Talk:Barack Obama 2012 presidential campaign/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

"Campaign issues"

Under this section, the regular person would expect to read a brief summary of the talking points (Middle class tax-cuts, student loan debt, no 5 trillion for the wealthy, "From the middle out"...) -- not one misinterpreted snippet from a speech. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess you misread that as "campaign positions". I suggest that you find a title more to your liking rather than just deleting content. Wookian (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't delete, I commented out; the snippet brought up is not a "campaign issue". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Language is ambiguous, let's not argue about whether you deleted or commented out. The word "issue" is a very broad term, and the section mentions how Obama's campaign both triggered and dealt with this "issue" -- he gave the "campaign" speech that triggered a controversy or "issue", then "the Obama camp" (aka his campaign) responded to the "issue". Maybe it's not perfect, but again, why don't you find a title more to your liking instead of deleting content? Wookian (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I just did. "Republican attacks" You have a better one, go ahead. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's an improvement. I think the old one was better. Anybody else have an opinion a suggestion? Wookian (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a loaded question! Well, the full title would be something like "statements obama made that triggered criticism by his opponents", which I shortened to campaign statements. That's the broadest, most neutral heading I could think of. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted the empty section and restored the original title. Referring to anything as "...issues" is not neutral, and we don't want to get into a situation where we have to provide a reference for a section heading. Also, I've removed the bullshit POV tagging. The paragraph couldn't possibly be any less POV. It simply states what was said and what the reaction was. It doesn't even refer to the fact checking stuff (which I think was a mistake to remove, but I can live with it). POV tags are horribly overused badges of shame. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It's still undue weight, and giving this line a header of its own is anything but neutral. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the first part of your comment, but I agree with the second. "You didn't build that" as a section title reflects unfairly on the Obama campaign. Perhaps we should change it to "July 13, 2012 Roanoke speech" or something like that? How about "Romney campaign dishonesty" or "Romney campaign's distortion of the facts"? -- Scjessey (talk) 23:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think slanting it into the other direction is a serious suggestion. Maybe you could tell us why you think "issues" is not neutral? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

In the case of "Campaign issues", the word issues is being used as a synonym of "problems" (see 12th example in this definition). That's not neutral. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand it as def#9, and that is quite neutral. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No, that's wrong. #9 is describing issues such as policy position, social ideology, etc. In this context, "issues" is being used like "that guy has issues". It's a pejorative, basically. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

See how I started this thread; it's not the header that's wrong, it's the section's content. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the header is wrong. Campaigns don't have issues, they talk about "the issues". A campaign with issues is a campaign with problems. Understand? -- Scjessey (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course campaigns don't "have" issues, but there are issues that come up during a campaign. Thus, "campaign issues". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No, that's a misuse of the word "issues". Examples of actual "campaign issues" would be stuff like:

1. Printing signs
2. Getting volunteers
3. Fundraising
4. Debate prep

I'm sure you don't mean stuff like that, do you? You're probably thinking of "issues" like:

1. Gas prices
2. Gay marriage
3. Entitlement reform
4. Military spending

These aren't campaign issues. They don't directly concern the campaign. These are voter issues, or party issues, or national issues. So "campaign issues" is wrong. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking of the 2nd type, and so would a lot of people who speak AZ-English. Apparently it's different in PA. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I speak proper English. You know, the English from England. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

LOL. Yeah, British and East Coast assholes attitudes are well-known around here :P Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just called me an asshole as a joke. Plus in English, it would be "arsehole" anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I gave you the benefit of the doubt when you claimed your English was the "proper" one. You're welcome. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Controversy section

We should add a controversy section or a “Media Issues” Section like they have done on the Mitt Romney 2012 Presidential Campaign page. This way all the false (or true) political accusations that anyone person in the media has spewed can be put in with impunity.192.195.66.3 (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The solution is to make Mitt's page better, not make this one worse to match. Tarc (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Controversy sections attract controversy, which obvious creates a non-neutral POV. We shouldn't do it for any article. HiLo48 (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this article needs improvement. The campaign issues need to be enumerated and identified as strengths or weaknesses. Obama has been criticized heavily for presiding over a weak economy. He has been criticized for passing a healthcare law. These issues need to be identified, as well as the issues that Obama is pushing. What does he say he stands for? What do his opponents say he stands for? Both sides need to be covered. This article isn't really an NPOV problem, it is an incompleteness problem. Jehochman ^Talk 14:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I completely agree. Much of the stuff you are looking for is covered in some of the many Obama-related articles that already exist. Because he's the incumbent, his positions are well documented in those separate articles. That allows this article to focus more on the campaign-related specifics in a way that the equivalent Romney article cannot. Don't expect both articles to look the same. That being said, I agree that an incompleteness problem does exist. Obviously a "controversy section" would not be an appropriate way to move forward. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Could we have a brief summary of Obama's positions on the main issues with links to more detailed articles? Could we also have a summary of the Romney/Republican (or other notable) positions on Obama, with links to further detail? We need to know what the campaign is about. Jehochman ^Talk 16:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

