Talk:You didn't build that/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about You didn't build that. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Embarrassing
{{resolved}} As it seems to me, dispute on unilateral claims has been already resolved. Renaming has been done, and passages have been changed to reflect that. --George Ho (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- To be clear, I don't consider this issue resolved. I continue to believe that this article, as written, regurgitates a partisan talking point while downplaying the independent fact-checkers who have found that talking point to be dishonest. But I've been around long enough to know when something is or isn't a good investment of my time, and I'm not going to pursue this further unless/until the editing atmosphere here changes. I guess it's "resolved" by virtue of exhaustion. MastCell Talk 20:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Really, some of the editing behavior on display here is disappointing. The crux of the issue here (according to independent, reliable sources and fact-checkers) is that the Romney campaign took Obama's words out of context to make it sound like he dismissed the initiative of business owners. And you guys keep doing exactly the same thing - taking the "you didn't build that" quote out of context. It's really, really hard to escape the impression that the editing here is purely ideological and political when you do stuff like that.
Here's how Wikipedia articles are supposed to be built: you base them on independent, reliable sources. Not partisan op-eds, not spin from political campaigns, and not your desire to promote an ideological talking point. We can mention the Romney and Obama spins, but we don't build the article around them - and we definitely don't build the article by institutionalizing one campaign's spin in Wikipedia's voice. MastCell Talk 19:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- It is true that some sources (e.g. WSJ editorial) characterize the president's remarks as "dismissing the initiative of business owners" as you say. I think you should consider that some do so without interpreting the antecedent of "that" as "your business" (since Obama later denied that, and his opponents clear preference of interpretation seems like a big hangup in this discussion). They point out that Obama mocked business owners' thinking they achieved success because they were smart or because they worked really hard, and see a big problem with Obama crediting the difference between winners and losers to public infrastructure and education instead of to entrepreneurs' hard work and intelligence. I'm not saying these commentators are right or wrong, but I will say that it gives both campaigns an opportunity to discuss their unique political philosophies, which may entail differences of degree and emphasis more than anything, e.g. Romney doesn't suggest personal fire departments. It's a valuable and notable mainstream discussion, and there are legitimate campaign differences (of emphasis?) that have emerged. Wookian (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- The above shows that some editors are not abiding by WP:AGF.
- Some changes have been made that insert a non-neutral POV, but giving undue weight to certain commentary regarding the subject in the lead, and insert expansions of two sources that give undue weight to those sources (more than had been given to other sources). (see WP:TRITE) Other commentators critical of the Romney campaigns actions can be used to expand the paragraph.-:To mirror what Wookian has said, it is not our place to whether commentators are right or wrong, but to summarize what is written in RS and because it is verified include it in a neutral POV manor without giving any any undue weight compared to the other sources. Additionally, what is presently included is well attributed to the commentator, and I suggest that new additions be done so as well.-RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think you're getting the concept of reliable sources. The fact that a source is critical of Romney does not make it automatically unreliable. Sure, it's not our place to decide who's "right" or "wrong" - but that's not an excuse to present partisan misinformation. We have a responsibility to prioritize the best available independent, reliable sources. If a political campaign says something misleading or untrue, we are not compelled to credulously repeat it out of a misguided idea of "neutrality".
What, exactly, is "non-neutral" about presenting the views of independent fact-checkers in the lead of the article? Please elaborate. I'd like you to be on record explaining exactly why we should present the campaigns' political spins in place of independent fact-checkers. MastCell Talk 07:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- There is no need to expand upon these RSs in the LEAD, it is best for the body. None of the commentators statements/opinions are specifically expanded upon in the lead, as was attempted to be done.
The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects.
— WP:LEAD- The lead states what some commentators and what the "independent fact-checkers" state about reactions to the speech (the subject of the article) and the Romney Campaign. The lead also briefly states what other commentators have said about the subject of the article (the speech itself) and of the speaker of the subject. Both these elements have their place, and neither should be given undue weight. By giving a whole paragraph to two sources, gives those sources undue weight.
- If it is the view of some editors that there isn't sufficient weight of one view of multiple commentators, as I have said elsewhere, there are sufficient RSs to add that to the appropriate section in a concise and due weight manor. There are 22K sources for us to choose from! However, the lead is not a place for such expansion.
- More over, why is it that each of these "independent fact-checkers" given their own elongated paragraph? Giving each half a paragraph I think is more than sufficient and doesn't give them UNDUE WEIGHT.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think the bottom line is very simple. This is an article about a political attack. As it turns out, it's a dishonest political attack, in the view of independent fact-checkers. That's an important aspect to convey to the reader, yet two editors are working very hard to remove or downplay it. Why is that? MastCell Talk 04:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hi MastCell. The FactCheck article actually commends Romney for his speech on July 17 in which he attacked the president for saying "you didn't build your business". The FactCheck writer simply wants to see Obama's context (which Romney discussed in that speech), and does not take a position on "what the president had in mind when he uttered those words", saying "his intent is not clear". So clearly you are oversimplifying and mischaracterizing this. Wookian (talk) 13:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- Unbelievable. You accuse someone of "mischaracterizing", preceded by something that completely misreads the context of the same findings that it can only be considered to be done on purpose. Commends Romney? The article lists one instance where Romney didn't take the quote completely out of context, which begins by stating "This is not to say that Republicans are always distorting the president’s words". This is after stating Factchecks conclusion that "Mitt Romney and his allies have attacked President Barack Obama — often out of context". Factcheck.org also states that "There’s no question Obama inartfully phrased those two sentences, but it’s clear from the context what the president was talking about". So your word games and taking the findings of Fackcheck is in itself the same kind of shenanigans that Factcheck has found that Mitt Romney and the Republicans are doing with Obama. It's pretty blatant and any non-biased individual can see it for what it is. Dave Dial (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- (a) FactCheck said that it is clear what Obama was talking about in the wider context, but it's still not 100% clear what the antecedent of "that" in "you didn't build that was. The closest grammatically matching antecedent is "business". But Glenn Kessler at the WaPo rejected this reading and said Obama made a grammar error and really meant "roads etc.". However, the FactCheck article (at least in the update at the bottom, which is their last word on the subject) admits that the writer doesn't know what was in Obama's mind when he uttered those words, and Obama's meaning is not clear.
- (b) Even if it were agreed that Obama meant roads and infrastructure as the antecedent of "that", Republicans still aren't done with it, because this speech has been widely reported as a focal point on differences of political emphasis and philosophy. Charles Krauthammer and others have accepted the Obama campaign's retroactive suggested reading and still made a big deal out of the speech, saying that Obama is claiming that the difference between winners and losers among entrepreneurs is not their hard work or intelligence, but rather government assistance. And of course Paul Ryan is all about not letting the government choose winners and losers. So no, this issue was not a brief, past blip on the radar, and it's not going away politically. Wookian (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- Unbelievable. You accuse someone of "mischaracterizing", preceded by something that completely misreads the context of the same findings that it can only be considered to be done on purpose. Commends Romney? The article lists one instance where Romney didn't take the quote completely out of context, which begins by stating "This is not to say that Republicans are always distorting the president’s words". This is after stating Factchecks conclusion that "Mitt Romney and his allies have attacked President Barack Obama — often out of context". Factcheck.org also states that "There’s no question Obama inartfully phrased those two sentences, but it’s clear from the context what the president was talking about". So your word games and taking the findings of Fackcheck is in itself the same kind of shenanigans that Factcheck has found that Mitt Romney and the Republicans are doing with Obama. It's pretty blatant and any non-biased individual can see it for what it is. Dave Dial (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hi MastCell. The FactCheck article actually commends Romney for his speech on July 17 in which he attacked the president for saying "you didn't build your business". The FactCheck writer simply wants to see Obama's context (which Romney discussed in that speech), and does not take a position on "what the president had in mind when he uttered those words", saying "his intent is not clear". So clearly you are oversimplifying and mischaracterizing this. Wookian (talk) 13:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think the bottom line is very simple. This is an article about a political attack. As it turns out, it's a dishonest political attack, in the view of independent fact-checkers. That's an important aspect to convey to the reader, yet two editors are working very hard to remove or downplay it. Why is that? MastCell Talk 04:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think you're getting the concept of reliable sources. The fact that a source is critical of Romney does not make it automatically unreliable. Sure, it's not our place to decide who's "right" or "wrong" - but that's not an excuse to present partisan misinformation. We have a responsibility to prioritize the best available independent, reliable sources. If a political campaign says something misleading or untrue, we are not compelled to credulously repeat it out of a misguided idea of "neutrality".
