This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Barack Obama (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Barack ObamaWikipedia:WikiProject Barack ObamaTemplate:WikiProject Barack ObamaBarack Obama articles Virginia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. United States: Presidential elections This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections. Conservatism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:Community article probation

{{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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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}}[reply]

Resolved

--George Ho (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

[[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)[reply]

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)[reply]

To prove it, either WP:NFC or WP:NFCC or WP:images? --George Ho (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Taking above issues to WP:dispute resolution noticeboard?

I see at least above two issues:

1. Jon Stewart commentary
2. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

... Let's wait until the AFD is over... --George Ho (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC might be necessary. Since you are primarily involved, maybe you can start one. --George Ho (talk) 01:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Change made; thanks for the input.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Resolved

--George Ho (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, thanks George and RightCow. Wookian (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Your proposal lacks reliable independent non-partisan sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure "independent" and "non-partisan" are required of every source in an article. Deryck C. 14:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They certainly help in establishing due weight and with neutrality. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please see WP:CIVIL#Identifying incivility, Direct rudeness.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Silverseren^C 00:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Silverseren^C 04:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Silverseren^C 22:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly because this article is garbage, and it should've been deleted at AfD. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I can agree with that. Silverseren^C 22:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Silverseren^C 04:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

← 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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The POV tag has gotten a little stale. I'd like to get an idea if there is still any support for retaining the POV tag. This straw poll is just to see where we are--not a vote. Do you Support/Oppose keeping the POV tag?– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 21:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: unnecessary at this point – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 21:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: as pointed out just above this section, the Commentators section remains highly problematic. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The issues with the commentators section have not been fixed. Silverseren^C 23:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: It appears that the justification for it is that certain editors want the Commentators section to change from presenting two fully mainstream sides to emphasizing only one side. That is an unfortunate and ironic reason to register a POV objection. Wookian (talk) 14:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support There are still major issues as already highlighted. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, Oppose: I understand other active editors are opposed to the article's existence, however, I feel that the article fairly represents both interpretations of the speech, and equally represents both lines of commentary that were the outcome of the speech. However, I do not believe that there is a POV issue in relation to the content presented, for even another editor who supports the POV tag agrees that there is a good balance here, but is primarily concerned about the layout, therefore perhaps POV tag is not the most appropriate tag, as much as the Template:cleanup-reorganize tag in the commentary section, and not a POV tag at the top of the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• We are aware that you feel "the article fairly represents both interpretations", but as you can see here, many people disagree with you, and you seem unwilling to acknowledge this, going so far as to bring in spurious arguments about people wanting only pro-Obama material (see below). We get it that you don't see the problem: that's precisely why the POV tag needs to remain, because the article is non-neutral and you are incapable of seeing that. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is the article non-neutral? Is it cause both sides are presented in a balance manor? Is it that both sides are given equal weight? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not. Neither is the case. You clearly think they are balanced, but they aren't. The presentation is unbalanced, the weight is unbalanced... I could go on, but you refuse to recognize this, and you keep putting false arguments in your replies, as if the other person had been coming from a seemingly dishonest point of view. Both have become quite tiresome. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: As long as the blatant right-wing bias remains, the POV tag must remain. Far too much space is given to fringe views in a Fox-like attempt to "balance" the damning fact-checker indictment of the Republican deception. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So the only POV that should be represented are those that support President Obama, and the out of context arguement? This is not what neutral POV means.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, "neutral" means "neutral" (like independent fact checkers), not an equal "balance" between the truth and the Republican lies. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replace Republican and place Democrat in what is just written above, and other editors may see that as being a POV-pushing statement.

See NPOV, article should give due weight to each POV. This does not mean deleting all critical POVs and only including content that a few editors see as "independent" or "neutral".