A brief summary makes sense, but this article should not have the Romney or Republican positions. And the campaign is about winning another term, obviously. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

no, we're not adding a controversy section. period. adding another five pages of talk page replies won't change that either. we've done a decent job so far of even keeping the word controversy off of the page; we're not going to let a whole section show up. well, not for long anyway. simply put: it will be deleted. nor will there ever be such a section on the Barack Obama page. the only time the word appears there at all is in relation to someone else (and it would best to change that word some other day). and please no grumbling about the word showing up over a dozen times on the Dubya page. that's an apples-to-oranges comparison. everyone knows that bush was controversial per se while obama just is not —and you sure won't find any mainstream media sources saying otherwise. the reliable sources like ABC News, Dan Rather, Brian Williams, Ed Schultz, Nightline, Terry Moran, Ted Koppel, Scott Pelley, CBS News, Keith Olbermann, or CNN just don't call obama controversial. those who want to sling mud at this president only have FRINGE sources like maybe TheBlaze to cite. the historical record and the WP:RS news sources don't support right wing trolling. Cramyourspam (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Please, please, please tell me you're joking. I was following right with you and agreeing about leaving weasel words out of articles, but when you wrote your GWB/BHO remarks, my jaw dropped. Lately I've been getting weary of contending with editors who think anything touching Obama has to be written as a hagiography. Usually they just employ wikilawyering to accomplish their ends. I haven't decided whether I prefer your honesty in admitting your egregious bias or not. Wookian (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

well, wait and observe the actual reality of how the BHO-related articles are edited. we'll see who's right in the long term. i guess i'm naughty for actually coming out and saying it, but that doesn't change the editing reality. if all US newsrooms were to somehow do a mass-personnel change and be taken over by fox news types, then maybe some reporting about BHO and "controversy" might appear in official reliable sources. but such a change will never happen. so there will be no reporting of so-called controversy related to him in RS and so none will ever stick to his wiki pages. the right-wingers have only their fringe sources like the blaze, national review, and other opinion-news and of course opinion-writers like kurtz or george will. such content-providers are not reliable sources per the terms of WP:RS policy. so a rhetorical "sorry" to those who yearn to add a controversy section, but it aint gonna happen. and now i refer you to my original statement above. cheers. Cramyourspam (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You're not advocating building a better encyclopedia, you're simply advocating for a liberal POV. That your political philosophy may be shared by a majority of editors around here does not mean you will be successful. If I ever catch you pushing sources like Ed Schultz or Keith Olbermann (as you endorsed above), get ready for more Wookian walls of text, because those are the Glenn Becks of the left. Cheers. Wookian (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

'walls of text' tee hee. thanks for a smile. i'm not necessarily ~advocating~ the status quo (even though, yes i admit, do like it) but i am saying 'this is the editing reality' and that the sources considered officially-reliable will not be writing any obama-related controversy stories. not gonna happen. even though i'm guessing you and your rightist allies would love to load up a mud-throwing machine and aim it at the president, no mud will stick because no WP:RS will speak of it. rhetorical "sorry" and sincere "cheers". Cramyourspam (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

This is turning into a general discussion, and one of dubious merit. I suggest that we agree that a section labeled "Controversy" is non-ideal for an encyclopedic article and leave it at that. Wookian (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

"You didn't build that"

I reverted the drive-by tagging of RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contribs) because (a) the reason given was nonsense, and (b) no attempt to discuss the alleged POV issues was made on this talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

On the section regarding the "you didn't build that" quote during a Roanoke, Virginia campaign speech, the section appears to be heavily weighted in a manor that is supportive of the rebuke of the opinion of conservative reaction to the statement, and is therefore not keeping with WP:NEU.

One way that the large paragraph can be more balanced is the statement by the "fact checking" can be pruned to match the length of the initial reaction towards the statement by the present POTUS. Another way that a balance can be reached is that the initial paragraph can be lengthened to include initial reactions to the quote; as I had stated elsewhere there are over 12 million mentions of the statement in reliable sources, and thus would pass WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The key element of this section is not that Obama said "you didn't build that", it's that the comment was taken out of context and used to attack the president. The story here is how Republicans distorted Obama's words for political gain, which is why the fact checking is important. Also, the "12 million" claim is ridiculous (Google result "you didn't build that", "you didn't build that" + "context"). Please self-revert the tag you added back, since you are the only one saying it isn't neutral and that's not sufficient grounds for the tag. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how you can take the comment out of context when you present the whole comment and it is worse than just the "you didn't build that" aspect. I agree it is not neurtal at this time. Arzel (talk) 13:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

