stated that he would run “against a Congress that’s not doing anything for the American people,” if lawmakers failed to pass his jobs bill 완젬스 (talk) 08:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not opposed to having these two independent statements by Obama, but how they are included needs to make sense. They certainly belong in the "Making the case" section. I suggest that you propose some text below and then we can work on it together. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Scjessey. I will propose them here on the talk page on Monday, and we can go from there? Have a great weekend (and I took your advice about broadening my edits to other articles) just to show my good faith, and I've read those 2 requested links you pointed me to earlier. I hope this can be the start of me unleashing my passion! 완젬스 (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I've spotted a problem with this. Obama's "against a Congress that’s not doing anything for the American people" comment came well before this legislation was proposed; therefore, it does not seem appropriate to include it in this article. However, the If Congress does something, then I can’t run against a “do nothing” Congress comment comes well after the legislation was proposed, so that would be fine. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant! This is my whole obsession/passion about the American jobs act! The whole motivation for the American Jobs Act *possibly* precedes the actual legislation! Do know you what this says, Scjessey? I'm glad our dialogue has shown you a bit of what I'm saying. I'll never convince you to adopt my political views, nor will you ever convince me to adopt your political views, so that's not what I'm here to try and do. I am passionate about only one thing, and it is Wikipedia. I envision a Wikipedia which users with different "narratives" can put their narratives aside, and work collaboratively and effectively to build an article which is neutral & free of "POV-loaded" pre-unfiltered layers of pov, pov, pov. Here is the video I left on Jarry1250's talk page[1] on October first. I hope you can read between the lines that this suggests the "jobs bill" was pre-planned to do a certain thing, and that there is so much evidence to support the conclusions I have drawn from reading hundreds of articles this month about the jobs bill (privately of course, I won't ever use an article page to share speculation). Sorry for ranting, I just want to acknowledge your comment, and I'm so thrilled you're learning something new from this. My next post (before lunchtime) will be an actual proposal for how to incorporate Obama's Post hoc ergo propter hoc comment, rather than his comment which predated the legislation. 완젬스 (talk) 11:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to suggest that the article should state that the "American Jobs Act" was conceived to help Obama win the election, rather than to create jobs? -- Scjessey (talk) 12:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The cynic in me? Or the republican in me? Just kidding, Obama must create jobs in order to win the re-election--no if's, and's, or but's. He has got to do anything/everything to lower unemployment, however Republicans want to do it through tax cuts and deregulation only, rather than Keynesian economic philosophy that government has to shore up the displaced production (thus "force" economic activity via public spending) which I actually agree is a great idea, since the government can borrow money for less than 2% right now. If the government can borrow at lower than 2% and invest in the economy higher than 2% return, then yes the jobs bill not only would create jobs, but it would also increase prosperity to the country. If I could move onto other articles, I'd happily explain to my fellow republicans this finer point of macroeconomics! 완젬스 (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

To the OP, without intending offense, and meant in the most sincere way possible, I think some self-reflection is in order. Your POV is clear and being pushed forcefully. I understand your "passion" about the issue, but this, and other articles, are best written from a dispassionate, objective mindset. I'd have to agree with some of the other posters...you seem to be focused on making the facts fit your narrative. This is not conducive to encyclopedic content. If you feel as strongly as you do about the issue, I ask that you consider whether this hampers your ability to objectively edit this article. There are articles I feel VERY strongly about, but do not edit in any substantive manner, because I know that, even unintentionally, our strong biases show through in our edits when it's something we're upset/impassioned about. I'd recommend you consider whether that is the case here. In any case, your comments and this thread is straying into personal discussion and discussion of the topic in general, rather than specific changes to the article. Please refrain from using this as your soapbox.204.65.34.156 (talk) 13:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Highly agreed, and you make good points. I agree with all of them, and I did go astray. Sorry for that, and if you catch me doing that again, WP:WHACK! me on my user page. Thanks for the guidance which I will try better implemnt from now on. 완젬스 (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Reception

Shouldn't the 'Reception' include the largely positive reactions of key economists? Also, the section is currently almost entirely negative- it seems somewhat questionable to mention only Democrats who criticised the bill considering 51 of them voted for it in the Senate out of 53. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.162.180 (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed on both points. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

2 items of work on the "making the case" section

1. The discussion immediately above (regarding how to incorporate Obama's presidential re-election statements regarding the jobs bill) and how we do it.
2. Resolved
   The paragraph needed a sentence at the beginning, something benign & innocuous like "President Obama took his case to the American public and toured 00 universities and 00 public speaking events across various states." then it rolls into the next sentence "He has appeared before constituents of Eric Cantor's congressional district to press the Congress to pass his bill immediately."