I understand that Scjessey and others wish that the article should be deleted, and some are not abiding by good faith, in an effort to "improve" the article. But if improving is POV pushing, then this process here would fall under gaming the system; therefore, I suggest that those who believe improving the article is to remove balanced POV presentation of the effect of the event, they should go edit elsewhere.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing magical about independent fact checkers. They are simply editorials typically written in the first person that give (what is hoped to be) a fair review of a situation. There is nothing in Wikipedia policy that grants them special consideration over other editorials that also do the work of fact checking without the authors calling themselves "fact checkers". Also, the nominal fact checkers do not get a free pass from neutrality criticisms -- they are merely human beings, you know. An editorial in the WSJ or NYT can fact check just as competently as FactCheck.org, and in some cases better. Sometimes you have to evaluate RS's on a case by case basis. As for the "Republican lies" part, I don't see that at all. Wookian (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's your problem right there then. Unlike the vast majority of reliable sources, you simply cannot see the Republican deception concerning Obama's words. There's simply no way Obama meant to denigrate business creators, but you seem to prefer to believe the Republican spin that says otherwise. And because of the activities of similarly brainwashed editors here, this article currently does not reflect what a preponderance of reliable sources say. It sets up a false balance between what Obama meant, and what Republicans would like people to think Obama meant. That's not at all how NPOV is supposed to work, it's disgraceful, and it's why the POV tag must remain. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scjessey, I think you haven't yet made your case here. I get it when you say Republicans are lying about Obama saying "you didn't build [your business]". I understand why you say that, and I would be willing to concede that point rhetorically for the sake of discussing the wider speech on common ground. You haven't yet dealt with the fact that some commentators have dropped that sentence and still harshly dinged the president for his wider point, suggesting that the difference between winners and losers among entrepreneurs is not hard work and intelligence, but government assistance. This is not cherry picking a quote, but rather responding to the wider context of Obama's remarks. That other past politicians have made the same argument is irrelevant to its being controversial (I'd suggest FDR, not JFK as a close example here). Bottom line - it's a legitimate point about a difference of political emphasis, and right-leaning commentators are not "lying" when they discuss it. Wookian (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but that isn't what this article is about. This article is specifically about the phrase "you didn't build that". If you want to widen the scope of the article, that's a whole different discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "you didn't build that" is the crescendo point of Obama's dressing-down of entrepreneurs for thinking that the difference between business success versus failure is their own intelligence and hard work. The controversial sentence has the same topic and thrust as the wider scope, either way you interpret it. And the article is about that topic and thrust, and its aftermath in the media and campaigns. Wookian (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is not about a particular phrase, but instead about Obama's attitude towards business regulation, then the article needs to be renamed. — goethean ॐ 21:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This article was kept (over my strident objection) at AfD because "you didn't build that" specifically was seen as noteworthy. Now the Republican misrepresentation of the phrase has been thoroughly debunked by everyone on Earth there's a move to widen the article's scope into stuff that is less noteworthy. Either the article remains specifically about "you didn't build that", or the title must be changed. And if that happens, expect it to be right back at AfD. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Goethean writes "If the article is not about a particular phrase, but instead about Obama's attitude towards business regulation" Response: It is about "you didn't build that", but the phrase "you didn't build that" cannot be considered by itself, but only in the context of Obama's wider remarks which happen to be on the same subject as that one sentence. I thought we had been through this many times already. Weren't the Republicans heavily criticized for trying to talk about just the phrase and leave out discussion of the wider context? And now you are suggesting that this article should do the same thing? I would extend a friendly invitation to you guys to "get with the program" here. Wookian (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But this article isn't about the wider context, Wookian. It's about the phrase "you didn't build that" and how Republicans are using it to deceive the American people. That was the reason it was kept at AfD. Other than the Republican hyperbole about that one phrase, the speech is unremarkable and would never have been notable enough for its own article. Perhaps now you see why the AfD was flawed and the article should've been deleted? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is in line with the sources, at least in regard to that point. The general pattern among reliable sources is to (a) acknowledge that the phrase "you didn't build that" has caused a ruckus, (b) talk about Obama's wider context, then (c) approve or disapprove of the wider point he was making. Since the disputed phrase follows the same topic as the wider context, I don't see a problem with that. Right leaning or left leaning sources will diverge at (c), and I think that's fine, too. It's a mainstream debate that can be conducted in a fair and evenhanded way. Wookian (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see it's impossible for most of these editors to write a neutral article. If you're commenting in here about "republican lies" you clearly aren't neutral and are highly unlikely of being so. The article should explain the line comes from the Obama speech, quote the speech, explain how it's been used by the Republicans and why with cites, then note that the left feels this is dishonest for various reasons with cites. That would be neutral, and could easily be done in a short and to the point manner without the lengthy commentary currently posted. Someone commented about the article reflecting the mainstream media's opinion - but the mainstream media is not neutral. There is an endless stream of articles on the internet to support that statement. Therefore it's the writer's job to be neutral. Pontiac59 (talk) 19:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please explain why people are edit-warring to put scare quotes around "fact-checkers"? ([1], [2]). Even by the standards of this article, I find that to be shockingly poor editing, and a fairly transparent attempt to editorially denigrate these independent, reliable sources. MastCell ^Talk 17:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed "fact-checkers" with scare quotes to "fact-checking organizations" without scare quotes. This will probably satisfy most people. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've linked to fact checker in the text as well. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is why some people are against using fact-checking organizations in this article:

"TAMPA, Fla. -- The Romney campaign said on Tuesday that its ads attacking President Obama's waiver policy on welfare have been its most effective to date. And while the spots have been roundly criticized as lacking any factual basis, the campaign said it didn't really care.

"We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers," Romney pollster Neil Newhouse said at a panel organized by ABC News." source

Facts are the enemy of the Romney campaign, it seems. Perhaps some of that campaign strategy is seeping into this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Romney campaign is not alone there. I recall several 4 Pinocchio ads from Obama that continued to run for the very same reason. So let's just say facts are the enemy of politicians. Morphh ^(talk) 17:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fact-checkers have indeed criticized some Obama campaign stuff, but at a lower order of magnitude than for the Romney campaign lie stream stuff. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could debate that, but seems like a fruitless discussion. As for fact-checkers.. many are known to have left leanings. Not that it matters, all sources have bias. Our job is to fairly represent the opinions presented in reliable sources. Debates about which source is the least bias is moot. Present the opinions in relation to their weight in reliable sources. Morphh ^(talk) 18:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, its often said that reality has a well-known liberal bias.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Morphh is right; there are plenty of instances where fact-checkers have criticized the accuracy of Obama campaign talking points (perhaps most notably, the Democrat-aligned SuperPAC ads tying Romney to a woman's death have been widely criticized by fact-checkers as unfair). If we were writing a standalone article about an Obama campaign attack ad, we'd definitely need to feature independent fact-checkers' commentary about it. But since only Republican attack ads seem worthy of standalone articles, we are where we are. Anyhow, my main complaint was the ridiculous scare quotes, which seems to be resolved. MastCell ^Talk 18:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)That is an opinion, not a fact.

Others are tag teaming to advance supremacy of a group of opinions over another group of opinions. Gaming the system so that the article is weighted in a non-neutral manor by giving undue weight to certain opinions over other opinions is not in the best interest of the article or the wikiproject as a whole.

Some may wish to give more weight to "independent fact-checkers", but that does not mean that their opinion is any more meaningful than other opinions. See, WP:VNT, which I know that others disagree with my interpretation of, but I will state it again. There is fact, opinions about fact, and opinions about opinions. The fact-checkers are the last of those three, opinions about opinions.