There appears to be a continued effort to give undue weight to two of the "fact check" sources into the lead, which does not abide to WP:LEAD.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that featuring independent, reliable sources constitutes "undue weight", particularly as all Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on them. I do think the article would benefit from more outside input, perhaps from people with less of a vested interest in partisan political articles, so if the article survives AfD the next step would probably be a WP:RfC. MastCell Talk 17:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- That is an opinion I do not agree with. There is a statement already included in the lead that states that it is their view that a statement from the speech is taken out of context, an opinion not universally shared by all commentators. To give them a whole paragraph in the lead would give those two sources UNDUE WEIGHT and defeat the NEUTRALITY of the article's lead. No commentators statements should be given any significant weight than any other. There is already due weight content in the body of the article, and as I have said previously, there is room for expansion there.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- Additionally let us look at the content of the Commentators section using the tool linked at DYK. There are 2736 characters of content that are critical of the speech; this is compared to 3741 characters of content (including the Romney quote) that are critical of the conservative and Romney campaign's opinion of the speech, taking out the speech this only goes down to 2710 characters of content. IMHO this is pretty well balanced.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- "No commentators statements should be given any significant weight than any other" is a complete misunderstanding of WP:NPOV. We describe viewpoints in proportion to their representation in independent reliable sources. In this case, independent fact-checkers seem to overwhelmingly view Romney's use of soundbites from this speech as dishonest or misleading. We don't "balance" the fact-checkers with quotes from partisan op-eds or Romney's spokespeople, because that's not "balance". I get the sense that you and others are struggling to write a he-said-she-said sort of article, when we should be writing an encyclopedic article which distinguishes between independent, reputable fact-checkers and political spin. MastCell Talk 19:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- How much weight one gives to these "fact checkers" are a matter of opinion, and it is clear that my opinion is not shared by some editors, but shared by others. For instance, some commentators don't see PolitFacts as being a reliable source (another story about her opinion of Politifact on WP), such as Rachel Maddow. Yet others don't see fact-checking sites as useful at all or oversimplified (The Economist, & Chicago Tribune).
- Therefore, I am not giving these sources any more weight than any other source, especially in the lead. The majority of the content about what the state IMHO should remain in the body of the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- "No commentators statements should be given any significant weight than any other" is a complete misunderstanding of WP:NPOV. We describe viewpoints in proportion to their representation in independent reliable sources. In this case, independent fact-checkers seem to overwhelmingly view Romney's use of soundbites from this speech as dishonest or misleading. We don't "balance" the fact-checkers with quotes from partisan op-eds or Romney's spokespeople, because that's not "balance". I get the sense that you and others are struggling to write a he-said-she-said sort of article, when we should be writing an encyclopedic article which distinguishes between independent, reputable fact-checkers and political spin. MastCell Talk 19:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Above issues seems to have died down with some truce. Let's move on then... --George Ho (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
{{resolved}}
Comedy News Show RS?
Resolved--George Ho (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Howdy folks. I deleted the Jon Stewart section earlier, and someone has restored it. I have no appetite for edit warring, but enjoy consensus discussions. My position: there is no rule you can follow to determine when a comedy news show is presenting fact, and when they are making false or exaggerated statements, i.e. spoofing for humor value. And it's not either-or, there is a large gray area in there. Many people enjoy watching Jon Stewart and think he's a fair-minded person at heart, and that's fine. But he is first and foremost a comedian. So can someone explain how we can decide which statements of his are spoofs (not RS) and which are serious commentary (debatable RS)? It's like a book that's half fiction and half non-fiction with no line drawn between the two -- it's just not a workable situation. If we were highlighting the comedy aspect of it, that would be one thing, but it is used as a vehicle to make a serious criticism of the Romney campaign here, and Stewart simply can't speak in that (RS) voice on Wikipedia. Wookian (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think the three concerns regarding content in question here are Verifiability, WP:WEIGHT, & WP:NEU.
- In this case it be verified that John Stewart made a comment about the subject of this article? Yes. Was the verification done with a reliable source? Yes, Business Insider.
- Since this is the case, is the content verified by the source given undue weight or written in a non-neutral manor? This is debateable, with my present opinion (since I wrote the content) is that it is not given undue weight and is not written in a non-neutral manor. (yes, I know, double negatives) It is at the bottom of the commentators section, and only given a single sentence. Feel free to disagree with my opinion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- [[Image:TDSglobal.png|thumb|The disclaimer displayed at the beginning of The Daily Show: Global Edition]]
I don't dispute that we have reliably sourced that Jon Stewart made the statement, so I guess you are right that it is technically a WP:WEIGHT question. I still think of it in terms of an indirect RS question, though, since Jon Stewart can't speak on factual matters as an RS in Wikipedia, at least not from his satire/humor show. The way it reads in the article, Stewart is making a factual criticism of the Romney campaign. Whereas the Daily Show issues disclaimers that it is a "news parody" (image borrowed from The Daily Show). Perhaps we could insert the word "comedian" before Jon Stewart's name to make it clear that we're not talking about 60 Minutes here, but rather more toward the Tom and Jerry side of things. Do you see what I'm getting at, or do you assume that readers are sufficiently familiar with The Daily Show? Wookian (talk) 19:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)- Sadly, this is a non-free screenshot. You can't use it outside mainspace articles; perhaps a free alternative? I hope I've not gone too far by editing your post, have I? --George Ho (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- To prove it, either WP:NFC or WP:NFCC or WP:images? --George Ho (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- That's fine, George. Readers can also visit The Daily Show and scroll down to see it. Wookian (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- I understand the concern of stating that The Daily Show is news parody, or that Jon Stewart is primarily a comedian. However, if one follows the wikilink to the show and the Stewart one can easily find that the show is "soft news", as described by this study, and that Jon Stewart is an actor/comedian. Therefore I don't see a need to add those descriptions on this article, but I wouldn't object to them either if others feel that they are necessary. This is the same opinion, in regards to this article only, why I don't think it needs to be said that the Huffington Post is a left leaning website, or to include that townhall.com is a conservative commentary site as both are clearly defined as such on their articles that are so wikilinked.
- Additionally, let me defend the daily show sentence being included in this article, given that there is a segment of the population that get their news from watching that program (I am not one of them).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- The Huffington Post or TownHall are different, because they would clearly mark a fiction-infused parody as such. Whereas The Daily Show does not label its satires or parodies. This is not about liberal vs. conservative, this is about intentional fiction vs. intentional non-fiction. Wookian (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- That's fine, George. Readers can also visit The Daily Show and scroll down to see it. Wookian (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- [[Image:TDSglobal.png|thumb|The disclaimer displayed at the beginning of The Daily Show: Global Edition]]
I see that there has been a tag for verifying credibility, I will add references from Huffington Post, The Atlantic, Brietbart.com, & the Los Angeles Times to verify the content within the article.
Again, let me say in regards to quantification of The Daily Show I would not be opposed to the show being described briefly as soft news or a news parody program, but I would not support the addition either (meaning if it is added, I won't delete it).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Taking above issues to WP:dispute resolution noticeboard?
I see at least above two issues:
- Jon Stewart commentary
- Romney stuff, probably?
I must assert that both issues are simple, right? If so, then I would suggest WP:DRN then. However, there you must be civil. Agree? --George Ho (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- I can't speak for others, but I wouldn't characterize the disagreement I have with RightCowLeftCoast over the Jon Stewart question as needing the DRN. It is a friendly disagreement about a fairly minor article. I am also not in any hurry, and don't discount the possibility that somebody else may come along and comment. Or RightCow and I may compromise. Either way, nobody's losing sleep. Wookian (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- I believe that I have remained civil regarding the discussions here, and for the most part the discussions here are no where near as uncivil as I have seen elsewhere, including in the present AfD discussion regarding this subject.