Extended content
moved down below, this box is just a placeholder

Re item #1 I propose we tack it onto the very end of the paragraph with a sentence like "Some of the criticism refers to Obama's own remarks, including past statements that he will (blank blank blank)" (I won't complete the sentence, but just letting you overlook my generalized proposal.) We could even take off the final sentence that is there now, and I could incorporate via some other measure. I'm a very good writer, and don't want to over-invest before I get more feedback at this point. As an aside, I plan to do some work Tuesday to help explain the backstory to the "Related bill" section, because it fails to tell the reader the funny story (i.e. that a witty republican thought he could steal the "antecedent" referred to by Obama's "pronoun" because Obama was saying to pass a bill which had not yet been trademarked, so that witty republican guy trademarked the patent before Obama's people could register the name). That will require a better source than just newser and the daily caller. That will be Tuesday's work, so I just wanted to tip my hat off on what's next. On Wednesday/Thursday I'd like to create the Yuan article, then by Friday we can incorporate this week's major updates to this article, which changes week to week (remember i read 50 per day on google news) because one source so far has even said that Reid "tabled" the Yuan bill for another week! Talk about more delays! Can you believe it, ScJessey? 완젬스 (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Er... I'm not happy with the direction you are taking there. First of all, Obama is trying to cajole Republicans into backing the bill by saying that he would find re-election easier if they don't. I have no problem with incorporating that into the "making the case" section (and I will do so presently); however, there is absolutely no indication that the American Jobs Act was some ploy to help get Obama re-elected. Secondly, the Gohmert bill is related only in name. If you want to go into details about the "prank" aspect of it, it probably belongs at Louie Gohmert. From the perspective of this proposed legislation, the Gohmert prank is not noteworthy enough to explore here. Thirdly, the Yuan thing has nothing whatsoever to do with this proposed legislation, so please don't even discuss it here. Finally, I'd like you to take a look at Wikipedia:NOTNEWSPAPER#NEWSPAPER (it's very brief). It basically says that while up-to-date coverage is a good thing, its inclusion must be carefully considered in context and with a mind to what is historically significant. A deeper analysis can be found at WP:RECENT. We aren't so much concerned by the day-to-day reports of what is happening, but more with the broader picture. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Are we on different pages here? This is my suggestion (I have went back up and have emboldened it) and I've been around the block enough times to know how quickly my power is usurped if I allow a statement like this to be straw manned on me: that the American Jobs Act was some ploy to help get Obama re-elected. I even wrote 7 minutes before you typed this mis-attribution which maybe you didn't get a chance to read, before you misjudged my character. 완젬스 (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I even wrote yes the jobs bill not only would create jobs, but it would also increase prosperity to the country 7 minutes before your 13:04 reply, I gotta say it hurts my feelings a little bit. We're so close to being such a strong team, but I deserve the chance to define myself, especially when I promise you after 2 weeks you will also agree I love Wikipedia and that it's a thrill working with a passionate individual who truly does tons and tons of free work for Wikipedia, all from anonymous IP (or sometimes a brief-lived username). 완젬스 (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are trying to say to me there, but please assume good faith. I've made some changes to the article that basically incorporate some of your ideas from above. Is this not the sort of thing you intended? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict, I added to my earlier post)Correct, it is not the wording I intended. It is not supported by anything I ever wrote, stated, or edited. I'll come back to the article in 30 minutes, and finish my reply after looking over your article diffs, once you've had a chance to make them. 완젬스 (talk) 13:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, there are some edit conflicts going on here. I had not read your earlier reply when I posted my comment, although I am still concerned about the direction you are going. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You say it is not supported by anything you ever wrote, stated or edited, but earlier you said:

"The paragraph needs a sentence at the beginning, something benign & innocuous like "President Obama took his case to the American public...""

And I wrote...

"Obama toured the country making appearances at various speaking events to promote his proposed legislation."

