Talk:You didn't build that/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Plain editing: small copyedit needed (no foam/spittle required)

"In the New York Magazine, Jonathan Chait wrote that Romney use of the words from the Roanoke speech as a "plan of blatantly lying" about it, ..."

The text needs a small tweak, and I can't figure out how to fix it without drawing fire.

"The Real Reason ‘You Didn’t Build That’ Works" article begins with

"Mitt Romney’s plan of blatantly lying about President Obama’s “you didn’t build that” speech is clearly drawing blood."

Was the text meant to be "Romney 's use of the ... has a “plan", or "wrote of Romney 's use of the words"? Shenme (talk) 04:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I would go with "wrote of Romney's use of the words...." or "characterized Romney's use of the words ...as a..."--JayJasper (talk) 05:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this, Shenme. I agree that it reads oddly. Wookian (talk) 05:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

If this article publishes the entire statement that Obama made, and which the GOP has gleefully distorted, that should be sufficient for the truth to emerge. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

This article does not explain the topic it debunks

Well, maybe it does, but I got bored reading the article about half-way through. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You haven't indicated what you think is missing. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The article (at least the first half) doesn't explain why this phrase was controversial. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Failed Verification

I see that a new paragraph has been added to the Romney Campaign section. One sentence does not have a source, however having watched it I know it to be factual (we just need a source so it isn't deleted per WP:BURDEN). The second sentence speaks about The Daily Show, however none of the articles mention the Daily Show specifically, and thus I have tagged the sentence. On the Salon article there is mention of the Daily Show in the comment section, however that is not part of the source technically and falls under WP:SPS. Additionally the first source, The Daily Blot is a Wordpress blog, which also falls under SPS.

I have formatted the references, and removed the wikilinks per WP:OVERLINK as the links are already found in the commentary section.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I have removed The Daily Show mention, per failing verification; additionally I have attributed the statement, formatted the youtube reference that had been used to verify the sentence regarding Lane Turner, and added additional references. Hope the removal wasn't to soon, for some other editors.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Unexplained change in lead

There was a change in the lead done boldly, that was done without consensus. I understand the reasoning behind it, however the new format isn't chronological, as the previous format was. The series of events (as I understand them) was as follows: Speech, Conservative reaction, Romney Ad, Obama rebuttal, Liberal reaction, Conservative reaction, Liberal reaction...(and so on, and so forth). Perhaps that would be a better format, to match the chronology of the event. I have tagged it accordingly.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Scope

It appears that due to the change to the lead, that some editors believe that the scope of the article has changed to be specifically about the phrase, and not about the entirety of the speech and the following reactions to the event (which is the entire speech) itself.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

...business [- that] - you didn't build that

A few days ago I reverted a change by Al B D that inserted an extra word "that" into the Obama speech quote. The basis for reverting it was that the official White House transcript doesn't include that word. Later on I watched a video of the speech itself (WaPo, start at 01:27), and realized that Al B G had been correct. So I reverted my own revert. I noticed somebody reverted again back to the White House transcript. I'm assuming the rationale here is that for our transcript to be based on the video instead of the mainstream transcripts, that would be too "original-research-ey"? If so, I can accept that.

It's a little bit humorous, because the title of the FactCheck.org article about the controversy is "'You Didn’t Build That,' Uncut and Unedited". But apparently they are joining everybody else in quoting a cut and edited version of the phrase. Doh! Seems like the fact that the president stuttered on a word might be important to know, even in his own defense. But don't get me wrong. Our sticking with the White House transcript is OK with me if it is required to function as a tertiary, encyclopedic source if there are no other RS's that quote the speech precisely. Just wanted to raise the issue in case somebody has a comment from an angle I'm not aware of here. Wookian (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I see that youtube is used alot as a citation alot, and people say "look at the video for yourself" but I am not a fan of it as a source. --Mollskman (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

yeah, just watched the clip again, and he does put a stray "that" in there that isn't in the transcript. --Mollskman (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

