Talk:You didn't build that/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"Fact-checkers"

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Link to photo, creation of external link section

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)

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

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

Kristof comments

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

Ten-year-old Romney speech in Utah not relevant -- remove it

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

POV tag

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)

• Oppose: unnecessary at this point – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 21:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support: as pointed out just above this section, the Commentators section remains highly problematic. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support The issues with the commentators section have not been fixed. Silverseren^C 23:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support There are still major issues as already highlighted. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Achieving balance

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
  • 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)
• 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)
  • 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)
  • "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)
    • 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
          • 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)
            • "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)
              • 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

NPOV - it is a political meme - it is either effective or not

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)