...which is a benign and innocuous opening for the paragraph along similar lines. I also added the very same quote you talked about here. And that's it. So what's the problem? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The only problem was how I was straw-manned (explained earlier at 13:17 utc, which I have now re-emboldened also) because it disrupts my passion. All I need to get my passion back is 15m of yoga or listening to this, but I liked your incorporation of a benign sentence. There is no problem with that at all. I just want to be absolutely clear that I have no problem with what you're defending "as the problem" and I would never blow up over something so minor/trivial such as a simple sentence. We have no disagreement on bulletpoint 2, which I now put a "resolved" icon by. However, I will not tolerate you to authoritatively write this in such a way that reads:

Er... I'm not happy with the direction you are taking there. First of all, Obama is trying to cajole Republicans into backing the bill by saying that he would find re-election easier if they don't. I have no problem with incorporating that into the "making the case" section (and I will do so presently); however, there is absolutely no indication that the American Jobs Act was some ploy to help get Obama re-elected. Secondly, the Gohmert bill is related only in name.

Surely, if you understand how badly this reflects on me as an editor, you would understand how I feel horribly misrepresented because I let you define "my direction" and let it seemingly infer (due to your strong language) that you're taking a defensive position regarding an inexistent indication that the American Jobs Act was some ploy to help get Obama re-elected. Although you do not explicitly attribute that "indication" as coming from me, it certainly begs to get noticed and draw ire from anyone skimming our interactions. With that said, I have never wrote, edited, stated, or supported anything remotely tied to the American Jobs Act as some ploy to get Obama re-elected whereas we are in 99.9% agreement on everything else! For the most part, we agree on 95% of stuff but I feel pressure coming from you that I am somehow forced to fulfill your assumptions about me, when the only conclusion you'll be able to make about me after about 14 days is that I love Wikipedia. Lastly, please caution yourself about invectives such as "The direction I am taking there" which can be vague enough to tacitly build an image of me which portrays me as "an editor who has a direction they wish to take" or "an editor who is passively linked with an indication that the American Jobs Act was some ploy to help get Obama re-elected" when I explicitly wrote earlier today that the jobs bill not only would create jobs, but it would also increase prosperity to the country. All I want is to avoid this very type of misrepresentation and unduly affiliation with inexistent indications. 완젬스 (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if my comments have offended you. I recognize that you are genuinely interested in improving the quality of this article, and of Wikipedia in general. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much Scjessey for bringing my passion back. In 14 days, I'll leave you doubtless as to my love for Wikipedia! 완젬스 (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Final push to resolve the remaining item of work

The problem I see with the wording now (most current version collapsed below) is that it seems too much like "Obama's counter to every talking point" rather than how I think is more fair. It's like we let everything critical about the jobs bill follow up with some political spin. I think the article would be better if it said something like:

"Some of the criticism refers to Obama's own remarks, including past statements that (blank)(blank)(blank)(blank)"'

(which I don't think should offend anyone) rather than

In an October press conference, Obama responded to the suggestion from a reporter that his jobs tour was part of a political campaign, saying "The question is, will Congress do something? If Congress does something, then I can't run against a 'do nothing' Congress. If Congress does nothing, then it's not a matter of me running against them. I think the American people will run them out of town."

Extended content

Making the case Obama toured the country making appearances at various speaking events to promote his proposed legislation. He appeared before constituents of Eric Cantor's congressional district to press the Congress to pass his bill immediately. On September 12, he gave a speech in the White House Rose Garden in front of a group of teachers, police officers, construction workers and small-business owners in which he stated that "if Congress does not act, just about every family in America will pay more taxes next year. That would be a self-inflicted wound that our economy just cannot afford right now." In Speaker Boehner's home state of Ohio, Obama gave a speech described as "fiery" in a Columbus high school that led to the audience chanting: "Pass this bill!" In a campaign-style rally at North Carolina State University, Obama told college students "Every single one of you can help make this bill a reality. … The time for hand-wringing is over. The time for moping around is over. We've got to kick off our bedroom slippers and put on our marching shoes." At a black-tie dinner for the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, Obama pitched his jobs plan to Latinos. To stave off potential criticism, the President noted that the election is fourteen months away and that Americans do not have the luxury of waiting fourteen months for jobs to be created. In an October press conference, Obama responded to the suggestion from a reporter that his jobs tour was part of a political campaign, saying "The question is, will Congress do something? If Congress does something, then I can't run against a 'do nothing' Congress. If Congress does nothing, then it's not a matter of me running against them. I think the American people will run them out of town." References