That's probably why courtrooms don't allow video cameras. It's unbearable to some people to be procedurally required to deny the evidence of their own eyes and ears. :) I agree with your concerns about linking directly to YouTube. I'd like to think that linking to a video hosted on the WaPo affiliated site rises at least a step above that, but it still seems like the preponderence of transcripts here are a real obstacle to quoting it accurately. Wookian (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure that extra "that" would really make any difference here either way. The President slightly misspoke by saying "that" instead of "those" to refer to highways and bridges and his detractors have been off and running ever since. --Mollskman (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll specifically avoid discussing what he meant in this thread, and just point out that I think it's desirable when a phrase is being scrutinized this closely, to make sure to quote it exactly as spoken, and in context. People have done a good job with the latter, but some of the sources evidently didn't watch the video carefully. A google search for "business that you didn't build that" reveals a bunch of news and blog hits, but not so much from our preferred usual suspects. Didn't look into it extensively, but if that correction could be authoritatively sourced, I'd support a decision to tweak the article's transcript. Wookian (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it is more likely that he spoke from a manuscript, and that the white house had a copy of the script. If he misspoke, it wouldn't be on the script. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

If we are going to quote people, then we should quote exactly what they have said; that is what "quote" means. Putting up what an individual "meant to say" instead of what they actually said and proclaiming it to be an accurate quote sets an incredibly dangerous precedent. FloatesMcgoates (talk) 02:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it makes much difference either way really. One version contains a misspoken word the other doesn't. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Quote at the top of the article

Previously, the quote read "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."

I have changed it to include a much larger portion of the speech that both leads up to and concludes the point the President was making. The previous iteration is essentially an out of context quote in and of itself.FloatesMcgoates (talk) 01:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I saw. It's an improvement, thanks. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that having the same quote twice is unnecessary. The lead is suppose to SUMMARIZE the article. If readers wish to read the entire in context placement of the phrase within the wider speech, there is a section already established for that. Therefore, perhaps, as it was before, the three paragraphs should not be in the lead per MOS.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Then get rid of the excerpt completely in the lead and mention that the full context can be found in the speech section. FloatesMcgoates (talk) 09:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Why not just use Whitehouse transcript?

I see that punctuation in the speech is being edit warred over. Why not just stick with the published transcript rather than insert partisan POV? --68.9.119.69 (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. I just reviewed the talk page and contributions of the editor doing this. --68.9.119.69 (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, how does that answer your question? -- Avanu (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Some editors are insisting on presenting the speech out of context. Watch the primary source. Listen for the pauses. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Roano Around 52 minutes in, you have the relevant part of the speech. If we are not going to watch the elocution and represent the speech accordingly, then we are simply reading an unreliable transcript, which I would say counts as a primary source. It is the interpretation of the wording that is the secondary source here, and that interpretation is the very core of the article and the controversy. Two sides say it means vastly different things. As Rachel Larimore from Slate remarked, "It doesn’t matter what you meant. What matters is what you conveyed." Obviously Obama didn't convey precisely what he wanted to, and that makes all the difference. However, we are not conveying what is in the primary source either by using flawed transcripts of the event. We're not talking about the redefinition of a word like what "is" is (link), or what a "long, hard slog" is. (link) We're talking about the length of pauses and gestures, essentially 'elocution'. When one watches the original speech, in context, the later explanation given by the president and his advisors makes the explanation quite plausible. However, this explanation doesn't mean that the president's detractors are wrong in saying that Obama emphasizes collective work as much or more than individual work. I believe the minor changes to the punctuation better represent the primary source and are in line with many secondary sources, and do not take away from the critics of the president being able to attack him for the words he said. -- Avanu (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your original research. Just stick to what reliable sources report and not your interpretation. Does anybody besides Avanu want to go against the transcript? If not, lets close this and block editors who go against the now formed consensus as required. --68.9.119.69 (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The "now formed consensus"? -- Avanu (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I think, given the long discussions on this talk page, that it is to soon to determine what the "new formed consensus" is. If we can find a reliable source that discuss the differences between what the transcript says and what is actually spoken then it should be added into the article. This way the content about the differences aren't original research.

Additionally, see WP:PRIMARY. Just because the source is a primary source, doesn't mean that it is unusable. However, it should be used according to the link provided.