- If other editors believe that others should add their opinion to the discussions here, one can appropriately canvass (see WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification) the wikiprojects which this article falls under {WP Barak Obama, WP Virginia, WP United States, WP Presidential elections, & WP Conservatism). Another alternative is to start an RfC. All that being said I don't believe that our conversations have raised to the level requiring DRN.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
... Let's wait until the AFD is over... --George Ho (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)- RfC might be necessary. Since you are primarily involved, maybe you can start one. --George Ho (talk) 01:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think there are several steps that can be taken before RfC. First one can bring in other editors from the relevant WikiProjects (all of them, not just Conservatism, or just Barack Obama (this way it provides a balanced group of editors)).
- Additionally, initially the conversation started listed two issues, but has evolved to only be about the Jon Stewart verified and attributed content. If it is the terminology of the content, I don't see the need for additional editors, but wouldn't be against their input either. If it is whether it is given undue weight, that is something that I do not agree with, and others may wish to way into whether verified content is deleted.
- If it is wording, the wording as it stands only takes into account the Business Insider source, and not the other sources I have since added to verify the content. Given that we can now draw upon those multiple sources, we can now adjust the content supported by those sources accordingly.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Presently the content reads as follows:
On The Daily Show, Jon Stewart said that the Romney campaign was centering his campaign on words taken out of context, and followed this by saying conservative commentators perpetuated the use of the quote.
- Looking at only the Business Insider content, this appears to be adequate, IMHO; however, given the other reliable sources that verify what Stewart said, they are more focused on the "out of context misunderstanding" quote of Stewart about the Romney Campaign, and not on the usage of a segment of the speech that is the subject of this article by other commentators.
- It can also be said that the LA Times can be used to verify statements that Stephen Colbert made regarding the subject of this article.
- Perhaps the content can be modified to say:
On The Daily Show, a news satire program, Jon Stewart said that the Romney campaign was centering their campaign on a grammatical misstep taken out of context; he additionally said that both campaigns are guilty of focusing on gaffes.
- Additionally, we can add regarding Stephen Colbert:
On The Colbert Report, another news satire program, Stephen Colbert, to keep with the theme of the Obama quote used by the Romney Campaign he attended to do a segment of his show as a one man show.
- This possible new content can be supported by additional sources, such as the Huffington Post, NBC Chicago, and the Business insider.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Go ahead and change if you may. You can change the Jon Stewart stuff and add in the Stephen Colbert commentary. In fact, I bet the proposed is neutral. --George Ho (talk) 04:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Change made; thanks for the input.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- I wonder if the Stephen Colbert is grammatically well-written. I see run-ons actually or fragmented sentence. --George Ho (talk) 06:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- I forgot a comma after campaign, if there is another way that it can be reworded while maintaining neutrality, I am all ears.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Here is my attempt of copyediting, with a minor expansion. Please let me know if this can be improved any.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- I wonder if the Stephen Colbert is grammatically well-written. I see run-ons actually or fragmented sentence. --George Ho (talk) 06:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Change made; thanks for the input.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Go ahead and change if you may. You can change the Jon Stewart stuff and add in the Stephen Colbert commentary. In fact, I bet the proposed is neutral. --George Ho (talk) 04:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Resolved?
This diff shows the neutralization on the Jon Stewart commentary. Let's wait for a day or two to determine if editors, like Wookian, are fine with this changes. --George Ho (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- --George Ho (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Resolved- Looks good to me, thanks George and RightCow. Wookian (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Background
Should we create a background section, regarding the Obama campaign schedule following this event, and the Democrat strength in Roanoke, which its local paper has described as a "Democratic stronghold"?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm indifferent. But if you're inclined add a brief section and see what happens--don't spend too much time on it in case it gets nixed.– Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 06:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Meme
How about a section on how "You didn't build that" became a meme for Obama opponents.– Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 06:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- There is a brief mention of the meme that has arisen from the speech in the article, however if others wish to expand upon this to have its own section, perhaps it should go in between commentators and the Romney campaign. Perhaps it can be started by moving the Jay Leno joke over (if that is the use of the meme (I am not sure if it is)) to that new section.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- Your proposal lacks reliable independent non-partisan sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure "independent" and "non-partisan" are required of every source in an article. Deryck C. 14:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- They certainly help in establishing due weight and with neutrality. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure "independent" and "non-partisan" are required of every source in an article. Deryck C. 14:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Fact statements
Couple places in the lead / caption, the article states, as a statement of fact, that Obama was talking about infrastructure. Example, the sidebar Outcome reads "Generated controversy from Mitt Romney's campaign and among conservatives because of the president's statement regarding the infrastructure used by business owners." It would seem that is a disputed point and the nature of the controversy itself. One side says the statement was about infrastructure, the other side says it described the business. It may be the majority opinion, even the correct interpretation, but it seems it's still an opinion and should be qualified in some way or perhaps not phrased as a statement of fact. Similarly, in the lead it states "Obama spoke about the ways in which successful businesses rely on both individual initiative and infrastructure which the business owners did not build themselves." Again, suggesting as a statement of fact that he was speaking of infrastructure. It would seem this is in violation of WP:NPOV. "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but don't assert opinions themselves." Morphh (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- I addressed one of your concerns in the "Outcome" section of the infobox, Morphh. Shall we count the seconds before it's reverted? --Kenatipo speak! 17:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- (I find Andrew Cline's Atlantic article insightful and that surprises me as it appears in The Atlantic.) --Kenatipo speak! 17:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- The problem with the infobox stems from the fact that infoboxes are spectacularly poor at conveying any kind of nuance. That said, this isn't the answer - it uses the passive voice to enshrine Republican partisan spin, and as such seems more suited to a Fox News headline than an encyclopedic capsule summary. I would strongly suggest either leaving the "outcome" parameter of the infobox blank, or using a summary that at least pretends to be something other than a partisan talking point (for example: "Line from speech was used as the basis of a series of attack ads by Romney campaign"). That at least avoids taking a position on the validity of the attacks (generally seen as somewhere between misleading and frankly dishonest by independent fact-checkers). MastCell Talk 17:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- It is impossible to know the "outcome" of this fauxtroversy until after the election. Anything else is guesswork, so I've blanked the infobox item per WP:NPOV. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- I would encourage you, MastCell, and you, Scjessey, to read Andrew Cline's article in The Atlantic. It's insightful and it may help you understand what "you didn't build that" is really all about. --Kenatipo speak! 20:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks; I read it a while back, and it did little to change my previously conceived view of Andrew Cline as a rather pedestrian and unimaginative peddler of Republican and anti-Obama talking points, well-suited for his current position as opinion-page editor at the New Hampshire Union Leader. His reading is incredibly narrow and reductive, and ignores the clearly stated role of government in providing for the general welfare. The idea that our government exists solely to secure our rights isn't from Jefferson, and it's definitely not from the Constitution - it's something that, as best I can tell, Andrew Cline made up by (ironically enough) quoting a snippet of the Declaration of Independence out of context. In fact, our government is explicitly enjoined to promote the general welfare - that is, to allow us to thrive and to create the conditions in which we can do things like start a successful business. The Constitution says that. It's been a well-understood role of the U.S. government since there was a U.S. government, so for Andrew Cline to pretend it's some sort of revolutionary socialistic vision of Obama's isn't particularly impressive. But anyhoo... MastCell Talk 21:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- You are more hard-core than I realized, MastCell. The Founding Fathers apparently defined "promote the general welfare" differently than you do—there was no Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid in those days, and no Federal income tax until 1913 (if memory serves). I think Cline hit the nail on the head in describing Obama's collectivist, "you owe the government, the government doesn't owe you" mentality, and Obama's speech reflects his big-government mindset. --Kenatipo speak! 05:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- The idiocy of the article was in pretending that Obama proposed a brand-new, revolutionary redefinition of government's role. Even the nonsense about "you owe the government, the government doesn't owe you" is transparently silly. Kennedy expressed exactly same idea (as "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country") fifty years ago. It's not some new Obama socialist plot, and it's sort of insulting to the reader's intelligence to try to pass it off as one. MastCell Talk 07:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have to disagree here: the idiocy was in just plain lying in order to achieve this transformation in meaning. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 11:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Socialism isn't a new idea, MastCell, just a failed idea. How far would Obama have gotten if he had said "Hi, I'm Barack Obama, and I want government to control every aspect of your life, starting with your healthcare."? Obama is no Kennedy Democrat. How many communist mentors (and communist relatives) did Jack Kennedy have? Obama is no Jack Kennedy. But, getting back to the speech: it doesn't matter whether Obama was referring to businesses or to infrastructure — he's wrong on both counts. Business owners built their businesses. They also built the infrastructure that facilitates businesses because they paid the taxes that built the infrastructure. Successful business owners pay more taxes than the rest of us under our progressive income tax system because they have more income than the rest of us. They pay a higher percentage of it to the government and more in absolute dollars. Has anyone asked Obama where he thinks the money came from that built the infrastructure? I don't have to ask what to do for my country the first week in November — I know what to do. --Kenatipo speak! 18:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- This is getting pretty far afield, so I'll just respond on your talk page, if that's OK with you. If not, just delete my post there and we'll let it go, but I think we're veering into using this talkpage as a discussion forum. MastCell Talk 19:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Socialism isn't a new idea, MastCell, just a failed idea. How far would Obama have gotten if he had said "Hi, I'm Barack Obama, and I want government to control every aspect of your life, starting with your healthcare."? Obama is no Kennedy Democrat. How many communist mentors (and communist relatives) did Jack Kennedy have? Obama is no Jack Kennedy. But, getting back to the speech: it doesn't matter whether Obama was referring to businesses or to infrastructure — he's wrong on both counts. Business owners built their businesses. They also built the infrastructure that facilitates businesses because they paid the taxes that built the infrastructure. Successful business owners pay more taxes than the rest of us under our progressive income tax system because they have more income than the rest of us. They pay a higher percentage of it to the government and more in absolute dollars. Has anyone asked Obama where he thinks the money came from that built the infrastructure? I don't have to ask what to do for my country the first week in November — I know what to do. --Kenatipo speak! 18:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have to disagree here: the idiocy was in just plain lying in order to achieve this transformation in meaning. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 11:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- The idiocy of the article was in pretending that Obama proposed a brand-new, revolutionary redefinition of government's role. Even the nonsense about "you owe the government, the government doesn't owe you" is transparently silly. Kennedy expressed exactly same idea (as "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country") fifty years ago. It's not some new Obama socialist plot, and it's sort of insulting to the reader's intelligence to try to pass it off as one. MastCell Talk 07:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- You are more hard-core than I realized, MastCell. The Founding Fathers apparently defined "promote the general welfare" differently than you do—there was no Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid in those days, and no Federal income tax until 1913 (if memory serves). I think Cline hit the nail on the head in describing Obama's collectivist, "you owe the government, the government doesn't owe you" mentality, and Obama's speech reflects his big-government mindset. --Kenatipo speak! 05:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks; I read it a while back, and it did little to change my previously conceived view of Andrew Cline as a rather pedestrian and unimaginative peddler of Republican and anti-Obama talking points, well-suited for his current position as opinion-page editor at the New Hampshire Union Leader. His reading is incredibly narrow and reductive, and ignores the clearly stated role of government in providing for the general welfare. The idea that our government exists solely to secure our rights isn't from Jefferson, and it's definitely not from the Constitution - it's something that, as best I can tell, Andrew Cline made up by (ironically enough) quoting a snippet of the Declaration of Independence out of context. In fact, our government is explicitly enjoined to promote the general welfare - that is, to allow us to thrive and to create the conditions in which we can do things like start a successful business. The Constitution says that. It's been a well-understood role of the U.S. government since there was a U.S. government, so for Andrew Cline to pretend it's some sort of revolutionary socialistic vision of Obama's isn't particularly impressive. But anyhoo... MastCell Talk 21:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Here are the last two versions of the "Outcome" line of the inbox before Scjessey deleted it:
- "Generated controversy from Mitt Romney's campaign and among conservatives because of the president's statement regarding the infrastructure used by business owners."
- "Generated controversy as remarks were seen as denigrating the success, intelligence and hard work of American entrepreneurs."
- (the latter is my version) --Kenatipo speak! 20:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- I really don't see how Cline's piece has any significance in dealing with the crystal ball issue. And let's be honest here, nobody really sees Obama's remarks as "denigrating the success, intelligence and hard work of American entrepreneurs" at all. Nobody with a nanoparticle of brain tissue would listen to Obama's speech and conclude what the Romney campaign would like us to think Obama meant. "Outcome" is something that comes at the end, and that means after the election. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's better that the "Outcome" line stay deleted; it probably applies better to a "news event" than a political speech. Otherwise, you're completely mistaken about Obama's remarks not denigrating successful Americans; his comments hit a nerve because they are so un-American. --Kenatipo speak! 05:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- I really don't see how Cline's piece has any significance in dealing with the crystal ball issue. And let's be honest here, nobody really sees Obama's remarks as "denigrating the success, intelligence and hard work of American entrepreneurs" at all. Nobody with a nanoparticle of brain tissue would listen to Obama's speech and conclude what the Romney campaign would like us to think Obama meant. "Outcome" is something that comes at the end, and that means after the election. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- (the latter is my version) --Kenatipo speak! 20:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- I would encourage you, MastCell, and you, Scjessey, to read Andrew Cline's article in The Atlantic. It's insightful and it may help you understand what "you didn't build that" is really all about. --Kenatipo speak! 20:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- It is impossible to know the "outcome" of this fauxtroversy until after the election. Anything else is guesswork, so I've blanked the infobox item per WP:NPOV. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- The problem with the infobox stems from the fact that infoboxes are spectacularly poor at conveying any kind of nuance. That said, this isn't the answer - it uses the passive voice to enshrine Republican partisan spin, and as such seems more suited to a Fox News headline than an encyclopedic capsule summary. I would strongly suggest either leaving the "outcome" parameter of the infobox blank, or using a summary that at least pretends to be something other than a partisan talking point (for example: "Line from speech was used as the basis of a series of attack ads by Romney campaign"). That at least avoids taking a position on the validity of the attacks (generally seen as somewhere between misleading and frankly dishonest by independent fact-checkers). MastCell Talk 17:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the outcome line, as I had originally had it, it is based on the C-SPAN summary of the event. C-SPAN IMHO is relatively neutral and non-partisan and does a good job in posting neutral summaries. Here is what is there
President Barack Obama gave a speech to campaign supporters in Roanoke, Virginia. He talked about his middle-class tax cut plan and other economic issues. The speech generated controversy from Mitt Romney's campaign and among conservatives because of the president's statement regarding the infrastructure used by business owners: "Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
— C-SPAN
I think we can all agree that the speech generated controversy because of the President's statement.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- I looked at the template backup but I didn't find any useful examples of what goes on the "Outcome" line. The infobox template we're using here is derived from template: news event. Can you point me to any good examples of the use of the Outcome line in other articles, RCLC? --Kenatipo speak! 19:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that the speech generated controversy because of the President's statement, but the primary aspect of that controversy is with regard to what "that" referred to - "a business" or "roads and bridges". These statements present as fact that Obama was talking about "roads and bridges", which is disputed. So we need to rephrase these or qualify them. Morphh (talk) 12:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't agree that the President's "statement" generated a controversy, as RightCowLeftCoast claims. Republicans generated the controversy by taking Obama's words out of context and twisting them to make it sound as if he meant something completely different to what he actually said. It's perfectly obvious what Obama meant to say, because he'd given several variations of the same speech prior to Roanoke, and several since. The gullibility of some people, believing this RNC spin, is truly astonishing. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- There is absolutely no problem with {{Infobox speech}}. It is one of the best templates we have. And its creator is one of Wikipedia's finest editors. Someone should give him a barnstar! – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 21:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- The speech did generate controversy, and thus why the event has made a significant effect, and thus why this article already sites 50+ indepth sources, and grow from the thousands of other sources that are out there.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- That is a misrepresentation. Every single one of the reliable sources (and by reliable, I don't mean right-wing blogs) note the controversy came from the Republican misrepresentation of Obama's speech, not the speech itself. This is a lie that you are using Wikipedia to perpetuate. Shame on you. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Please stop violating WP:CIVIL, please keep the discussion on the content of the article, and not about the editors!