If others believe that other statements by other individuals are notable, find sufficient sources, create the article and write it. For instance, there is an article about Romney's dog. I am sure there is more that can be created if others wish to.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So does this mean you're not going to keep trying to force scare quotes into the article? MastCell ^Talk 18:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality is in the eye of the beholder. Right now, the article reflects a pro-Romney stance and RCLC's edits are making it worse by adding opinion from far outside the mainstream. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question is whether adding more partisan commentary makes this a better encyclopedia article. I think the answer is no - we've established that there's a partisan divide in how this speech was received, and we don't need to quote every axe-grinder with a blog to hammer home the point. A separate issue, raised above in #Need to fix the commentators section, is the apparent imbalance of partisan opinion presented in the article. I think both problems could be resolved if we can find the inner strength to stop adding more and more partisan sniping to the article and instead focus on what an encyclopedia reader might want to know 10 years from now about the subject. MastCell ^Talk 19:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Commentators section seems really long and repetitive, unnecessarily so for a relatively minor article. I would support a decision to trim the content down and leave at most one or two of the most credible voices for each notable perspective here. Wookian (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can disagree on how much content should be there, but to say that the article is pro-Romney, is saying that Romney dog article is pro-Obama. Moreover, if we look at the content as it stands of my current comment there is 3095 characters that are critical of Obama, and there are 3212 characters that are supportive of Obama, and that is not including the Romney quote from the 2002 Olympics, which brings the supportive content up to 4244 characters.

If this article is meant to be one sided, one side of the views of commentators would be excluded outright, but that isn't the case.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the content is to be widdled down, what content should remain, what content should go, and how do ensure that the multiple different views (with some being similar to others, but slightly different) are fairly represented?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply in a new section on balance (below). -- Scjessey (talk) 12:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Kessler revisited the "you didn't build that" controversy. This time he makes an interesting admission: that any answer to the question of how to interpret the antecedent of "that" (as "your business" or "roads and bridges") is "a bit of a judgment call". In other words, it's a "decision that must be made on the basis of personal judgment, as neither alternative is clearly right or wrong" (Bing/Encarta). Or "a subjective decision, ruling, or opinion" (Webster). As Kessler points out, he rejects the grammatically correct reading in favor of a less controversial one, simply because he has a hunch that the other is more likely. I've said this before on other pages, and I'll say it here on this Talk page -- fact checkers do the public a disservice when they venture into the realm of things that can't be objectively fact checked, such as "what was in the president's mind when he spoke those words" (FactCheck.org). It would be better to criticize the practice of taking quotes out of context, and leave it at that -- as the FactCheck.org article did in final effect, after you take their article update into account. Some of the fact checker writeups are just not a good fit to serve as useful sources for this article, and certainly not as authoritative sources. They aren't psychics, which is what would be required for a 100% authoritative judgment here, as Glenn Kessler and FactCheck.org have now both admitted. Wookian (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... you must have linked the wrong Kessler piece. Because in the one you linked, Kessler actually increases the "Pinocchio rating" from 3 to 4, because of "the GOP’s repeated misuse of this Obama quote in speech after speech." I mean, the alternative is that you quote-mined the Kessler piece to discredit the utility of reputable fact-checking organizations.

Please be more careful about accurately representing the content of sources you cite. It's disappointing to see you present the piece as Kessler weakening his case when, in fact, he comes down even harder on Romney and the Republicans for their deceptive appropriation of this soundbite. MastCell ^Talk 20:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to report that this is not my opinion or original research. Various sources on both the right and the left have complained about fact checkers veering off from strict fact checking into registering opinions on questions for which "neither alternative is clearly right or wrong", and in effect calling statements "lies" (Pinnochio noses) which are uniformly acknowledged to be true, merely because they want more of the story to be told instead of just a harsh fact (e.g. Kessler got significant flack for classifying the statement that Obama has never visited Israel as president as a lie). Anyway, when fact check organizations make it clear that they are registering a personal judgment on a disputable matter (as Kessler did in the new "build that" link above), it is permissible to exercise discernment accordingly as to how much weight to give that individual article on WP, regardless of how good a reputation the writer has. Wookian (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To put this observation another way, imagine in a parallel universe that Obama was in the habit of kicking puppies. Further imagine that a PAC ran an ad saying that Obama kicks puppies, and then Glenn Kessler flagged the ad as false, saying that even though Obama does kick puppies, all other presidents did, too, so it's misleading to run the ad as if it's something unusual. (This is what happened with the "Obama never visited Israel as president" flap.) But the fact checker would be attacking a straw man; it doesn't have to be unusual to be objectionable to some people and thus legitimate fodder for PACs; so Glenn Kessler is out of his depth when he plays such games with his fact checking. Do you see my point? He's not doing fact checking in the Obama Israel article, he's telling people what they should consider important vs what they should consider unimportant. And that's not his job, as many sources on the right and left have pointed out. As such, when Wikipedia editors find fact check organizations are registering opinions on disputable matters, they should recognize that such fact check articles have unfortunately limited utility for these types of questions.