Moreover, calling for blocking of editors goes against WP:AGF.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec)::::::@Avanu: Somehow true. The "default consensus" is to go by the sources we have.TMCk (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Not all sources are created equal. -- Avanu (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Infobox not approrpiate

This article is not about the speech, but rather what Romney did with the speech. It's not clear to me why there is a picture of Obama, or an infobox about the speech given that those are not the main topic of the article. aprock (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

right. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. No need for infobox.--JayJasper (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The article was originally about the speech, and the reaction to it. Only after the AfD was the speech article renamed to the phrase which became the most notable part of the speech. One can argue that the name change, and the subsequent edits to the lead away from being about the speech in its entirety, and focusing on that most notable phrase has changed the scope of the article. If one agrees that the name change changed the scope, I can understand removing the infobox, however I would argue that although there is a name change, keeping the entire article in context, that the article is about the entire speech, and thus should retain the infobox.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The first edit to the article: [1] clearly indicates that the original intended topic was not the speech, but the Republican seizure of the sound byte. aprock (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the thing is there is missing history. You can talk to the closing editor of the AfD regarding this. Originally, the article was created about the phrase, it was then converted unilaterally into a redirect. This article was created initially under it's original name 2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech, and faced immediate AfD, the outcome of which was that the article name be changed to its present name, and it be kept. In doing so, the original You didn't build that article history was administratively deleted, and this article replaced it. i asked the closing editor to restore some of the past history of the, then, deleted other article so I can find out who created that, and give some WikiLove to that editor.

I understand the misunderstanding that someone unfamiliar with this article's history may have.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I have invited the Admin that I mentioned here to comment, if he/she so wishes.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

There's no misunderstanding. None of the sources deal with the speech as a whole, separate from Republican's particular use of the statement. aprock (talk) 23:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe that none is incorrect. Ready above, there are sources (which are spoken about higher on this talk page) that are about the entirety of the speech, and not just the single line. Therefore your statement is incorrect.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You may be correct. There may in fact be a needle in that haystack somewhere. If there is, it doesn't change a thing. aprock (talk) 03:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It would be impossible to construct the article around the speech itself, because it is not independently notable. The only notable thing about the speech was the Republican exploitation of a single phrase from it. In essence, this article is fundamentally about a Romney campaign tactic. Right now, the article poorly reflects that reality (expecially in the lede and the infobox). -- Scjessey (talk) 16:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

As I had originally created it, the article was about the speech itself, the reaction section was to show that speech, as an event, passed WP:EFFECT. Therefore the article not about the Romney campaigns use of the phrase, but about the speech and all outcomes that derived from the speech itself. I understand that others who advocating deleting this article, disagree with my view on this, however that is what it was and still is. The renaming was because that fits the WP:COMMONNAME given to the speech.

"You didn't build that" speech, 1.67 million

"Roanoke incident", 6.28 thousand

"2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech", 1.41 thousand

2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech, 3.22 million

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

you didn't build that republican lie: 68.9 million hits.

One possible conclusion being that Google hits aren't necessarily relevant here. MastCell ^Talk 18:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You didn't build that, 729 million hits

You didn't build that speech, 202 million

Nice way to insert "lie" in there to introduce a non-neutral POV possible article name.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't care if you pull up stats showing eleventy-billion hits. The fact is that if the Romney campaign (or Republicans in general) hadn't deceived the American people by taking Obama's well-understood words out of context, the speech would've been as unremarkable as any other campaign speech. The Republican spin is the story, not the speech itself. And the preponderance of reliable sources all say exactly the same thing, as do the fact-checking organizations. So either this article is about the Republican spin of "you didn't build that", or it should be deleted on the basis that the article is being used to promote a political agenda. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Without question, it is being sustained by political ambition and little else. That does not make it lack notability. It is an encyclopedic topic. But it needs to be covered legitimately. At its heart, this is political hyperbole, in the heat of election season. It will be forgotten by most, and only resurrected when people wish to take a cheap shot. This is the sour core of politics. It doesn't merit attention, it is base, crass, and a meaningless sideshow, but because human nature loves it, it becomes noteworthy. On Wikipedia, we are forbidden by policy from making personal attacks of this sort; in politics, it is the norm. -- Avanu (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a reason we don't build articles with a stupid metric like googlehits. It is entirely meaningless. I mean seriously; you can get hits for almost anything, that's not how we find the common name of anything. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you; that was exactly my point. Google hits are meaningless. Editors can cite them to promote whatever personal political agenda they choose. MastCell ^Talk 03:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

What is the personal agenda I have regarding my most recent post? I was attempting to explain why the article name was changed, and why per COMMONNAME the article name was changed during the closing of the AfD process. There is not political agenda.

I understand there is a clear disagreement on what some editors, and other editors, view as NPOV regarding the subject of this article, but are we seriously saying that showing what is the most common name given to this subject, is in serious contention?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Liberal commentators

So for those who want it have some champagne.