- Regarding the content, the generation of the controversy all has their roots on the words spoken by the current President. His words were interpreted one way by several commentators and a political campaign. Then the present President's campaign said basically I didn't mean it like that and it was taken out of context, and several other commentators agreed and wrote/said so. Then other commentators said it was the context that is the controversy. In the end none of this would have occurred without the speech in Roanoke.
- In this way, I think, C-SPAN wrote that the speech generated controversy. That statement does not make any judgement of what occurred after the speech, and thus why IMHO it is a very neutral statement.
- Different commentators have interpreted the President's speech in different ways, and as the Fact Check article says:
We don’t know what the president had in mind when he uttered those words, and his intent is not clear.
— Factcheck.org- --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Aah, that old canard. They did not know whether the president was referring to "roads and bridges" or "infrastructure and education" because of a conflicting response from the Obama campaign after the speech. But Factcheck.org did indeed confirm that Republicans were deceiving the American people. And the very few commentators supporting the Republican position are also supporting the GOP, so their comments are biased. Your mock outrage about civility makes me want to puke, by the way. It mirrors the Romney claim that Obama has gone negative about everything. Urgh. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- That is one interpretation of the effect of the speech, a view not shared by all. To not include verified content because of what other verified content says it be the opposite of what NPOV calls for. It is not our place to determine what is right or wrong, but to neutrally present all POVs given their due weight. Due weight does not mean removing one view of what the President said.
- By the way I am outraged that some editors continue not to abide by CIVIL, and continue to assume bad faith. The article was kept, so if the object is to thwart the article so that it only presents one POV of the speech, in an attempt to get the article deleted, it would not be in the best interest of the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Please see WP:CIVIL#Identifying incivility, Direct rudeness.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- You're misrepresenting WP:NPOV. As I explained elsewhere, we are not looking for "balance" between two opposing views. We are looking to fairly represent each view at a level appropriate with its coverage in reliable sources. The vast majority of reliable sources subscribe to the view that Republicans have tried to deceive the American people by taking Obama's words out of context. I've never advocated the removal of anything, but I absolutely insist that NPOV be followed to the letter, and right now this article reflects a significant pro-deception bias. And please stop banging on about civil. If editors insist on lying, I'm going to call them out. Try being less disingenuous. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Jessey here, you are misrepresenting NPOV as if there are two equal sides. There are not. Independent fact checkers, and most non-partisan outlets, have characterized the Romney campaign and Republicans of taking the quote out of context and have given apt explanation of of the true meaning of the speech. The fact that some partisan editors seem to want do the same with this article is not surprising, but should not be allowed. There are no two equal sides, there are facts and then there is political spin. The article should first reflect the facts(Obama's speech and what he and his campaign describe it was meaning, along with the Fackcheck.org and Politifact explanations), and then there should be a section titled -Political spin by Republicans- or such. Just because the article was kept(even though it obviously should not have been), doesn't give editors carte blanche to misrepresent the speech. In fact, NPOV, Weight and BLP dictate that we must provide the nuetral meaning of the speech. As described by the speech giver and independent fact checkers. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. Although I think you could have sections on "spin" by both the Obama and Romney campaigns, the lack of interest in independent, reliable sources by the dominant editors of this article is disappointing. The article was "kept" under the premise that it would be edited in ways that conform to WP:NPOV. The "keep" vote doesn't authorize a small group of editors from the Conservatism WikiProject to downplay independent, reliable sources or to use the article to amplify political spin. MastCell Talk 18:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oh look, other editors are claiming that there is a group of editors here to thwart NPOV by claiming to do so under NPOV themselves, while other editors interpret other editors actions as attempting to remove a POV and thus creating an article that does not meet NPOV.
- First, Wikipedia is not about someone claims to be "the truth", it is about what can be verified. Both POVs can be verified. WE should not make a judgement about what is TRUE or NOT TRUE. Just because some editors don't like a certain POV, does not mean that it should be given fair weighted representation. Not including a POV because one doesn't like that POV and believe that it should not be given weight due to that belief is not keeping with NPOV.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't really see the relevance of your comments. We're talking about assigning due weight to various viewpoints, which depends on their representation in independent, reliable sources. Non-partisan reliable sources seem to lean toward the view that the Romney campaign is being misleading here. Whether one "likes" or "dislikes" that conclusion, or whether one believes it to be "the truth", is irrelevant. We just convey what the best available sources say. I think you've got it backwards - it's evident that a small group of editors don't "like" the idea that independent fact-checkers have called out the Romney campaign in this instance, so they're trying to downplay the sources. And it appears that you guys are trying to argue that the fact-checkers "got it wrong" (thus violating the link about verifiability vs. truth you provided). MastCell Talk 22:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- The statements that I described were not a matter of weight policy. It's about opinion being stated as fact. I never implied that the viewpoints were equal - they need not be. One is the majority viewpoint and the other a minority one, but they are viewpoints - opinions, and opinions can not be stated as fact in Wikipedia voice. We need to reword it or qualify it. Morphh (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- MastCell wrote "The 'keep' vote doesn't authorize a small group of editors from the Conservatism WikiProject to downplay independent, reliable sources or to use the article to amplify political spin" Response: I'm not part of that wikiproject, and besides that, participation in the Conservatism wikiproject doesn't equate to being a conservative oneself or pushing a conservative POV. I think the discussion here needs to lighten up a little bit and that unhelpful line of argument should be dropped. Wookian (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I also just now read through the Commentators section, and it looks like none of the right-leaning material capitalizes on the controversial interpretation "you didn't build [your business]". Instead, they all talk about the undisputed wider context of Obama's "you didn't build that" remark, e.g. entrepreneurial winners and losers being a function of government versus the free market. As discussed below, that is a completely legitimate and mainstream debate that is abundantly fair to Obama's words. Wookian (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I ask kindly, that arguments that I have not advanced not be attributed to me. I never said that "fact-check"ers got it wrong. I do not quantify whether any POV on the topic is right or wrong, that being said I do not give them greater weight either. Read VNT again please; this is a social sciences topic, therefore there are only opinions.
- What can we say are factual?
- 1) President Obama spoke in front of the Fire Station #1 in Roanoke, Virgina.
- 2) Before President Obama spoke, former Virginia Governor Timothy Kaine & Senator Mark Warner spoke on the same stage, leading up to the President's speech.
- 3) The Romney Campaign, used a portion of the speech to create their own campaign add
- What is not a fact?
- 1) The opinions expressed by commentators.
- 2) The opinions expressed by other commentators about statements by other commentators and the campaigns.
- Fact checkers are commentators.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- But the opinions of independent fact checkers will obviously carry a lot more weight than the opinions of partisan commentators like the disgraced WSJ columnist James Taranto. That's also a fact. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Partisan commentators, eh? So-called independent fact checkers are sometimes found to be partisan. Why make universal generalizations? Evaluate reliability of sources on a case by case basis. Wookian (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- The two cannot be compared. You're suggesting that people who work for fact-checking organizations should be denied their Constitutional right to vote? The reliability of a source is judged by reputation, not digging through bins to find the personal voting record of US citizens. You cannot establish a record of reliability on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes I think you just argue for the sake of arguing. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- So if anyone calls themselves a fact checker, and claims to be independent and non-partisan we should always take what they say at face value, consider it more important than other peoples opinions and weight it heavier in articles?
- For instance, one of the Obama's first efforts to respond to the actions of the Romney campaign in relation to this article was to put out a release through their "fact check" section of the campaign website. Say this was not on the campaign website and some place else, and they claimed to be independent and non-partisan and all that. Would we then also elevate what they claim as fact?
