Talk:Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Tattoo removal program[edit]

Grundle, just because the funding is mentioned in the act doesn't mean it can automatically be included in this article. There needs to be some sort of criteria for including specific programs in this article. The criteria that is usually used is that the program has been mentioned in a reliable secondary or tertiary source. If the criteria is just that it is mentioned in the Act then we'd have hundreds of pages of programs listed here. As an example, what makes the tattoo removal program worth of mention in this article and the $1 million earmark for the Providence Police Department's community policing initiative that is directly beneath the tattoo removal earmark? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had cited a criticism from a well known national commentator, but someone else erased that part. The only reason I even created this article in the first place was so I could mention that. Now the article has been hijacked for other purposes! Grundle2600 (talk) 01:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh! I just found an Associated Press article that mentions it. That's a valid source! Grundle2600 (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be me that removed your Michelle Malkin source. Malkin's blog is a self-published source and does not meet WP:RS. The AP article, on the other hand, does meet WP:RS, so get's to stay now. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoo hoo! Grundle2600 (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, here is a second source on the tattoo removal thing. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New York Post = Tabloid = Not reliable source. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Anh Joseph Cao now links to this article. Rammer (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-neutral[edit]

In its current form, this article presents a grossly negative point of few. The focus appears to be on earmarks, which make up 1% of the total bill. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that even though the earmarks are only 1% of the total bill, they have been the focus of a majority of the sources that discuss the omnibus. That seems to reconcile some of the undue weight issues. Of course, the article does need to have expansion of the details of the Omnibus and once that has been done, the earmarks will drop down in how much coverage they are getting in the article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bobblehead is correct - the article should match the sources. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cuban travel provisions[edit]

Should there be mention of those - they got a lot of press coverage. -- Beardo (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]