We may find that fact checking organizations turn out to be a temporary fad that eventually falls by the wayside, possibly due to occasional, unfortunate abuses of the neutrality they claim. Certainly I can't think of anything a fact check organization is supposed to do, that shouldn't also be true of reputable journalists, so it's not clear why they need to exist or be given some kind of hallowed status on Wikipedia. The Romney campaign's recent rejection and general dissing of fact checkers' alleged attempts to control their campaign may be symptomatic of a shift here. Wookian (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I get that the concept of fact-checking has been criticized by some authors. My point was that you need to accurately present the sources you cite. MastCell ^Talk 23:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is sort of a deja vu experience, because you're doing what I just talked about Kessler doing. I did describe what Kessler said accurately, even if he also said other stuff that wasn't relevant to the point I was making and which I therefore omitted from my quotation and discussion. Wookian (talk) 23:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that an IP editor added a link to a photo which does not fall within the scope of this article?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows. Its gone now. --Mollskman (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you see other examples of that edit in your travels, please note them here. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A nice piece by Nicholas D. Kristof [3]. Mohamed CJ (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to have some views from the left and right of the political spectrum, but these should take a back seat to the views given by independent reporting. Proper neutrality does not involving balancing pro-Romney comments with pro-Obama comments, but rather by ensuring the article reflects what is reported by the mainstream. I think it is fine to include one or two views from the left and right opinion writers, but everything else should come from mainstream reporting. I think it would be useful to list the currently-used viewpoints and assign them a weight value. 1 for partisan sources, 2 for leaning sources and 3 for neutral sources (such as fact-checkers, newspaper columns that are not opinion pieces). Then we will be in a better position to pick appropriately for the article and avoid issues of false equivalence. I'll get the ball rolling on the list. Please feel free to add where appropriate, but please make an honest assessment. I'm leaving the satire stuff uncategorized because I honestly can't imagine what on Earth they are doing in the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having gone through most of them, I'm thinking we should have all the 3s, some of the 2s and only the campaign comments from the 1s. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with some of your classifications here. Leaving aside the discussion about whether the so-called independent fact checkers sometimes show political bias and are really any better at their jobs than other journalists, I am very surprised that you put Chait's NYMag piece under neutral sources, given that he makes the rather fringe claim that the whole "you didn't build that" campaign phenomenon is a racial attack. Other commentators have avoided jumping to such fringe (and frankly, offensive) conclusions by pointing out that the debate is not new, for example FDR and other (look Ma, white!) Democrats have been saying the same thing as Obama for a long time. The narrative that the Tea Party is racist, Republicans are racist, etc. is fortunately a very fringe Democrat smear, and not mainstream at all.

My suggestion of a way to break this down would be to identify those views that are unique and notable enough to have represented, and find the best source to briefly speak for that perspective. Other sources could be mentioned as a list of people "in agreement" and linked to, but it's not necessary to independently summarize people who are saying the same thing, as the section gets too verbose. Thoughts? Wookian (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The assessments are based on the reputation of both the authors and the publications, not on the reporting itself. This is crucially important when classifying sources. You may not like what Chait said, but he's a well-regarded journalist writing for a publication for integrity and independence. As to your tangentially-related comment about Republican racism, I fear I must draw your attention to troubling events at the Republican National Convention. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When classifying reliable sources one of the things you look at is the work itself. I do thank you for linking to an article that shows the RNC specifically not being racist, by kicking two persons out of their convention who displayed a racist attitude. Not sure if that was your intent? Regardless, this is getting general-discussion-ey. Suffice it to say, I don't see Chait's view being mainstream, and in fact the focus of other left-leaning commentators such as Glenn Kessler is to point out that a bunch of "old white guys" have been saying the exact same thing as Obama did for many decades; so I think Chait is sort of on his own in this instance in making such an offensive smear. Wookian (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've entirely missed the point of what reliable sources are meant to be. You simply cannot evaluate reliable sources on a case-by-case basis. It is 100% about reputation. It is absolutely irrelevant that you think Chait's piece is not mainstream, because the reputation established by him and his publication says otherwise. Maybe Chait's piece will earn criticism that will change that reputation in the future, but we cannot make that assumption. As for the RNC nut-throwing deal, it's good that they were thrown out but the fact they were there in the first place reflects poorly on Republicans. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is appropriate to look at the work itself, and not merely the writer or outlet's reputation, when evaluating whether something is an RS and whether the info it presents is appropriate for the article. That's described in WP:RS among other places. And on the other issue: So there were a couple of jerks who got kicked out of the convention. That doesn't justify giving a lot of weight to Chait's smear of Mitt Romney and the Republican party. There are always going to be a few bad apples in the barrel, and a few people hiding offensive views in any huge crowd of people. At least the RNC didn't invite a person with a history of making racist statements to address the group[4] (to my knowledge). Wookian (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your interpretation of WP:RS. You personally dislike Chait's piece, despite his reputation and the reputation of his organization, but what you personally feel about the piece is neither here nor there. I also think accusing Al Sharpton of racism is a BLP violation that you should refactor. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Charles Krauthammer's WaPo editorial has been widely cited. It's especially useful because he gives an analysis of the speech that purposefully ignores the disputed sentence in the middle. Wookian (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it ignores "you didn't build that", it has nothing to do with this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, maybe that was a bad way of putting it on my part. Krauthammer's article ignores the strong temptation to interpret it as "you didn't build [your business]" and instead deals with "you didn't build that" as part of a statement about government being the critical factor enabling entrepreneurial winners, versus entrepreneurial losers in America who are presumed not to drive on roads. He makes some of the same points as other sources, but I think he as a commentator and this editorial in particular are higher quality than most in regard to choosing RS's for his perspective. Wookian (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would put it in the "leaning" category because of Krauthammer's reputation. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. But I guess I question whether this breakdown is the most useful, since I doubt we will ever get consensus for on some of the others (e.g. Chait), and there may not be any entries in the "neutral" category that everybody is comfortable with (e.g. the "independent fact checkers"). I think it's better to identify mainstream, notable viewpoints, and choose the best source for each of those perspectives, adding a list of the "me too" sources for each in abbreviated form as we think appropriate. That way we won't have such a long section repeating the same ideas in different words over and over for each source. What do you think of that suggestion? Wookian (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand what the problem is. I think this has been an incredibly useful exercise because the section is bloated beyond belief. With the exception of the Romney and Obama campaign quotes (which are used as primary sources), we can safely discard all the "partisan" sources immediately. We can also safely include the "neutral" sources (if you have a problem with the fact-checking orgs, you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia political articles). That gets us most of the way toward cleaning up the "commentators" section. That just leaves the "leaning" sources, from which we can draw only if necessary and with the agreement of everyone. Your solution will lead to no end of partisan bickering and resolve nothing. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's a valuable exercise, and I thank you, Scjessey, for taking a serious-minded stab at it. What I was trying to say above is that we should apply the DRY principle. It's not about respective weight, it's about making the article less repetitive. I'd rather see "Bob said (long spiel). Janet and Steve had similar criticisms. (new para) Bill said (long spiel), comments largely echoed by Paul, Mary, and Tom" and so forth. That way you keep all the source links but shorten the article paragraph. You also keep it interesting for readers by not using sources to redundantly rehash material, but just present unique (as long as notable, mainstream) views. That doesn't resolve the question of which sources should be given more weight, but it's clear that myself and some others around here feel that's not a problem we need to solve anyway. Wookian (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of consolidating sources to reduce the repetitiveness; however, I remain convinced my analysis below reveals the considerable bias problem that the "commentators" section currently suffers from, with false equivalence being generously applied. By ranking the sources as I have done, we can see at a stroke which of them can be thrown out as being partisan bullshit so that we can focus on those from more reputable, independent, mainstream sources. Much as I enjoy reading your comments, Wookian, I would very much like to hear the opinions of other editors on this thread I started. Thanks. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and didn't mean to imply above that we shouldn't purge the less important ones. Wookian (talk) 23:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commenters