- Please stop making arguments that others are not trying to say. What the Free beacon article is attempting to do, IMHO, is bring transparency to the organization. What's wrong with transparency? Voting records are public record, they do reflect the voter. If someone knew my real world name, they could go down to the registrar of voters and with a little effort find out how many times I have voted since I was eligible, and how I voted. Heck, if I donate enough, my donation record is also public record (it's just harder to find).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- The two cannot be compared. You're suggesting that people who work for fact-checking organizations should be denied their Constitutional right to vote? The reliability of a source is judged by reputation, not digging through bins to find the personal voting record of US citizens. You cannot establish a record of reliability on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes I think you just argue for the sake of arguing. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Partisan commentators, eh? So-called independent fact checkers are sometimes found to be partisan. Why make universal generalizations? Evaluate reliability of sources on a case by case basis. Wookian (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- But the opinions of independent fact checkers will obviously carry a lot more weight than the opinions of partisan commentators like the disgraced WSJ columnist James Taranto. That's also a fact. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't really see the relevance of your comments. We're talking about assigning due weight to various viewpoints, which depends on their representation in independent, reliable sources. Non-partisan reliable sources seem to lean toward the view that the Romney campaign is being misleading here. Whether one "likes" or "dislikes" that conclusion, or whether one believes it to be "the truth", is irrelevant. We just convey what the best available sources say. I think you've got it backwards - it's evident that a small group of editors don't "like" the idea that independent fact-checkers have called out the Romney campaign in this instance, so they're trying to downplay the sources. And it appears that you guys are trying to argue that the fact-checkers "got it wrong" (thus violating the link about verifiability vs. truth you provided). MastCell Talk 22:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. Although I think you could have sections on "spin" by both the Obama and Romney campaigns, the lack of interest in independent, reliable sources by the dominant editors of this article is disappointing. The article was "kept" under the premise that it would be edited in ways that conform to WP:NPOV. The "keep" vote doesn't authorize a small group of editors from the Conservatism WikiProject to downplay independent, reliable sources or to use the article to amplify political spin. MastCell Talk 18:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Aah, that old canard. They did not know whether the president was referring to "roads and bridges" or "infrastructure and education" because of a conflicting response from the Obama campaign after the speech. But Factcheck.org did indeed confirm that Republicans were deceiving the American people. And the very few commentators supporting the Republican position are also supporting the GOP, so their comments are biased. Your mock outrage about civility makes me want to puke, by the way. It mirrors the Romney claim that Obama has gone negative about everything. Urgh. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- That is a misrepresentation. Every single one of the reliable sources (and by reliable, I don't mean right-wing blogs) note the controversy came from the Republican misrepresentation of Obama's speech, not the speech itself. This is a lie that you are using Wikipedia to perpetuate. Shame on you. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't agree that the President's "statement" generated a controversy, as RightCowLeftCoast claims. Republicans generated the controversy by taking Obama's words out of context and twisting them to make it sound as if he meant something completely different to what he actually said. It's perfectly obvious what Obama meant to say, because he'd given several variations of the same speech prior to Roanoke, and several since. The gullibility of some people, believing this RNC spin, is truly astonishing. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Nobody in America should ever be legally denied their right to vote, march in political demonstrations, or donate to political causes. But if you assume the mantle of a strongly independent and neutral commentator on political matters, you may sometimes be expected to freely give up some of those activities. In the site I linked to, it mentions that the Roanoke Times has an ethics policy for its reporters that precludes participation in political primaries or involvement in political demonstrations. The obvious reason for such policies (which are sometimes optional and self-enforced) is that when your coverage turns out to be unfair in favor of your own political party, it is inevitable that fingers will be pointed at you. So for example, as my link describes, Fiske's fact check organization evaluated Dem Gov Tim Kaine's period in office vis-a-vis the economy by taking inflation into account, which turned out to be favorable. Whereas they didn't use the same standard with a Repub Governor. Was that an honest error? Maybe. But since he votes Democrat it certainly makes him look bad. Bottom line: we're not talking about plagiarism or falsification here, so it's not like a career ending thing; but I dispute that self-named "independent fact checkers" are automatically entitled to special respect above regular journalistic commentators. Sometimes they are found to have partisan leanings that may skew their work. Wookian (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Both of you are wrong about this. What establishes a fact-checker is reputation. It doesn't matter an iota how people within their organizations vote as long as their reputation is solid. Politifact has been criticized by both Republicans and Democrats, but it is still a well-regarded fact-checking organization. It is certainly more reliably independent than your average WSJ columnist. Incidentally, I have ZERO voting/donation record in US elections, so you may consider me to be an independent fact-checker!
</sarcasm>-- Scjessey (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)- lol :) I see what you're saying, and I agree it's about reputation. Maybe this depends on who you ask; but knowing that somebody has a partisan voting record can affect a person's reputation. Otherwise, why would the Roanoke Times have that ethics policy? Wookian (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Both of you are wrong about this. What establishes a fact-checker is reputation. It doesn't matter an iota how people within their organizations vote as long as their reputation is solid. Politifact has been criticized by both Republicans and Democrats, but it is still a well-regarded fact-checking organization. It is certainly more reliably independent than your average WSJ columnist. Incidentally, I have ZERO voting/donation record in US elections, so you may consider me to be an independent fact-checker!
- Nobody in America should ever be legally denied their right to vote, march in political demonstrations, or donate to political causes. But if you assume the mantle of a strongly independent and neutral commentator on political matters, you may sometimes be expected to freely give up some of those activities. In the site I linked to, it mentions that the Roanoke Times has an ethics policy for its reporters that precludes participation in political primaries or involvement in political demonstrations. The obvious reason for such policies (which are sometimes optional and self-enforced) is that when your coverage turns out to be unfair in favor of your own political party, it is inevitable that fingers will be pointed at you. So for example, as my link describes, Fiske's fact check organization evaluated Dem Gov Tim Kaine's period in office vis-a-vis the economy by taking inflation into account, which turned out to be favorable. Whereas they didn't use the same standard with a Repub Governor. Was that an honest error? Maybe. But since he votes Democrat it certainly makes him look bad. Bottom line: we're not talking about plagiarism or falsification here, so it's not like a career ending thing; but I dispute that self-named "independent fact checkers" are automatically entitled to special respect above regular journalistic commentators. Sometimes they are found to have partisan leanings that may skew their work. Wookian (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Guy wearing tee shirt serving food
I removed this citation from the material about the campaign. Not sure if it even belongs elsewhere. --Mollskman (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Equally, I have deleted content regarding the small businesses, that is not about the romney campaign itself, to keep it within scope.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Need to fix the commentators section
The balance is all off. The first half of it is full of people bashing Obama and the last half is full of people explaining how Romney is purposefully misrepresenting what Obama said and misquoting it. Both of these need to be equally represented, but they need to be presented at the same time or it unbalances the section. An alternative is to have an intro paragraph to the section that discusses both sides. Because, otherwise, it feels like the anti-Obama side is given greater credence than the anti-Romney side. SilverserenC 00:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Like fiction, reception is welcome to be added. You can make a review at the #DYK nomination to question its qualifications as part of the Main Page, but I'm sure this particular issue does not affect the DYK nom at all. Anyway, there is nothing I can do about it, unless "overly detailed for specific demographics" comes in mind. But you can try balancing it out if other such sources are found. But WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is followed, I hope. --George Ho (talk) 04:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- George, of course this issue affects DYK nominations: a prime criterion for DYK is that both the hook and the article retain NPOV. The order of presentation here—one side for many paragraphs, and only then the other point of view—is being criticized on balance grounds: lack of neutrality. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- The issue isn't so much the amount of each side that's represented, they appear to be represented quite equally. The issue is the order of the representation, where the anti-Obama stuff is put first when, ideally, both support and opposition should be mixed together. SilverserenC 04:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- On this issue, "balance" on Wikipedia has little to do with how much (in terms of writing) each "side" has been given in an article. "Balance" is a reflection of what reliable sources say. In this case, the speech was extremely ordinary, unremarkable, and almost identical to dozens of other speeches Obama has given. What makes it notable was how Republicans have exploited it by taking out of context a phrase that was somewhat poorly worded. So the article should focus almost entirely on the exploitation of the speech, rather than the speech itself. Few serious commentators (or reliable sources) think Obama intentionally meant to belittle the work of business creators, so such commentators should be given very minimal coverage in this article; however, the vast bulk of commentators (and reliable sources) see the story as how Republicans took Obama's words out of context (essentially deceiving the American people). A correctly balanced article will, therefore, reflect how the preponderance of reliable sources have covered this story. The key policy to follow here is that "each article ... fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." -- Scjessey (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with that. But then why are the anti-Obama commentators put first in the article? They're being given the prominent spot while they are the least amount of coverage. SilverserenC 22:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Mainly because this article is garbage, and it should've been deleted at AfD. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Scjessey says "Few serious commentators (or reliable sources) think Obama intentionally meant to belittle the work of business creators". I disagree. Many serious, right-leaning commentators say precisely that. And they do not have to hold Obama to the controversial, grammatically strict interpretation of his remarks in order to do so ("you didn't build [your business]"). Many commentators have pointed out that in his speech Obama effectively asks his listeners what the difference is between "winners and losers" among entrepreneurs, and then specifically denies that it is due to intelligence or hard work on the part of the entrepreneurs ("a lot of people are smart" etc.). Of course, Obama instead attributes that difference in outcome to receiving assistance from government-provided services. Calling this belittling to entrepreneurs is a very mainstream view. In fact, it's turned into a wide phenomenon of cultural backlash, with many small businesses posting signs protesting Obama's remarks. Wookian (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Serious right-wing commentators are partisan. They will always deliberately put a negative spin on Obama's words. They can safely be ignored. What we are looking for in a situation like this is independent voices, and they are unanimous in their opinion that Obama did not mean to belittle the work of business creators, and they are unanimous in their opinion that the fauxtroversy was created by Republicans by deliberately misrepresenting Obama's words. Your theory that the reverse is a "mainstream view" is absolutely ridiculous, unless you think "mainstream" means the extreme right-wing. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't say "right wing", I said "right-leaning". However, it wasn't a necessary qualification - I could have just said "many serious commentators". If I pointed out that a particular editorial in the NYT was left-leaning, and an editor replied "then the NYT article can safely be ignored", that would be a disproportionate and knee-jerk response. The attribute of being right or left-leaning does not inherently affect reliability of a source. To say otherwise seems like a POV judgment. Wookian (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Serious right-wing commentators are partisan. They will always deliberately put a negative spin on Obama's words. They can safely be ignored. What we are looking for in a situation like this is independent voices, and they are unanimous in their opinion that Obama did not mean to belittle the work of business creators, and they are unanimous in their opinion that the fauxtroversy was created by Republicans by deliberately misrepresenting Obama's words. Your theory that the reverse is a "mainstream view" is absolutely ridiculous, unless you think "mainstream" means the extreme right-wing. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with that. But then why are the anti-Obama commentators put first in the article? They're being given the prominent spot while they are the least amount of coverage. SilverserenC 22:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- On this issue, "balance" on Wikipedia has little to do with how much (in terms of writing) each "side" has been given in an article. "Balance" is a reflection of what reliable sources say. In this case, the speech was extremely ordinary, unremarkable, and almost identical to dozens of other speeches Obama has given. What makes it notable was how Republicans have exploited it by taking out of context a phrase that was somewhat poorly worded. So the article should focus almost entirely on the exploitation of the speech, rather than the speech itself. Few serious commentators (or reliable sources) think Obama intentionally meant to belittle the work of business creators, so such commentators should be given very minimal coverage in this article; however, the vast bulk of commentators (and reliable sources) see the story as how Republicans took Obama's words out of context (essentially deceiving the American people). A correctly balanced article will, therefore, reflect how the preponderance of reliable sources have covered this story. The key policy to follow here is that "each article ... fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." -- Scjessey (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't about balancing two political viewpoints. The only balance in wikipedia refers to balancing views that are equally common amongst different reliable sources WP:BALANCE. All partisan sources have zero weight unless accompanied by a non-partisan reliable source. At the moment the article reads like a newspaper with a big list of opinions; nearly all of them should go. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- I can agree with that. SilverserenC 22:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't agree. The reason why the article was kept, other than it not being a content fork, (because there was no content in other articles to fork) was because the event passed effect, the effect being that it was commented about by the Romney campaign and conservative commentators, and in tern liberal commentators commented about them. This is the reason for the layout of the commentator section. It is all attributed, and verified. And given that the section is about commentators statements about the speech (as is done on the Barack Obama Tucson memorial speech) it is appropriate that the content is there. As for the comment above regarding sources. All the sources listed at reliable sources, such as the Huffington Post, Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, and the Washington Post.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- You need to find a new way to organize this section. As long as it starts with paragraph after paragraph of anti-Obama material, no matter how well sourced, the effect is to give the anti-Obama views primacy. This is a fundamental flaw, it was brought up at AfD, and is still unaddressed. This article will remain non-neutral for as long as this section's organization remains unchanged. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- This is exactly it. The issue isn't the commentators or the sources used, the issue is the organization of the section, which appears to be one that is contributing to an anti-Obama POV. SilverserenC 04:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps the content there can be reorganized by the date at which the source was written, but that would remove any present organization, and create a sort of chronology of commentary section. If others would prefer that, I'd take some work but could occur.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I dispute the idea that putting one section first makes it more prominent in terms of presenting a debate among the sources. In fact, giving authoritative views "the last word" is a very common practice and can be very effective at reinforcing the authority of those views. I'm not saying that's what's happening here, because we don't need to endorse particular criticisms or defenses of the president. Just suggesting not getting too bent out of shape over the order. Wookian (talk) 13:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- If you have no issue over what goes first etc, then you will have no issue if things are reorganised. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- And what are the reorganization options? Do they remove all views critical of present President? Do they remove all views that aren't critical of the present President? Are the commentators statements listed chronologically? Based on the "importance" of the commentary (if so who weights what is important or not)?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's really, really simple. Independent, reliable sources take priority. Partisan sources and campaign spin - whether pro- or anti-Obama - take a backseat. That's the policy-compliant answer, although there seems to be significant resistance to implementing it here for some reason. MastCell Talk 18:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- No side should be given priority. To assign priority would be to give bias weight towards some commentators and others. These claims of "independence" are just that claims. All the sources are reliable sources, and are appropriately attributed. I have offered a suggested solution regarding layout of the Commentators section, and I haven't labelled any source with a bias label like conservative, liberal, progressive, right, or left. Yet to advance the supremacy of one source over another source when all sources are equally valid is an attempt of POV pushing. Please stop it.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's a fundamental mistake to assert that "all sources are equally valid". A partisan op-ed is not equally as valuable as coverage from an independent, non-partisan reliable source. That's basic site policy - we do distinguish between the political spin machine and more neutral and reliably sourced coverage. We do give priority (or supremacy, or whatever negatively-charged word you want to use) to high-quality, non-partisan sources. If you can't do that, you shouldn't edit the article. MastCell Talk 22:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- So what solution would you offer? Move the paragraph from the two "fact-checking" websites up to the top of the commentators list? "Fact-checkers" are just other journalist who are stating their opinion of others who have stated their opinion, that doesn't make their opinion any more valid than any other commentators opinion. Please again, see WP:VNT#Social sciences:
To say it in a few words: there are no universal truths in social sciences. As said earlier, there are facts, opinions, facts about opinions and opinions about opinions.
- In this case the "fact-checkers" are claiming to be factual, however if we look at what they write, they can no better interpret the words of what the President said, than any other commentator.