At one point "liberal commentators" was in the lead, as was "conservative commentators". This is no longer the case. Others have edited the article to remove the wording, liberal commentators, even when sources have verified that both liberal and conservative commentators have commentated about the phrase "you didn't build that" and on the speech as a whole.

My edits were not to label the AP as a liberal commentator, and my edit of moving the references specifically about the sources that call themselves fact-checkers, and adding references to show that there are liberal commentators that agree with the taken out of context argument. This has been removed, for reasons I know not what, for I was not labeling the AP as liberal. I am sorry if there was a misunderstanding, and I am sorry if others are not assuming good faith of me.

I have stated elsewhere that I will stop editing the content of this article until all discussions are complete (which will likely not be anytime soon). And thus any continued edits that make this article skew towards more of an anti-one candidate tone, and thus bringing up POV concerns, can continue without anything but me posting my concerns here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Removed verified content

Why is it that verified content was removed, not once, but twice?

The first expansion, that was clearly verified using reliable sources, was done to the background. It gave a background as to why the President spoke where he spoke. Why did the President choose Roanoke, Virginia? Because the city is known as a "Democratic stronghold" (which was clearly cited) and because Virginia is a swing state; moreover, he had made a previous effort to focus on the city by it being one of several cities that he spoke directly to local television anchors. This is some of the background as to why the President chose to speak in Roanoke, Virgina. This is highly relevant to this article, and should be placed back in.

The second expansion, which was again clearly verified using reliable sources, was about the speech itself. Why is it relevant that the Seal of the President of the United States is on the lectern? Because the Obama Administration made it so, due to its past policy not to use it, which he changed. It is factual that the seal was on the lectern, and it is factual that there was a change in policy regarding its use. The source used to state the change in policy was a rather neutral (some would say slightly left leaning) CBS News, and not others such as this or that. Now this I can see as clearly debate-able. Some editors may say that the change in policy is irrelevant to this subject. Others would say that the use of the presidential seal during the speech is relevant and the policy change should thus be noted.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

These have no relevance to the use of the phrase "You didn't build that". That is what the article is about. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The title of an article guides the content. This might actually be a well balanced and encyclopedic article if it was renamed to "Obama's Roanoke Speech" because then, all those points about why Roanoke was chosen or the stuff about the seal maybe, but as the title is now, things added must be closely related to the topic. Just because something is verified, doesn't mean it gets an automatic pass into any article. this isn't an NPR story. :) For example, "The summer sun was sweltering in Roanoke, with most doing what they could to stay comfortable. This time of year, most are thinking of what tomorrow's temperature will be, but today, President Obama has come to town." Gotta love those folksy intros. -- Avanu (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It maybe the case that the article name is not the original 2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech, which I thought was far more of a neutral name, but as posted above, not the WP:COMMONNAME, which goes to the phrase, and not You didn't build that speech. That being said I don't believe that there was a consensus that the scope of the article has been changed, to only be about the specific words "You didn't build that." If that were the case, why mention it was spoken in Roanoke? Why mention it was spoken in front of the Roanoke Fire State #1? Why mention that a senatorial candidate and a senator were present? Why mention that the President later spoke about the G.I. Bill, the Golden Gate Bridge, or inventing the internet? If it is ONLY about the one line, all that can be argued to be unnecessary.

Rather the scope has not changed due to the renaming, and the content should not have been removed. Moreover, the content, which is verified, is not subject to WP:BURDEN, rational reasoning (with preferable cited policies/guidelines) should be given for removal. Additionally, if the statement is contentious, other editors can tag those statements with inline tags, and a discussion can occur to find if they should be removed or modified.

As no policies/guidelines were stated, and they were boldly removed, they can be re-added due to WP:VER.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

When a murder case article is changed from I.e. the victims name to the incident, the focus moves away from the person and the scope of the article is the case itself. Same here.TMCk (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast - This article is not about the speech. It's about the Republican campaign strategy of taking Obama's words out of context. So the "background" you're trying to add has nothing to do with it. Try adding "background" of previous Republican deceptions and you'll be on the right track. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

This is insertion of POV, and not remaining neutral, which I am attempting to do. My edits have been removed by multiple different users and has caused this article to become non-neutral while those doing the tag teaming have claimed it is to change the focus to "Republican deceptions". This is not keeping with NPOV.