(1) Partisan sources

Obama campaign, Romney campaign, Taranto, Benson, Limbaugh, Limbaugh, Levin, Newbold, Berrier, Shepard,

(2) Leaning sources

WSJ opinion, Ruben, Strassel, Goldberg, Barro, Smerconish, Davis, Colmes, Gregory, Klein,

(3) Neutral sources

Factcheck.org, Politifact, Associated Press, Kessler, Cline, Crook, Montanaro, Chait, Kenny

Satire

Stewart, Colbert, Leno, et al

A few things:

• Cline is not a "neutral source"; he's an editorialist who reliably churns out anti-Obama talking points. Most of the other pieces listed under "neutral sources" are in fact editorial commentary, which should be distinguished from news reporting and fact-checking. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I based my assessment on a combination of who and where. In the case of Cline, for example, it was based more on the where factor.
• The Associated Press should be added under "neutral sources".
  • Didn't see that one. Feel free to add it yourself. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The National Review is obviously a "partisan source", not a "leaning source" (whatever the latter means). Likewise the Huffington Post should be filed under "partisan sources". MastCell ^Talk 20:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • These were rated based more on who and not where. "Leaning" means not neutral, but not blatantly partisan. I'd never categorize National Review in the same place as Rush Limbaugh, for example. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The so called fact checkers, are just other opinions with different titles, the content shouldn't be removed due to the fact that they are based on verified content. To weight certain opinions over other opinions de-neutralizes the article.

