Talk:Obama phone

POV???

How is this a point of view? I'm giving complete facts here as far as I can see. Tell me where I give an opinion in: "A type of phone that is usually given to minorities by the United States government for free, and with free and unlimited minutes, funded by the Obama administration." Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 03:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

There are no unlimited minutes, and there's no preference for minorities. It's part of lifeline service, which is funded by a charge on phone bills (and has been for decades). The only thing new is the cellphone. So, there's a grain of truth to it, but as a whole it's wrong.

The POV comes in with the implication that this is a giveaway to minorities by Obama. It's really an extension of decades of government policies to provide a minimum level of phone service to the poor. One may argue about whether it's a good idea, and whether it's open to abuse, but that's not something to address in a dictionary definition. At any rate, you may just be passing on the POV from what you've heard without intending it to be POV, but it still has a POV imbedded in it. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

What about what it says on www.obamaphone.com? Isn't this the original project? Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 05:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

No, look at the bottom of the page: "ObamaPhone.com is not affiliated with any department of the US government, the FCC, or the Lifeline phone program." Equinox ◑ 05:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I see. Well where can I find the real project then? (By the way, notice anything new about me?) Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 05:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Obama administration

Does it always have to be funded by the Obama administration, or can the term be used to just generalize government phones, in a slang manner? Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 03:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

RFV discussion: June–July 2014

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

Obama phone

Obama Phone

Had been tagged for cleanup with the reason "POV, may or may not be true". The right way to answer that question is with an RfV Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 02:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Clearly this word is used widespread. The term was coined from an actual program called "The Obama Phone", but it became a term after that apparently. Such as "Instead of getting a real phone with real minutes, how about we get an Obama phone?" Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Cited. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 03:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Even the parts about minorities and unlimited free minutes? I don't think so. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The term has enough citations. The definition being inaccurate is a different issue that will be solved (hopefully) by the RFC. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 03:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

RFV has nothing to do with POV and factual issues- this term is no doubt in sufficient use, and I see no reason to delete it, but the wording of the definition has problems. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The term is used to refer to subsidized access to cellular phone service which is part of a US "Lifeline service program" funded by a tax on phone service. The benefit is aimed at the qualified poor of all races. Since 2008 one form of the benefit consists of a free flip-phone and 70 free minutes a month. It is subject to some abuse. Our definition reflects a popular exaggeration of the benefit, the misleading attribution to Obama, and the outright false and racist claim that it is limited to minorities. I think we need two definitions, the accurate one and the one that reflects the urban legend. I expect both could be cited though the current citations do not. DCDuring TALK 04:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Chuck Entz, POV reads: "Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion do not attempt to enforce "correctness", but rather exist to define which words are in widespread enough usage to include them in a dictionary." The unfortunate problem here is that portraying a person, place or thing (in this case Obama) inaccurately is not in itself a criteria for deletion. You can't delete content here because of POV or UNDUE like you can on Wikipedia (ironic that now it's YOU who's applying Wikipedia policy to a Wiktionary definition). If "Obama phone" in any sense is used enough times by enough people, its definition may be kept. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 04:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

This isn't about inclusion, so CFI is irrelevant. You keep trying to steer this in that direction, but you're completely wrong. People use it, we should have an entry for it- that's not the issue. We don't delete things because of POV- we rework them. That's what RFC is for. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Then why don't we just move this entire discussion to the one at WT:RFC, instead of complaining about it being in the wrong place here? Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 05:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I apologize, I do not mean to be POVing. I heard this term from real people in real life joking about government related things. This word is clearly used a lot. I gave a definition based on the things I read online. Yes, I think the urban legend and the actual project should be listed in two definitions. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 05:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Passed. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

RFC discussion: June 2014–July 2015

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Obama phone

Worded with a decidedly conservative slant, and the Wikipedia link bears no resemblance to the definition: where does it say anything about "minutes", let alone "unlimited minutes" (the Wikipedia article makes it look like it only applies to landlines), and where does it say anything about "minorities", aside from a reference to people living on tribal lands? This may be in use, but it should at least have a context label, and I suspect it's factually incorrect, as well. Could someone check on this?Chuck Entz (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I have reworded the definition based on my research. Improvements welcome. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 04:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

As it stands now, this goes a bit too far in the other direction. There seems to be a real public policy that the urban legend caricatures, and that some may be referring to rather than the urban-legend version. I think we would be better off referring to the actual policy, followed by something like "which a conservative urban legend has portrayed as...". DCDuring explains the basic idea more fully in his response at rfv. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 05:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I took a shot at it. The urban legend part struck me as a little bit on the POV side- I think referring to it as a belief is enough to avoid the trap of treating it as fact, but without implying as much of a judgment on those who believe it. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

How's the entry look now? - -sche (discuss) 03:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

If anyone can hear me, pls change year=29 September 2012 to date=29 September 2012. Thanks, LunaEatsTuna (talk) 01:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)