Also, I don't like how the sentence is so "loaded & bloated" where a serious qualm is relegated to "a suggestion from a reporter" where it then sets up the most advantageous way to present the "most opportune version" of the quote, which there are many, some even precede the actual jobs bill. I like each sentence to be short simple and sweet. The wording preceding the quote is just excessively verbose (over 2 dozen words before it gets to the quote) when the subordinating clause is unnecessary, when the prepositional phrases "to the suggestion" and "from a reporter" don't really say much, and the sentence is so wordy & lengthy. I recommend "Some of the criticisms refers to Obama's own remarks, including past statements that (blank blank blank blank)" since it flows better from the preceding sentence. What say you, Scjessy? I want to get your feedback, let me reply, back and forth until we come up with something we both agree on. I'd like to make the Yuan article tomorrow and Thursday, and then see what happens this week in Washington DC to see if there is any major "article-changing" events that transpire. Three days is an eternity for a swarm of unpredictable politicians. There's no rush either, we got 3 days to hammer out one minor article issue, then we get a relaxing weekend. I look forward to keeping up the good work with you. Cheers, 완젬스 (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I couldn't disagree more with the direction you are trying to take this. The whole point of the "making the case" section is to describe efforts by Obama (and his administration) to make the case (duh) to the American people for his proposed legislation. I also don't understand your criticism of how it is currently written, since it was designed to accurately document the reporter's question and Obama's response. I know you are enthusiastic about all this, but it still looks like you are trying to make this article reflect a Republican-leaning narrative. And what is all this about a 3-day time limit? I have no idea what you are talking about. And please stop talking about the Chinese currency - it has nothing to do with this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I just don't like it and its converse I just like it are not arguments to use in talk page discussions.

In their book, Business Negotiation, Paul Steele and Tom Beasor recommend a tactic in business negotiation, which they characterize as a "trick of the trade", called "emotion trumps logic", thusly:

When faced with an incontrovertible fact use an emotional response to counter it. Expressions such as: "I just don't like it."¹ or "the deal just doesn't seem to appeal to me" often beat dozens of well-argued statements.

— Paul Steele and Tom Beasor, Business Negotiation

Here at Wikipedia, we require the opposite to apply. Emotion does not trump logic at Wikipedia. We are not trying to "win" what Steele and Beasor characterize as a "game". Wikipedia is not a business deal. It is an encyclopaedia. Well-argued statements do beat personal, subjective tastes.

Wouter H. Slob, in Dialogical Rhetoric, called "I just don't like it" a "feeble argument". As far as discussions at Wikipedia are concerned, that argument, and its counterpart "I just like it", are sufficiently feeble that they should be given no weight whatsoever. 완젬스 (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Lastly, could you please overlook my "thinking outloud" about the Yuan bill please? I'm sorry for mentioning it, but I'm not doing it on purpose to annoy you. In fact, it trips me up furthermore because like I said, I can only focus on one article at a time. My passion is for the Yuan bill, and please just let it go if I slip up. The amount of time we've wasted on "red tape" is unbelievable. In conclusion, please quit saying things like "the direction I'm taking" and stick to my actual edits, rather than predicting future edits & arguing stuff baselessly with me. You may have watched too much Battlestar Galactica but on earth, there's no way of knowing what my future edits will be like, so quit assigning a narrative to me. You put your foot in your mouth big-time about me once, with your incorrect judgment about what I think about the jobs bill. Now quit arguing about pointless stuff, and please let's finish the unresolved bulletpoint before Friday. There's no rush or deadline--I just like to be fast paced so that my passion can be untethered. I work so much quicker without the red tape, but as a courtesy to you, I've only made minimalistic edits to the article itself, whereas you have free reign and consensus side-stepping authority to act like a glutton with your own POV-leaning edits, under the guise of "removing original research" which is about as hypocritical as you can get. You talk down to me on the talk page to "win the edit war" and then you own the article, like it's not even the scjessey on the talk page, as on the article page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Jobs_Act&diff=prev&oldid=454554807 You haven't learned anything since you incorrectly contradicted my own thoughts (that the jobs bill not only would create jobs, but it would also increase prosperity to the country) and supplanted them with your own false attribution which cost you your credibility in about 7 minutes (that the American Jobs Act was some ploy to help get Obama re-elected). Learn how to collaborate or we'll needlessly edit war and drain each other's passion, which could instead be used positively for the sake of Wikipedia. Each of us only have limited time, patience, and productivity. It's a shame we are needlessly canceling out each other's productivity. 완젬스 (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the way I contribute, perhaps WP:RFC/U or WP:ANI is the way to go. I understand your passion for the project, and I applaud it; however, the way you have portrayed my edits, the way you have questioned my behavior, and the way you have edited on this article have left the characteristic footprint of a POV pusher (and I'm not the only one who has noticed). I've been tremendously patient with you, but frankly I've had quite enough. Please do not post on my talk page again, or engage me personally on this article talk page. I will only be responding to comments intended to improve the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't throw more red tape at me (you know how lengthy and time-consuming that both WP:RFC and WP:ANI tend to be) and quit being a WP:DIVA because it took 4 reminders to get you to address this:

1. In August, Obama stated that he would run “against a Congress that’s not doing anything for the American people,” if lawmakers failed to pass his jobs bill Which took you until October 9th! I was exceedingly patient with you for four days!

I've also tried patiently to get your feedback about my suggestion, which is this proposed edit I wish to incorporate into the article: "Some of the criticism refers to Obama's own remarks, including past statements that (blank)(blank)(blank)(blank)" so own up to your own shortcomings rather than turn every issue I bring up to improve the article (such as these two examples) into your chance to go onto knee-jerk ad hominem rants like this one. You speak out of both sides your mouth and tell me (in effect) never to make bold edits (because you revert them and threaten an edit war or maybe even a revert war) and today you're so full of self pity and trying to play like you're the victim, and that I'm a pov pusher. When it is you who throws red tape at me, dodges my proposed edits repeatedly, and now you are baiting me to make those very same edits once again to the article, which we both know you'll revert, and land us back here--silencing my article edits by making me waste my passion onto talk-page edits. On Friday, I'll make neutral edits, unlike you, to the article, but please don't revert them, especially when I've given you 3 chances to comment on how I wish to incorporate the emboldened sentence I've proposed here and now again. This section was entitled "Final push to resolve the remaining item of work" and you've not once responded in this section of the talk page to my comment intended to improve the article! but I count a half-dozen times where you accused me of narrative, and it is you' who has misportrayed me and have had to take your foot out of your mouth. I'll honor your request about your talk page. I've read every WP:P&G that you've instructed me to read, I've never revered a single one of your edits, and now you try to present yourself as the one who ethically responds to comments intended to improve the article rather than your true behavior--to need 4 reminders to address the first proposed edit regarding an Obama statement (proposed October 5th) and you have been reminded now 3 times to address the "remaining item of work" all because you're more interested in calling me a pov pusher rather than attacking my proposed edits. All I want is to solicit comments about my proposed edits before I make them. Please withdraw your haughty intransigence, and focus your resolve to the remaining item of work. 완젬스 (talk) 00:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't find anything in this last comment worth responding to (mostly more personal attacks against me), with the possible exception of your claim that this edit of mine isn't neutral. It removed original research. That's not an issue of neutrality, but rather it is an issue of how Wikipedia doesn't let editors just make shit up. And I'm not obliged to respond to your demand for comments on any of the stuff you write, no matter how many times you insist or how much use of bold formatting you insist on. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

When I come back to this article (after finishing the other one) in about 10-12 days, I demand that we both exhibit mutual respect, mutual civility, and mutual forgiveness. 완젬스 (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

That isn't going to happen if you "demand" anything. Enough with the demands. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:LASTWORD 완젬스 (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on American Jobs Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110930155425/http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20113817-503544.html to http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20113817-503544.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on American Jobs Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111114033954/http://www.opencongress.org:80/bill/112-h12/show to http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h12/show
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111009104901/http://www.c-span.org/Events/Senators-Reid-amp-McConnell-Remarks-on-President39s-Jobs-Plan/10737424582/ to http://www.c-span.org/Events/Senators-Reid-amp-McConnell-Remarks-on-President39s-Jobs-Plan/10737424582/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001053746/http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-27/politics/politics_obama-west-coast_1_president-barack-obama-gallup-orc-international-poll?_s=PM:POLITICS to http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-27/politics/politics_obama-west-coast_1_president-barack-obama-gallup-orc-international-poll?_s=PM:POLITICS

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)