If there is a wish to reorganized verified content, that is something I would agree to, if the content is summarized down so each opinion is given equal weight in content (as the balance of the content, right now, is presently not critical of Obama, and is actually more critical of Romney and non-left leaning commentators), however to remove verified content without a consensus is something I would not support.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make much sense. We don't treat different sources as all equal. Some sources are more reliable than others. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to "fact checkers", we tend to love them when they validate our opinions and hate them when they don't. We should not go as far as some here have, arguing that they are "independent" and "reliable" and therefore some sort of infallible final arbiter. They are not experts on the issues they investigate -- they are newspaper reporters and editors (which explains why they are mostly biased in favor of the left). Their opinions shouldn't carry any more weight than those of anyone else who has looked at the issue in dispute, especially when the issue is the meaning of two sentences in a campaign speech. --Kenatipo ^speak! 14:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Stewart and Colbert are partisan sources (left); not sure about Leno.
• Associated Press is a partisan source (left) here.
• Factcheck.org and Politifact, on this issue, are leaning sources (left). --Kenatipo ^speak! 15:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. You guys are just incredible. Independent fact checking organizations verify facts, not opinions. For example, last night Paul Ryan lied about how Obama promised to keep a GM plant open in his hometown but, through inaction, let it fail. Fact checkers noted that Obama never promised anything, and the plant closed in 2008 when Bush was in charge, AND the Bush admin praised it as an example of GM streamlining its operation, AND Paul Ryan won federal money to help with the aftermath. These are FACTS that are not open to interpretation and that's what fact checkers do. Fact checkers DO make mistakes, but their overall body of work is of a high quality with an excellent reputation. In fact, without that good reputation they could not exist. Their articles carry LOTS more weight when it comes to determining truth, as in the case of this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fact checking is most useful when there are factual disagreements that can be objectively evaluated. When it's "a bit of a judgment call" (Kessler), then the slam-dunk type of fact checking for which "fact checkers" and other journalists are (justly and commendably) famous, may be impossible. Both right and left-leaning sources have complained about the decay of the "fact checking" genre due to this problem. This has been discussed extensively above. Wookian (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. Reputation, reputation, reputation. The fact checking orgs presented in this article have good reputations, so we (in keeping with Wikipedia policy) regard them as good sources that can be trusted. I'm sure if they had "ruled" in favor of the Romney campaign, you'd have hoisted them on a 400-foot tall pedestal and hailed them as the Gold Standard of sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what is the reputation of fact checkers? Prominent journalists on both the left and right have complained about the elevation of opinion within the fact checking genre, and Romney campaign operatives have made it clear that they both allege and reject attempts by certain fact checkers to control their campaign. Maybe this reputation, reputation, reputation of which you speak isn't all it's cracked up to be. Just saying. Wookian (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fact checking will always draw criticism from people on the wrong ends of the facts. The Romney campaign recently stated they're "not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers." That's basically an implicit admission that they will continue to tell lies because they believe their campaign is benefiting from doing so. That doesn't reflect poorly on fact-checking orgs, but rather it reflects poorly on the character of Romney's campaign. The fact-checking orgs mentioned in this article are neutral, and there's no way you are going to win a consensus to exclude them as sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you say that the Romney campaign consist of "people on the wrong end of the facts" and you say that they implicitly admitted that they will "continue to tell lies", you are expressing a judgment that is not neutral. The more neutral way to express that is that the Romney campaign disputes the judgment of fact checkers in this instance. And just for the record, I don't suggest excluding the fact checkers as sources in this dedicated article, I merely suggest avoiding unreasonably deferential estimations of their weight on a controversy that is "a bit of a judgment call" (Kessler). Wookian (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for fun, here's Andrew Rosenthal at a NYT blog expressing the opinion that the real reason the story won't go away, is that liberals are actually likely to believe "you didn't build [your business]"; so therefore whether or not Obama intended to express that in so many words (Rosenthal thinks not), it is reasonable and plausible in the popular mind to accept that Obama actually believes "you didn't build [your business]". So that's his take, and he also does a good job of expressing the same point I'd made from conservative sources -- that the "you didn't build that" flap reveals real political/philosophical differences and gives opportunity for a substantive conversation about them, which has in fact been happening all across the political spectrum. Wookian (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wookian. There is no dispute whatsoever that the Romney campaign (and related SuperPACs) have told lies to the American people on an unprecedented level in this cycle. This particular issue is less of a lie and more of a distortion, but believe me when I say the neutral view is that the Romney campaign habitually lies. You can pick up almost any newspaper this morning and hear about the string of lies emitted during last night's Paul Ryan speech. You can try to make your position on "you didn't build that" sound reasonable by citing various obscure pieces, but most people on Planet Earth think the whole thing is a Republican distortion. Time to change the track, dude. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously many sources consider this more than just a Republican distortion, so it's appropriate for this article to reflect that. Wookian (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An infinitesimal number when compared to the number who do view it as a Republican distortion. Several orders of magnitude, in fact. The ratio is so obvious, we can comfortably state that it's a FACT that it was a Republican distortion, and the view that it isn't is a FRINGE view. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While assuming good faith that you wouldn't just make that up, may I respectfully request that you show your work, and at least share the numbers you used to calculate this ratio? I want to see the infinitesimal number and the number that is several orders of magnitude greater. Approximations are fine, but my next question will be how you arrived at them. Wookian (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The idea that the Associated Press is a partisan left-wing source is, frankly, so unmoored from reality that it needs to either be dropped completely right now or taken to the reliable sources noticeboard for some less invested input. MastCell ^Talk 17:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • MastCell, don't you just love PolitiFact.com, a product of the liberal Tampa Bay Times? They're so reliable in their fact-checking that they can't even get the date of the Roanoke speech correct: [5] (But let's AGF and assume they were "checking" on an event that occurred on July 17 and that that's why they got the answer wrong!) --Kenatipo ^speak! 18:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unmoored from reality, MastCell? No. I think "unmoored from reality" applies better to someone who thinks Barack Obama is a fiscal conservative. --Kenatipo ^speak! 18:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Funny thing is that Paul "fiscal conservative" Ryan has voted for more unpaid-for spending (Bush wars, Bush prescription drug plan, Bush tax cuts, et al) than Obama has signed into law. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Up above, Scjessey said "last night Paul Ryan lied about how Obama promised to keep a GM plant open in his hometown but, through inaction, let it fail". Response: CNN actually rated those statements "true, but incomplete". It seems that some of the fact checkers who were first out of the gate were too hasty in their judgments and accepted the (e.g.) Media Matters narrative without waiting for all the facts to come in. And beyond that, kudos to CNN here for not calling Ryan a liar for saying something true, even if there was more info that would be useful to have said. CNN's fair-minded evaluation here is what should have happened with the fact checker treatment of "you didn't build that". But unfortunately for whatever reason, you get these wild accusations of lying even simultaneously with admitting that it's a "judgment call" and an uncertain thing. I personally don't blame the Romney campaign for standing up to the "independent fact checkers" on some disputes. It's kind of a mess. Wookian (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FAIL. GM closed the plant during the Bush admin, but it takes months to shut down a large plant because it has commitments to finish a production line. Final GM units were completed in December 2008, after which it was just Isuzus for a few months. Read a proper timeline here. Drops mic. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's your point? CNN said that Ryan's comments were true, although there was more info he could have given. Why are we even discussing this? I guess it's related to your insistance that self-named fact checkers be given more weight than other journalists. However, here you seem to be calling the CNN fact checker's work a failed effort. Can you explain the discrepency? Are some fact checkers so good that they're beyond reproach, but other fact checkers are a "FAIL"? Wookian (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fact-checkers disagreed about how to evaluate the claim. In cases where reliable sources reach conflicting conclusions, we simply describe their disagreement, with appropriate attribution (e.g. "Politifact rated the claim 'false', while CNN rated it 'true, but incomplete'"). That's Wikipedia 101; our policies outline how to approach situations where reliable sources conflict. I don't think it's appropriate to use that disagreement as grist for your campaign to discredit the concept of fact-checking. MastCell ^Talk 20:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't have a "campaign to discredit the concept of fact-checking", that's an ungenerous characterization. Fact checking has always had a place in journalism, and is a great thing which I respect highly. I am skeptical that those who call themselves "independent fact checkers" are meaningfully more neutral than other journalists. I also suggest evaluating RS's on an ad hoc basis based on common sense, e.g. for questions that are impossible to know the answer to, don't assume that fact checkers are psychic, and be suspicious of accusations of lying that are merely opinions. Wookian (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's no mystery as to why these two warriors want us to exalt "fact-checkers" and the AP, Wookian -- those outfits usually slant to the left, which is the POV we see being pushed here by our dear hard-core fellow editors. --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Those outfits" usually slant toward the FACTS. That's why they are called "fact-checking organizations". I know this is kind of hard to understand. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • You won't understand what happened here until you understand what Cline and Krauthammer have to say about it. The only fact here is that Obama said what he said. After that, you're not dealing with facts, but interpretations of meaning, in other words, OPINIONS. Is that hard for you to understand? --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that Obama said what he said and then Republicans lied about it. That's what the fact-checkers have determined. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire. Obama's problem is that Republicans and hopefully many other Americans understood exactly what he meant. The Republicans didn't lie about anything. The "fact-checkers" are wrong, again. --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the fact-checkers are wrong but you're right. And this is why you don't count as a reliable source. The facts stay in. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People like you, StillStanding, who can't tell the difference between a fact and an opinion, probably shouldn't be editing political articles. --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm told that fact-checkers are good at determining what's a fact. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that were true, they wouldn't get it wrong so often. Find someone who will tell you the truth. --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You, Kenatipo, have a hard time understanding that the fact checking organizations and the AP are highly respected and there is no doubt they are held high above any partisan opinion writer, as far as neutrality and checking of facts are concerned, from either the left or right. And you should stop telling other editors whether they should be editing articles. Especially with comments such as this. In fact, with your extremely partisan style of editing and refusal to acknowledge basic Wikipedia policies regarding reliable sourcing, neutrality and living persons, you should not be editing any articles concerning Obama, or perhaps American politics. Dave Dial (talk) 03:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Highly respected by whom, you hypocrite? --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to tune it down. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The section quoting Romney's speech to Olympians in 2002 is not relevant to this article. It is a blatant attempt to paint Romney as a hypocrite (by NBC, one of the official networks of the Obama regime). It might be relevant if Romney had told the Olympians to "give back" their "fair share" of their glory to the Federal government (That the successful are obligated to "give back" something to the government is a key theme in Obama's Roanoke speech, but not in Romney's 2002 speech). Remove un-encyclopedic attempt to imply hypocrisy. Remove to shorten article. --Kenatipo ^speak! 14:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The speech is linked by a source. There is no synthesis. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is it relevant, though? --Kenatipo ^speak! 14:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source says its a similar argument made by Romney (who commented on the phrase), ergo it is relevant. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's from a reliable source doesn't mean it's relevant. It's a similar statement except that Romney doesn't ask the medal-winning Olympians to sell their gold medals and turn over the proceeds to the organizations that built the Olympic facilities. (Obama is about funding government spending). --Kenatipo ^speak! 14:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but you are using original research to contradict the reliable source. It states it is a similar argument. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source directly linked the subject of this article ("you didn't build that") to Romney's speech to Olympians. That makes it relevant to this article. One could argue about how and whether we should feature this particular source, but that discussion can't be based solely on one editor's dislike for NBC News. MastCell ^Talk 17:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All this talk of whether the use of the phrase is "true" or not or "factual" or not misses the point. This is a political meme of the Republican campaign; it is either effective or not, based on whether it resonates with voters, and the details of textual analysis are a little moot. Need to include other statements being used to bolster the argument that the meme represents Obama's actual views.