Moreover why is it that, even when cited per WP:VER, that in the lead conservative commentators are specified, and liberal commentators are not? Once conservative was added per WP:WEASEL? Is this not the same case here?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not the same, no. A few conservative commentators were critical of the president, but everyone else (including left-wing, right-wing and neutral commentators) vilified the Romney campaign for taking Obama out of context and lying to the American people. Adding "liberal" where you did is wrong. To be clear, you have worked diligently to skew this article further and further to a pro-Romney stance, doing everything you can to suppress the overwhelming negative reaction to the Romney's negative tactics. You are obviously utterly incapable of contributing neutrally, and you should withdraw from the article and let the rest of us clean up the mess you have made. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

An additional observation: The neutral point of view is that the Romney campaign took Obama's words out of context and deceived the American people by making it sound as if he was critical of the work of business creators. This is the view of the vast majority of reliable sources from both sides of the political spectrum. An article that doesn't reflect this is non-neutral, and you are doing more than any other editor to impose this false equivalence. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Remove negative reaction? I beg to differ. In writing the article, I added the majority of the supportive commentary, and added a couple more as time went on, leading to an article that is overall more critical of the Romney Campaign and conservative commentators, than of Obama's speech. I guess this is more villifying of me so that the content here can be skewed even more in an anti-Romney campaign and anti-conservative commentator manor.

I did not make the mess that others claim I made, see when I originally created the article, it was neutral, even with a neutral article name.

It is claimed that I am attempting to impose false equivalence, same can be said that others are attempting to weight the article to be more anti-romney and anti-conservative, this is not keeping with NPOV.

Per Appropriate notification, I have notified all the relevant wikiprojects.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Dude, unless the pro-Obama:pro-Romney ratio is about 9:1, it's wrong. Very, very few commentators support the Republican distortion of facts, and certainly no neutral commentators. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

So can I read the above correctly, that it is the view of Scjessey that this article should be heavily weighted as negative towards one campaign, but heavily weighted negatively towards another campaign?

(edit conflict)See the changes I made here, the sources are clearly cited, and the term liberal had existed in the lead until it was boldly removed here. I have since added sources, as indicated in the previous diff provided.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it is the view of Scjessey that this article is wrongly weighted toward a pro-Romney stance, when it is clear from an overwhelming number of reliable sources that there wouldn't have been story if the Romney campaign hadn't taken Obama's words out of context. Quite frankly, this article's very existence is a pro-Romney stance. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

As I had discussed earlier on this talk page, the article is slightly more weighted to views critical of the Romney campaign and conservative commentators. As I have discussed earlier, that content that is critical of the aforementioned was added by myself. I understand that during the AfD there were others who opposed the keeping of this notable subject, however that shouldn't be a reason to make it unbalanced towards being anti-anyone, or pro-anyone. Moreover, the content is verified using reliable sources, on both sides of the political spectrum. The only one that is a self publish source was added by someone other than myself, see here; that source is this one, which I later tagged.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

So please explain to me again, why it is OK to remove verified content relevant to the subject of the article, the speech?

If the article states that a phrase was taken out of context, and then reliable sources discuss the entire context of the speech, which some do, then is it not that the sources are stating that the entire speech is notable, and that the phrase is the most notable part of that the speech (but not removing the notability of the speech itself)?

For instance the armored cruiser is notable, but the USS Maine is more notable, but that doesn't make the armored cruiser not notable, because something that is related to it is even more notable. There are many instances of this that I can point to. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Like I said before, it is not relevant. I can cite verified reliable sources that state the Earth orbits the Sun, but that fact isn't relevant either. The focus of this article is all wrong. It's not about the speech, it's about how Republicans took a phrase out of context and used it to deceive the American people. Where the speech occurred, or why it occurred are also irrelevant. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Possible usable photo

I have received permission from a photographer to use his/her photographs for this article. One has already been uploaded here. But like many things recently for me on Wikipedia, this to has not been an easy go. If it survives, please feel free to use it to help improve this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The article is not about Obama. aprock (talk) 00:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course it is. It's about Obama, it's about Romney; it's about political advertisements; it's about political discourse; it's about a lot of things. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Quite right. aprock (talk) 04:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

It would make more sense to have this image, since the article is about how Republicans took a phrase out of context and used it to deceive the American people. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

