Talk:United States Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Europe and Regional Security Cooperation

Obama's Chairmanship
Has anyone addressed the fact that Barack Obama, Chairman of this Subcommittee, has yet to convene a single meeting since being appointed Chairman? This means that there is no Senate oversight of our policy regarding the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the European Union, and one of the largest economies on Earth. I find this interesting and relevant to the history and current status of the Subcommittee on European Affairs. vfrickey (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC).
 * I have edited the article to include a reference to Senator Barack Obama's not having held any meetings of the Subcommittee on European Affairs since his appointment as Chairman of that subcommittee, along with references to two outside links which confirm this. [vfrickey|vfrickey} 11:32, vfrickey (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC).


 * Someone else changed my entry to read "The committee has not met since the appointment of Obama as Chairman in 2007.[1],[2]" This is weasel-wording.  It dodges the question "Why has the current chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Subcommittee on European Affairs, Senator Barack Obama, not held any meetings of that subcommittee?"  It's a valid question.  The Chairman of a Senate subcommittee has the gavel and can set the agenda, as the sources I submitted in support of the edit flatly state.  It's up to him.  Rewording my edit to put it in the passive voice weakens it grammatically and rhetorically.  It also says something different from what I said in my edit. Also, the person who applied the last edit hasn't mentioned who he or she is, or that he/she did it in the talk page - I'm interested in his or her reasons for changing the language of my edit.vfrickey (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, I'm restoring my original language.vfrickey (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I changed the verbiage because among the things wikipedia is not, a soapbox is a main item. Both sentences are factually accurate.  The one that you advocate, however, has a distinct point of view attached to it, and assumes, for whatever reason, that the committee needs to and should meet.  My wording is simply objective.  I will revert to the language once more, and if you still have issue, I'm sure we can have a request for comment arbitrate the matter. Mystache (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I dispute your assertion that your wording is objective. I also find your objection to the assumption that the Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on Europe needs to and should meet puzzling - given that Europe collectively and as individual nations is both a major trading partner and military ally of ours.  The reasoning seems to be that since the Chairman did not choose to convene meetings of this subcommittee, none were required, a conclusion which several commentators have disputed and which appears to be logically circular.vfrickey (talk) 01:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * One should ask whether it was ever necessary for this subcommittee to meet? There is plenty of oversight over the US Forces assigned to NATO operations.  Perhaps the reason Senator Obama has not called a meeting is because there was no need to call a meeting.  Senate subcommittes dont always meet.  This is one very good reason to relook at the wording being dicussed on this section.  We don't want to add any judgements on why a meeting has not been called unless there is specific third-party information that supports or refutes a hypothesis.  I suggest a more neutral and not politically motivated wording to represent the fact that there has been no meeting called.  Any discussions concerning why no meeting was called (to include disguised political agendas) should be based on statements from the respective senate committees.  Throckmorton Guildersleeve (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I wonder if it wouldn't be appropriate to mention that Senator Obama and his supporters don't see a problem with his failure to convene a meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European Affairs. Other people's mileage might vary.vfrickey (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * All of this is rather moot now, see most recent revision. Mystache (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I saw your revision, Mystache. I didn't see any indication in the press release you cited that Mr. Obama was presiding over a meeting of the Subcommittee on European Affairs.  A careful reading of the reference you cited indicates that this was a meeting of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations chaired by Mr. Obama; no mention is made of the Subcommittee on European Affairs at all.  I think that we have reached a point at which mediation is necessary. vfrickey (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you note the manner in which the cfr's website annotates their hearing notes, they do not mention the subcommittee for any of the hearings. obviously, these are not all meetings of the whole; i think it would be more than coincidence that there would be a meeting of the whole chaired by the senator on topics exclusively within the subcommittee's jurisdiction. nonetheless, im going to put up a rfc to end this banality. Mystache (talk) 15:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply to RFC
 * I think that the meeting of the full Committee referenced in the press release is irrelevant to the article, and should be deleted.
 * I think that while it is relevant to say that the committee has not met in this Congress, laying undue stress on Senator Obama would be an effort to push a particular point of view with respect to the presidential election. There's nothing weaselly about saying "The subcommittee has not met since the appointment of Senator Obama as chairman." It incorporates all relevant information without hiding anything or pushing any particular position. RayAYang (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep current language The current language reflects a neutral POV. If debate about whether the subcommittee should meet is notable, that discussion needs outside sources that cover this debate. Who are these supporters who don't see a problem, and who are the opponents that criticize the failure of the subcommittee to meet? And, more importantly, where are the independent sources, notable, reliable, neutral sources such as non-partisan newspapers and magazines who are covering this alleged debate?--Advocate (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Replacements for Senators Biden and Obama

If Biden and Obama are both on the committee, who will replace them when they both go to Executive office in January? Does it fall to the next most senior Party member? 69.207.159.181 (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)