Further, the lede can be made NPOV fairly easily. Need to treat it as a meme, not a memorable quote, and include the related memes "We Built It", "I did build it", "We did build it", etc.; at least one of those should be in the lede, as adopted as a Convention theme. All the reference to falsity and fact-checkers miss the point. Obama was talking about Government's role in the success of the economy, and in order to do so, tried to diminish the role of individual initiative ("there are lots of smart people" and such). Republicans merely are focusing on the latter, the Obama admin on the former. They don't "refute" each other. It is effective not based on whether it has the full "context" within the speech right, but by whether the phrase crystallizes something people already think about Obama, which it probably does. Obama responses are not JUST responses to the use of the phrase, and text analysis, but efforts to bolster the admin's small business credentials. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right on, Anonymous. The widespread use of this meme at the RNConvention needs to be expanded. --Kenatipo ^speak! 14:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is specifically about the phrase used in the speech. Your comment is all original research. We defer to the reliable sources, the fact checkers etc being the most reliable. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A useful parallel is probably our article on death panel. The lead notes that the term is a political catchphrase; that is was politically effective; and that it was generally perceived by independent observers as untrue and deceptive. All three of those things apply in this case as well, and all three can be appropriately described (with reference to independent, reliable sources) in the lead and body of this article. MastCell ^Talk 17:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What a high quality article. I notice that Media Matters is one of its sources. Certainly no bias showing there /sarcasm. I disagree that the death panel article was handled in a neutral manner, and I disagree that it's a good model for this one. Wookian (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you do it, Wookian. Please email me some of you patience pills — I need to take a handful. --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article on death panel cites partisan sources - although to a much lesser degree than this article, where you guys have defended their use. My point has nothing to do with the specific sources cited, but rather with our precedents for organizing an article about a political meme widely regarded as misleading or deceptive.