This is missing a major aspect

This theme has resonated on a large scale. Most coverage is saying it's because people think that he really thinks that way. Even if he structured the wording of his speech so that he could make "out of context" claims about the statement itself... The resonation and the reasons for it are large scale and have a lot of coverage, but it is largely missing from the article. North8000 (talk) 10:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Part of the reason for it is that Republicans insist on painting Obama as the spawn of all evil. If anything is wrong with the United States, it obviously is Obama's fault. Kind of ridiculous to always attack a straw man instead of the actions of the real man. -- Avanu (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The same is done in reverse, but I don't see how either is relevant to this particular topic, unless you are saying that the "middle ground" is being ignored in the frenzy? North8000 (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

As Jon Stewart tried to explain once to Rachel Maddow in a one-on-one interview, this system is set up to behave as if there are two sides. The media likes a narrative that is simple and easy to follow. But realistically, things aren't this simple. Is Obama more likely to reach for government intervention than a Republican to solve a national problem? I guess.... who knows really. Some people take it as a solid fact. But realistically, I don't know how much of a difference we have between one president and the next anymore. Most things develop in the various departments or outside thinktanks. So you ask, 'why does this statement resonate?' Because we recently had a economic 'crisis' where many wealthy people were handed a lot of money and in the case of GM, the unions were handed a lot of money. For those who didn't get a payoff, or those who care about our nation being in massive debt, or people who just want an excuse to attack Obama, this is a big deal. -- Avanu (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Trying to avoid the spittle back and forth is pretty futile, but thoroughly endorse your point, makes perfect sense, and raised the related issue in "NPOV - it is a political meme - it is either effective or not", which is above. The meme IS effective, not because of word-by-word textual analysis, but because it crystallizes, in Obama's own voice, what many voters already believe to be his bias.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course a part of resonating comes from opponents working to give any negative sounding story about their opponents legs. But beyond that I think that Anonymous209.6 hit the nail on the head. North8000 (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The article doesn't do a good job explaining this topic. I thought about adding a..

...template to it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thats because it is one of the stupid "breaking news" stories - it doesnt explain itself because there are no third party sources that can give any historical impact and context because the context is evolving or not under our feet. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

There are worse ones than this article; Mitt Romney dog incident comes to mind. Wikipedia is a complete, absolute 100% utter failure on topics which are involved in a significant real world clash. Nowhere is this more evident than before a major election where the related articles are all painful, unstable uninformative crap and articles get created on crap topics. Changes to policies and guidlines are needed to fix this. North8000 (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The issues is being discussed Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(events)#RAPID_contradicts_policy if anyone has any feedback to add. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Fake photo

Please stop adding a fake image of a t-shirt with a logo on it to the article. I see there is another t-shirt too. Why are we showing merchandise off? Would the same people be in favour of the addition of [2] to the respective dog article? Cheers, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Post-election AfD?

Yes, Romney made this the theme of his convention. But it appears to be for nothing.[3] I'm thinking about nominating this for deletion again after the election, when we have a more clear vision of the lack of impact of this line, and it prepares to recede into the ether. Any relevant info belongs at 2012 Republican National Convention. Thoughts? – Muboshgu (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

A topic does not lose its notability over time. The notability it garnered in its prime continues into the future as historic notability. Binksternet (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not clear that the topic was notable in the first place. It's just that it's not really possible to have a serious deletion discussion about a political attack line central to a major U.S. Presidential campaign during election season. I'd definitely support a simple merge/redirect, but I agree we may as well wait until after the election. There's no deadline, and in my experience these sorts of articles are promoted primarily as an election-season talking point. The most vocal promoters of this article are likely to have little use for it after the election, which would make it easier to have a policy-based discussion. MastCell ^Talk 16:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Precisely my thought. Lots of articles have been created out of WP:RECENTISM of the election season. I'm thinking primarily of this one and the "legitimate rape" article, though there are some differences between the two. Anyway, I question the notability of this article still, and the fact that Romney has completely dropped the line of attack backs up that this isn't notable, but merely a POV fork from the campaign and RNC convention articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this and other election gaffe articles are better placed in the respective election articles. Hekerui (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

the US elections certainly do create a lot of crap articles by POV pushers and campaigners. at this point, this one still seems borderline, i have a feeling that it will continue to be hauled out regularly in pundit circles as a reference for this election for a long time (most likely precisely as, to quote the link above, an example of " But considering the time and messaging weight the Romney campaign and RNC threw into attacking Obama on this point -- it was the theme of a whole day of the Tampa convention -- the lack any apparent impact is notable"), but that is WP:CRYSTAL speculation. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