- Even the factcheck.org article states that they cannot know what the President actually meant when he said his words. Therefore to assign them more weight than any other source would not be keeping with NEU. Again, I have offered a possible solution, listing what is already there chronologically, and I have not heard other solutions other than to reduction of content based on some thing that is a kin to censorship of a certain POV that some editors do no agree with. So what ideas are offered up as other possible solutions?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- If I were proposing that the lead say, in Wikipedia's voice, "'You didn't build that' is a deceptive campaign ad by Mitt Romney"... that would be violating WP:VNT. I'm talking about asserting facts about opinions - specifically, we're conveying fact-checkers' opinions. I'm just saying that you need to stop trying to wriggle out of telling readers that independent, reputable fact-checkers find the use of this slogan deceptive. That's a fact about an opinion, but it's an important fact about an opinion and needs to be clearly conveyed. I'm not saying that they're The Truth, but I am saying that independent, reputable fact-checkers are more useful and encyclopedic sources than partisan spin. And I think that's obvious to all but a small group of people here. MastCell Talk 04:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- MastCell says: "independent, reputable fact-checkers find the use of this slogan deceptive" Response: I think that's a bridge too far. Obama did actually say it, so it is legitimate to use it in some way. I don't see fact checkers or anyone saying that the phrase should be expunged from the record entirely and never uttered, though that would be very helpful to the Obama campaign by removing a source of embarrassment. What I see is that fact checkers want to make sure that it's quoted in context, which is fair. Look in the commentators section at Rush Limbaugh's contribution (of all people): he says you did build "roads and bridges" through your taxes. Now, maybe he's accidentally supporting Obama's point, I don't care for purposes of this discussion, but let's acknowledge that many right-leaning commentators are actually engaging with the president's point, shall we? Don't oversimplify this and write off the whole debate as a Republican sucker punch over one clumsy sentence. Wookian (talk) 13:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- If I were proposing that the lead say, in Wikipedia's voice, "'You didn't build that' is a deceptive campaign ad by Mitt Romney"... that would be violating WP:VNT. I'm talking about asserting facts about opinions - specifically, we're conveying fact-checkers' opinions. I'm just saying that you need to stop trying to wriggle out of telling readers that independent, reputable fact-checkers find the use of this slogan deceptive. That's a fact about an opinion, but it's an important fact about an opinion and needs to be clearly conveyed. I'm not saying that they're The Truth, but I am saying that independent, reputable fact-checkers are more useful and encyclopedic sources than partisan spin. And I think that's obvious to all but a small group of people here. MastCell Talk 04:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's a fundamental mistake to assert that "all sources are equally valid". A partisan op-ed is not equally as valuable as coverage from an independent, non-partisan reliable source. That's basic site policy - we do distinguish between the political spin machine and more neutral and reliably sourced coverage. We do give priority (or supremacy, or whatever negatively-charged word you want to use) to high-quality, non-partisan sources. If you can't do that, you shouldn't edit the article. MastCell Talk 22:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- No side should be given priority. To assign priority would be to give bias weight towards some commentators and others. These claims of "independence" are just that claims. All the sources are reliable sources, and are appropriately attributed. I have offered a suggested solution regarding layout of the Commentators section, and I haven't labelled any source with a bias label like conservative, liberal, progressive, right, or left. Yet to advance the supremacy of one source over another source when all sources are equally valid is an attempt of POV pushing. Please stop it.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's really, really simple. Independent, reliable sources take priority. Partisan sources and campaign spin - whether pro- or anti-Obama - take a backseat. That's the policy-compliant answer, although there seems to be significant resistance to implementing it here for some reason. MastCell Talk 18:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- And what are the reorganization options? Do they remove all views critical of present President? Do they remove all views that aren't critical of the present President? Are the commentators statements listed chronologically? Based on the "importance" of the commentary (if so who weights what is important or not)?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- If you have no issue over what goes first etc, then you will have no issue if things are reorganised. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- I dispute the idea that putting one section first makes it more prominent in terms of presenting a debate among the sources. In fact, giving authoritative views "the last word" is a very common practice and can be very effective at reinforcing the authority of those views. I'm not saying that's what's happening here, because we don't need to endorse particular criticisms or defenses of the president. Just suggesting not getting too bent out of shape over the order. Wookian (talk) 13:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps the content there can be reorganized by the date at which the source was written, but that would remove any present organization, and create a sort of chronology of commentary section. If others would prefer that, I'd take some work but could occur.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- This is exactly it. The issue isn't the commentators or the sources used, the issue is the organization of the section, which appears to be one that is contributing to an anti-Obama POV. SilverserenC 04:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
- You need to find a new way to organize this section. As long as it starts with paragraph after paragraph of anti-Obama material, no matter how well sourced, the effect is to give the anti-Obama views primacy. This is a fundamental flaw, it was brought up at AfD, and is still unaddressed. This article will remain non-neutral for as long as this section's organization remains unchanged. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't agree. The reason why the article was kept, other than it not being a content fork, (because there was no content in other articles to fork) was because the event passed effect, the effect being that it was commented about by the Romney campaign and conservative commentators, and in tern liberal commentators commented about them. This is the reason for the layout of the commentator section. It is all attributed, and verified. And given that the section is about commentators statements about the speech (as is done on the Barack Obama Tucson memorial speech) it is appropriate that the content is there. As for the comment above regarding sources. All the sources listed at reliable sources, such as the Huffington Post, Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, and the Washington Post.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- I can agree with that. SilverserenC 22:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
← You're not really engaging what I'm saying. Independent fact-checkers find the Romney campaign's use of this sound bite to be deceptive and misleading:
- Politifact: "In speeches and videos, the Romney campaign has repeatedly distorted Obama's words. By plucking two sentences out of context, Romney twists the president's remarks and ignores their real meaning. The preceding sentences make clear that Obama was talking about the importance of government-provided infrastructure and education to the success of private businesses. Romney also conveniently ignores Obama's clear summary of his message, that "the point is ... that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together." By leaving out the "individual initiative" reference, Romney and his supporters have misled viewers and given a false impression. For that, we rate the claim False."
- Associated Press: "Mitt Romney says Barack Obama doesn't think entrepreneurs built their businesses. The problem is that's not what the president said... [Obama] spoke in Virginia on July 13 about the government's supportive role in providing a stable environment in which businesses can thrive.... But in a campaign that makes facts secondary to a good attack, the context doesn't seem to matter."
- FactCheck.org: "Mitt Romney and his allies have attacked President Barack Obama — often out of context — for saying, 'If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.'"
You're bringing up a series of straw-man arguments. No one is claiming that the phrase should be "expunged", or that Obama didn't actually say it. But there is an objective reality here that you need to face at some point: independent fact-checkers have universally condemned the Romney campaign's use of this sound bite as misleading or deceptive. At some point, the spin has to stop and you have to come to terms with how we're going to inform the reader of that relevant, well-sourced fact. MastCell Talk 17:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- "Independent fact-checkers" are stating an opinion. They are commentators, as are other commentators, no better or worse. Just because there are a number of sources that say something is truth, doesn't make it so. If someone where to go to a bunch of sources they would say that the truth is that a group of islands are the "Diaoyu Islands" and that all other statements are false, and opinions of people who shouldn't be listened to regarding the subject of those islands. Similarly, a statement was made, and the statement was interpreted by one group to mean one thing, while another group interpreted by another group to mean another thing. Just because someone calls themselves Independent and non-partisan doesn't mean that their opinion of their interpretation carries more weight than other commentators opinion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- MastCell says: "there is an objective reality here that you need to face at some point: independent fact-checkers have universally condemned the Romney campaign's use of this sound bite as misleading or deceptive". Response: Not totally clear what the problem is here, since I agree (and have always agreed) with including summaries of fact checker output in this article-length treatment of the controversy. Now that I've "accepted" that "objective reality", will you in turn accept the "objective reality" that both the Romney campaign and right-leaning commentators have at times engaged with the president's message in a thoughtful and contextual way, and still criticized it? There is a legitimate debate here. Look at Charles Krauthammer's WaPo editorial for a good example here. Look again at FactCheck and see where they commend the Romney campaign for providing context in his July 17 speech on "You didn't build that". My point is, you can't boil the story down to "Obama spoke clumsily, Republicans lied, full stop, nothing else notable here". Wookian (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)