I get that you disagree with me, but you haven't actually explained why. You've simply deflected the issue by bringing up Media Matters, as if you're suddenly opposed to the use of partisan sources (in which case, please get busy removing them from this article, where they abound). Why don't you think that the organization of our article on death panel is relevant as a precedent here? MastCell ^Talk 00:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the death panel meme was widely regarded as as misleading by liberals. Thank God that Romney will be elected so we won't have to find out how wrong the "fact-checkers" and "independent observers" were. --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see, which GOP town hall meeting was it where one of the candidates said about old, poor people, "What are we supposed to do, just let them die?" and a teabagger yelled out, "Yes!" Oh, and which God are you thanking? The Christian God? Or the Mormon God? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are either of you going to engage the actual points I'm discussing about this article, its layout, and its sourcing? Or are you going to keep spouting off-topic talking points? MastCell ^Talk 03:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for a response to your suggestion that we assert as fact that the use of the phrase was inherently deceptive and misleading, I think there has already been a lot of discussion about that. If you are bored and/or insomnolent, you can go back and read existing content. Why should we rehash it again? I don't think you'll gain consensus for that part of your suggestion. Wookian (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to "assert as fact" that Romney's ads are misleading. I want to assert as fact that independent fact-checkers described them as misleading. That's asserting a fact about an opinion, with appropriate attribution of that opinion. It's pretty basic Wikipedia policy (see WP:ASF). Either I haven't explained my position clearly, or you haven't understood it, or you're deliberately misrepresenting it. Assuming it's one of the first two scenarios, I think there's still some utility in discussing it further. MastCell ^Talk 04:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read your statement again, and agree that I described it incorrectly, failing to capture the nuance that you intend to state the fact that fact checkers stated, etc. Sorry. With that said, it ends up in a similar place, because some fact checkers' conclusions are elevated above other commentators, including other journalists. Also, I suspect you don't plan to mention that they "don't know what was in the president's mind when he uttered those words, and his meaning is not clear" (FactCheck.org). I just don't think the whole subject is a good candidate for stark black/white or true/false fact checking, because it's a "bit of a judgment call" (WaPo/Kessler). Pushing personal opinions like we see here doesn't reflect the finest work of the fact check genre, and I don't agree with elevating those sources artificially above other journalists putting in their 2 cents. All in all, I think the fairest thing we can do is give the speech in context and let readers decide. Fact checkers can happily inhabit the commentators section along with their peers. And what could be fairer? Why spoon feed a particular interpretation as if readers don't understand English enough to form their own judgments? Wookian (talk) 04:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm old-fashioned enough to think that readers might be more interested in the views of reputable fact-checking organizations than in the views of various partisan bloggers and editorialists. Our fundamental policies say as much: we prioritize sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I think we're all in favor of allowing readers to form their own judgements - the whole point of attributing opinions is that people who view fact-checking as a radical Marxist enterprise are free to disregard those viewpoints. But I am crazy enough to think that outside the hyper-partisan atmosphere dominating this talkpage, the general reader will care more about the interpretation of reputable fact-checkers than that of an angry blogger. MastCell ^Talk 06:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As there doesn't appear to be any consensus on how, if any, condensing of the content in the commentary section should occur, and different editors disputing the weight different sources should have, since all content there is verified and attributed, perhaps it should remain the way it is for now, until some consensus can be formed (highly unlikely as it maybe). Perhaps commentators who share similar opinions should be merged, with the shared opinions being attributed to those multiple individuals and cited accordingly. If it can be done on a one to one basis it'll preserve the present balance to the section (which is actually more critical towards Romney, and more supportive of the Obama position).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken if you think wikipedia aims for "balance"; wikipedia aims for NPOV, which is different. Also, wikipedia isn't just american. non-americans really don't care what partisan commentators have to say; they care about what the fact checkers have said. If one opinion etc is in the minority in the most reliable sources we give it a lesser weight. see WP:NPOV. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think what we really need are fact checker fact checkers[6]. And then fact checker fact checker fact checkers. And so on. Wookian (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, we just need to take the fact checkers as being what they are, and opinion pieces and editorials as what they are. From the right or left, opinion pieces attempt to spin the facts to suit their POV, the fact checkers give out the facts. It's obvious that if the fact checkers were exposing spin and untruths by liberal campaigns, most(if not all) editors here claiming the fact checkers are "liberal" would use them as undeniable proof of liberal misdeeds. This is why we have guidelines and other venues to determine how Wikipedia should present our articles. As I think we have hit a dead end here, and it's obvious that partisan editors wish to present this article as a campaign add for Republicans, it's time to take this to the next level. Obviously this article concerns Barack Obama, and all articles concerning Obama(broadly construed) are under article probation, we should either ask for a review of the edits made here and let editors know there is a 1RR restriction on the article. Or perhaps it should go straight to ArbCom since there is an obvious attempt to subvert NPOV and BLP here. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some uninvolved admins watching the talk and article page for Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Obama_article_probation violations wouldn't be amiss. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DD2K says: "it's obvious that partisan editors wish to present this article as a campaign add[sic] for Republicans". Response: Remember to AGF, and also consider as you lend support to a top level promotion of (some, and disputed) fact check content that claims Republicans lied about Obama's meaning, that if you are successful, in fact the article would be moved in the direction of repeating talking points from Obama's own ads. So that kind of conversation could go two directions. Wookian (talk) 17:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it is completely irrelevant whose ads have what and how closely wikipedia aligns to what. That isn't what wikipedia is about; we don't strike a balance between what the Obama campaign says and what the Romney campaign says. If you think that wikipedia is about balancing the two views of these two camps equally, then you have misunderstood everything about WP:NPOV. The most reliable "fact-checkers" sources uniformly say one thing; therefore that is what we will say, that is all. If the most reliable sources happen to agree with what one of the campaigns says, so be it. If the most reliable sources disagree with both campaigns, so be it. This applies to when democrats twist what republicans say and vice-versa. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that you share my skepticism about Dave Dial's lense through which he wants to analyze the debate. Wookian (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try and twist my words and instead read what I said. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you said was that we shouldn't be pushing the article toward or away from conformance to a particular campaign's ads, per se. Rather, we should let the article grow organically according to Wikipedia guidelines about RS's and so forth. I strongly agree with that, although there is obvious disagreement about how that will work out in practice. Wookian (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We cover what the preponderance of reliable sources cover. On wikipedia that is how we work. It generally works out, although it's easier without a US election :) IRWolfie- (talk) 18:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

The first edit to the article: [7] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]