This discussion seems premature. We cannot know what notability the topic will have in the future. TFD (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

then you are agreeing that the article itself was premature; since notability is not temporary, if we have to wait for the future to establish notability, that necessarily leads to the conclusion that its notability is not currently established? -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I have not looked to see whether notability has been established. However the discussion is about an AfD in the future, not now. TFD (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no issue with editors making plans for actions after the election to tidy up. Obviously if circumstances arise where notability is clearly shown that would be taken on board. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Wp:notability is a requirement for existence of an article, not an indication that it should exist. I think that this article (has legs because it follows how he seems to actually think) is on something more substantive than the one on Romney putting his dog's cage on the roof of his car on a trip 20+ years ago. . But, Wikipedia is a dismal failure on articles which reflect a real-world contest or conflict, including the existence of crap articles during the election season. We need policy modification to fix the problem. North8000 (talk) 00:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Al Smith Dinner

I notice he also used the sentence at the Al Smith Dinner, when talking about churches. Maybe this is noteworthy, maybe not. http://popes-and-papacy.com/wordpress/?p=9490

199.21.182.31 (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

That is certainly not a reliable source. I didn't get the memo that Romney is "President-Elect". – Muboshgu (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

political/comedic commentator

The bulk of these sections are op-ed pieces that are interested in furthering the editorial writers personal views, and not particularly encyclopedic. I suggest that both sections be removed for the time being, and possible repopulated down the road when reliable secondary sources about the event become more commonplace. aprock (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your bold changes. After due consideration, I reverted all of them. The material you removed was an integral part of the article and often necessary for neutrality and comprehensiveness. I suggest that, if you disagree with my actions, you explain each particular change here and gain some consensus for it before editing again. Thank you. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and remove the most problematic material one edit at a time for individuals to review. If there is a problem with a specific change, please revert and discuss that on the talk page. I presume that you won't be reflexively reverting going forward. aprock (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, any further revert on my part will be after due consideration. In fact, I may just bring up my objection here and ask you to revert yourself, as this article is under community probation, so reverting others should be limited. Speaking of which, you just opened an undue tag but didn't open a section here to discuss it. Please do. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

This is the section for the tag. See the section header and the opening comment. aprock (talk) 02:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

obviously the commentary and analysis of the meme is the most important part of placing the phrase in its context. it is perfectly acceptable to include such content from reliable sources and ridiculous to consider removing them en masse. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Op-eds are not generally reliable for anything beyond the view of the author. aprock (talk) 03:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we move forward with removing the section. It is just a mess of random op-eds, none of which are reliable about the topic, and none of which have any secondary sources establishing them as having due weight. aprock (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the comedic commentators as being entirely undue and unencyclopedic. I was reverted by an IP sock, and then by two other editors who chose not to bring their concerns to the talk page. Before I remove that section again, does anyone have any policy rationale for including comedic commentary on this topic? aprock (talk) 04:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest you try many more avenues of dispute resolution before removing that section again. This article is under article probation, as you know. I'm keeping an eye on this topic area in an administrator role.--v/r - TP 13:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The problems with you removing the sourced section are various. The first being that it is a sourced section within an article. The second being there was a compromise consensus made to include the section. The third being there is no current consensus to remove the section. I had checked this Talk page and it's archives before, and only restored the section because I knew there was no consensus to remove it(which was the main reason I was irritated by the templated warning), and there was a consensus to include it. So you should probably either gain a new consensus to remove it, one that involves more than just yourself, find another avenue to take, or just leave it alone. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand your concern, and I did precisely what you suggest. That no one was willing to engage in talk page discussion over a period of weeks can't be used to block editing of the article. After posting my intent to remove the content, and getting no feedback for 11 days, I boldly removed some of the content, and was reverted twice over socking issues. At this point, it does seem that taking this to RfC is the best way to go. aprock (talk) 16:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This speech vs. "tear down this wall!"

