Wikipedia: "Bush tax cuts" title has been changed to "Bush-Obama tax cuts"

[niceypoo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts

Now Obama owns it

[gateley]

1. Wow - wonder what disgruntled Dem made that change. Ouch. nt

[SemiCharmedQuark]

7. Literally, someone said something on the internet and you're shocked?

Wikipedia can be edited by anybody. Anyone on here could have written it. The OP could have written it.

And for the record, most of the wikipedia editors oppose the change.

Maybe it should be called the Bush-Obama tax cuts, but using Wikipedia is proof of anything is so utterly ridiculous it deserves a kick in the ass.

[gateley]

9. Hmmm. Let me see. Nope, don't see the word "shocked" anywhere in my post.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

10. Wikipedia has at various times said that Washington did not own slaves, Oregon was Idaho's

Portugal and sting rays hate Australians. There isn't much "Wow" worthy on Wikipedia.

[gateley]

11. Shall I change it to "yawn"? Honestly, what do you care

what I would say? You don't have to convince me of the lack of wow-worthy on Wikipedia - I know exactly what it is.

Sigh. Okay, I didn't mean WOW! as though it was OFFICIAL, I meant wow kind of amused.

Feel better now?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

12. Because lately it seems perspective has flown right out the DU window never to return.

And whereas your meaning might be clear in the DU of old, in the age where people can say with a straight face that the United States is a fascist state and that Barack Obama is a "tin pot dictator"...well...who knows WTF people think.

Obviously someone really did think "WOW! WIKIPEDIA SAYS IT!"

[gateley]

13. Okay - point well taken. nt

[mtnsnake]

2. Yikes, is that embarrassing or what

[texastoast]

3. What would FDR think?

:shrug:

[Ikonoklast]

28. Some people posting on DU need to get a life?

[WonderGrunion]

38. I'm sure he wrote a position on it whle interning Japanese-Americans

Get off your high horse.

[harun]

4. lol

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[blazerunner]

5. "Bush-Obama War On Terror"

"Bush-Obama Executive Privilege"
"Bush-Obama Rendition Program"
etc..etc,..

[SemiCharmedQuark]

6. Well, if Wikipedia says it it must be true...like when Stephen Colbert made elephants no longer

endangered by typing it on wikipedia.

[stray cat]

16. I think 75 % of americans believe anything typed on the Internet or seen on tv

[CakeGrrl]

8. They are now the President's by proclamation. So sez Wikipedia.

Ohhhhh-kay...

:eyes:

[treestar]

26. wikipedia can be challenged anyway

I thought anyone could go in and challenge things or label them unresolved.

edit: look at it; most of the commentators oppose.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

14. Wonder how long until it's just the "Obama Tax Cuts"

and the "Obama War on Terror."

It's great when you own the media -- you can make up your own history and no one can challenge you.

[stray cat]

15. One person changed history by typing on the computer on wikipedia

Where anyone can change anything they want to. Wikipedia is no more a source than DU or Free Republic

[ProSense]

17. Love this part

Administration officials like Vice President Joe Biden then worked to convince wary Democratic members of Congress to accept the plan, notwithstanding a continuation of lower rates for the highest-income taxpayers.<30> The compromise proved popular in public opinion polls, and allowed Obama to portray himself as a consensus-builder not beholden to the liberal wing of his party.<31> The bill was opposed some of the most conservative members of the Republican Party as well as by talk radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and some groups in the Tea Party movement.<32><31> It was also opposed by several leading potential candidates for the Republican nomination in the 2012 presidential election, including Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney,<31> typically on the grounds that it did not make the Bush tax cuts permanent and that it would overall increase the national deficit.<33>

:rofl:

[stray cat]

18. Wilkipedia As a source LOL!

[jefferson_dem]

20. I'll await confirmation from CraigsList before jumping to any conclusions.

[emulatorloo]

21. Oh, I am sure Facebook has already established this.

Craigslist will soon climb on board.

[AtomicKitten]

31. Pfft. Get back to us when somebody tweets it.

:P

[jefferson_dem]

19. "Obama tax cuts"... Oh noes! That meme will surely devastate his re-election chances.

[emulatorloo]

22. Yes, the middle-class will be outraged!

[jimlup]

24. You're being sarcastic right?

The middle class actually likes this. The electorate is stupid. It is that simple.

[jimlup]

23. It's true

[treestar]

25. They're wrong

the only reason Obama could bargain with them was because they were not permanent. Their expiration was the fulcrum for that.

the state of the economy made what Obama did the most responsible thing.

[martymar64]

34. As if he'll let them expire in an election year . . .

:rofl:

No wonder you guys get rolled by the Republicans in every negotiation. You guys are so gullible, you'll believe anything.

[MadBadger]

27. Considering The tax rates will stay the same, Obama cant own the tax cuts

[Petrus Romanus]

29. Yeah, it would be horrible for Obama to have his name linked to lower taxes. What a mistake. nt

[anAustralianobserver]

30. Update: It was changed back to "Bush tax cuts".

Politicisably ambiguous constructions like this don't seem to last long on Wikipedia.

[Autumn]

32. Did Bush help Obama negotiate the tax cuts?

As far as I'm concerned they are Obamas tax cuts.

[jillan]

33. Yep - that is exactly correct. Obama bought it, didn't pay for it tho.

Well it did cost him alot of voters.

[Jim Lane]

35. That Wikipedia says something doesn't mean it's true, but many people will see it anyway

Wikipedia is one of the top ten most-visited sites on the Internet. What Wikipedia says about something matters.

My point is that DUers, instead of sitting around sneering at Wikipedia, and then posting brilliant exposés of Republican lies that will be read only by other committed progressives on DU, should occasionally spread their light more widely by editing Wikipedia.

Contrary to the tenor of some of the comments here, what appears in Wikipedia isn't a matter of randomness. It reflects the judgments of the editors who pay attention to the article. Crap about elephants in Africa doesn't last even when backed by a national media figure. What does last, however, are right-wing attempts to skew the facts ''when not enough progressives are on hand to counter them''. I've been outnumbered by conservatives more times than I can count.

It's a shame that right-wing biases so often get the upper hand, even in a source that, practically alone in the mass media, doesn't charge fees or carry advertising, and is solely dependent on volunteers for its content.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

36. Oh look, the OP made a change to a wiki page and uses is as proof

:sarcasm:

Now I will admit that there is a fair chance its not you, but based on your post record on DU that I've read(and I'm sure there are many of your posts i haven't) i wouldn't be surprised in the least if ya had.

I mean, its not like its that hard to make changes to them

[ClarkUSA]

37. Big fucking deal. Who cares what a PUMA rewrites at Wikipedia? I don't give a shit.

It's very telling that some people are so fixated on the wealthy that they would rather have had 99ers go down the drain for the next year instead of continuing to receive their UI.

Any attempt to demonize President Obama is ludicrous. Millions of Americans and their families have a lifeline for another year. Furthermore, the CBO believes that UI is one of most stimulative things that can happen in this economy. It's really unfortunate that anyone would be so uninformed that they would try to score political points against the President on this issue, which has brought tears of relief to the many millions of Americans who are 99ers.