Okay, this speech by Obama has no greater impact whatsoever, as the one by Ronald Reagan did during his duties. "Responses" section is overbloated with recent comments. There is no need to make an article about some random speech covered and reviewed by media. I mean, "Tear down this wall!" I mean, why wasting time on this Obama speech? What's the point of creating it other than point out media sensationalism? --George Ho (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I imagine this and all related election articles such as ones about Romney's dog, are just a product of advocate editors for parties in the US elections. They will probably be deleted/redirected/merged following the election. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, it's not about the speech, it's about the GOP's abuse of a sound bite to smear Obama. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

At its heart, there is an idealogical nugget here. The problem is that both US national parties are guilty of using the government to further their interests when they see fit to do so. The idea that Republicans don't, and Democrats are always wanting government to run your life is a bit of hyperbole. Both parties will instantly become hypocrites on this in an instant if the need suits them. -- Avanu (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

To StillStanding, I fail to see some primary (even secondary, if non-existent) connection between conspiracy theories and the whole speech itself. Words are insufficient, and even too many opinions and comments in this article are not enough. Look at Berlin Wall and "Tear down this wall!". Reagan's advices to Germans to break down the wall inspired at least one commentary and one event, also known as "Downfall of Berlin Wall". This insignificant (yet well-written) Obama speech, however, was created randomly. You know what? This article would likely be nominated for deletion again if no importance is proven. Difference between one speech and Barack Obama on social media is an amount: we have one speech, and we have an unrelated topic about a collaboration of different media types. --George Ho (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Opponents try to give certain stories that sound negative legs; sometimes they succeed, sometimes they fail. In this case it resonated and got legs because people believe that Obama meant that because it aligns with his behavior and politics. Even if he structured his sentences to give himself deniability e.g. could claim it was out of context. And THAT is the widely covered aspect of the story that is missing from the article. North8000 (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, you keep saying that, but most people like myself don't see it. It didn't "resonate" and it didn't get "legs". This is a Fox News talking point, nothing more. This topic coverage is entirely undue weight and it should be redirected to an article about the speech with one paragraph devoted to its discussion. Viriditas (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm.... somehow, Speeches and debates of Ronald Reagan was recently created. Maybe we need to create Speeches of Barack Obama, as Category:Speeches by Barack Obama have non-notable speeches. What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I support this. It'd provide a better place to describe the more notable speeches he's made, and one-off things like this, which may have little significance past the election (and even if it did, it's not our job to speculate on that anyway). elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Then where can I find list of speeches, addresses, and debates made by Obama? --George Ho (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggest using Wikisource's to-be-created s:Speeches by Barack Obama, s:Public behaviour of Barack Obama (or such) and feed it raw source. Any public speech is open-source, isn't it? In the interest of accountability by the world's politicians, leading to their credibility, we can consider an "automatic feed", a comprehensive archive of public language (attendances, body language, speeches, debates, standpoints, signatures, ...) used by a public figure; we can, i'm confident, find a way to use less than hundreds of megabytes to describe the complete public life of a public servant. The Wikidata project, a Semantic MediaWiki RDF, seems fitting. Also support creation of Speeches of Barack Obama or Speeches and debates of Barack Obama. 83.101.67.8 (talk) 10:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Quote in full has appeared in Washington Post's Top 10 Political Quotes of 2012 in their article of 28th December. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/28/the-top-10-political-quotes-of-2012/ Isthisuseful (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggest that this article be linked to the 2012 US Presidential Election camapign of 2012 and or political quotes of 2012. This could later be of importance historically from an encyclopeadic perspective. Isthisuseful (talk) 23:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

Pretty much any political article can have its neutrality disputed. Is there any particular active dispute for this one?William Jockusch (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the internal tag is/was being discussed Talk:You_didn't_build_that#political.2Fcomedic_commentator. You might want to check with User talk:Aprock to see if they still have a concern or if it has been addressed or if they no longer care enough about it to continue the discussion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah neutrality seems like it shouldn't be too high on the priority list of this article. Looks like it is going to pushing to clarify what President Obama said his intentions were even before defining what the article is about. Maybe after that's cut down (if it isn't deleted) then some work could be done, including greatly cutting down quote usage and working on the scope. Dreambeaver(talk) 19:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest the post-election wiki cleanup can now begin, with the AfD or merge of all these crappy partisan US election articles. That includes articles like Mitt Romney dog incident, Clint Eastwood at the 2012 Republican National Convention and any others you can find. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Based on the AfD, It appears that it may be too early yet to attempt the post election clean up if there is to be a hope of doing so effectively. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Whilst there have been occaisions when I have thought US wiki editors obsessed with goings on in their own country that has led to non encyclopeadic content on wiki, I would caution against removing the whole article as there should be an attempt to preserve a historic record of the 2012 US election campaign, which may be of interest to non US citizens, in particular from a foreign politics perspective. Isthisuseful (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old POV template with a dormant discussion, per the instructions on that template's page:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

If editors are continuing to work toward resolution of any issue and I missed it, however, please feel free to restore. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)