What a surprise! -- Scjessey (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I am not suprised at your attitude either.  ;) Arzel (talk) 13:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It's clear that Obama's speech was talking about how businesses thrive because of government infrastructure projects like roads, bridges and the internet. It's clear his comments were taken out of context by Republicans to make it sound like business owners didn't build their own businesses. It's clear that virtually all the mainstream media, including fact checking organizations, noted that Republicans had done this and provided scads of commentary condemning them for their deliberate misuse of Obama's words. It's clear the paragraph in the article accurately and neutrally reflects what was said by Obama, what Republicans did with his words, and the media reaction to it. So what's the problem? How would you improve the paragraph? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertion that virtually all the mainstream media accepted Obama's explanation. I also think fact checkers have the most credibility when they stick to simple true/false evaluation, and not when they get involved with complex "he said this, but he really meant that" type analysis. At that point, the political views of the fact checkers themselves have ample opportunity to be inserted into the process. As such, in this particular instance, I think the fact checkers' input is over-emphasized. However, I also find the claim that there are 12 million mentions in reliable sources amusing. That must have taken a while to count. Cheers. Wookian (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the following would bear mentioning: Obama released an ad as a quick response after he was challenged on "You didn't build that". The ad contained a montage of video clips of typical small businesses, starting with Krause's Store in Cincinnati, OH. The owner of that store later objected to the use of footage of their store in the ad. Wookian (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Following my own advice, probably a better idea to go wider rather than deeper in expanding this article. Wookian (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is this a section on its own? And why is that section longer than the lead? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I recommend deleting the biased and clumsy fact check material (explained below) from the section, which will nicely shorten it. Quoting Obama's remarks in context is entirely sufficient to allow readers to evaluate this sticky question for themselves. Wookian (talk) 15:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

That won't cut it. You wanna tell me that a) this is the only issue/controversy about the campaign, and b) that it deserves (hellooo?) about one tenth of the entire write-up? That thing wasn't even a mole-hill. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

You are free to add more material to this short and skeletal article. There's a lot of stuff that could be written, so have at it. But don't delete any existing material for POV motivated reasons. Wookian (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you didn't start lecturing me about POV and whatnot. For now, this has to be commented out, because the actual campaign-issues aren't there. Section "Campaign -issues" is empty. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

My take on the FactCheck article is that it was poorly written and doesn't contribute any meaningful fact checking to the debate. For one thing, at the very end the writer admits that he doesn't know "what Obama had in mind when he uttered those words". In other words, he admits he doesn't know whether the antecedent of "that" is "highways" or "your business". As such, he's not in a position to fact check the issue at all, even though he very confidently did so just above. Beyond that, in his closing summary he criticizes ads and campaign remarks for leaving out the "you didn't get there on your own" idea, even though some of those do in fact discuss the context of government-provided infrastructure and even quote Obama's "on your own" bit. What this (liberal-leaning?) fact checker couldn't bring himself to acknowledge, was that one valid and natural interpretation of Obama's statement ("you didn't build [your business]") remains offensive to entrepreneurs either with or without full context of Obama's remarks. For example, the right-wing blogosphere has been publishing Obama's remarks in full, unedited, and making hay on this issue with wild abandon. So this FactCheck article is a non-credible source for fact checking in this specific instance. Wookian (talk) 15:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The incident itself is notable and encyclopedic, but I wonder how it should be presented and whether this is the best article for it. The changing title, from campaign issues to Republican attacks (a POV-ish heading even if it was the subject of a Republican attack), suggests that others are struggling with that too. And there would be a WP:WEIGHT problem because it is but one of a long string of a distinct sort of campaign artifact that has become a staple of American politics. Politician A says X in a speech. X is a mistake, seems wrong, or rubs people the wrong way (or can be made to seem so). The opposing candidate, party, press, PAC groups, etc., launch a strategy to use X to attack A that is unfair, distorted, or out of context. A and his supporters respond by explaining, backtracking, counterattacking, etc. Pundits weigh in, fact checkers weigh in, it stirs debate. It's the politics of mining public statements for ammunition. It's not a campaign issue per se, it's not directly part of the politician's campaign itself, it's part of the overall campaign mechanics. To highlight a single one here, but not others, seems odd. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, this reads better without the attempt to include the fact checking and analysis. It's long enough as it is. A full review of the sources would probably show that it's indeed out of context and misused, and that both sides in the public debate are ignoring the more subtle issue of political philosophy, or whatever you call it, regarding the arrangement (or pact, or relationship, or whatever you would call it) between individuals and their society by which society fosters individual accomplishments. Republicans and libertarians, and Americans in general, hold a view that emphasizes individual self-determination and lays the emphasis on individual talent, effort, and virtue. Others (not entirely liberals, but those with a different viewpoint) emphasize the collective contribution. That leads to real The more thoughtful commentators and members of the public realize that there is a fundamental difference of opinion behind all that, and that this quote raises the issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that more content in this section would be desirable. And I'm not saying gaffes, although those are always fun. I've been trying to find a specific speech or statement in the campaign that was perhaps received as defining and rousing to his base and widely reported on. Wookian (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

For content to expand, we can contrast it to Romney's own "you didn't build that" moment in Salt Lake in 2002, and its further use in both campaigns such as the We Did Build This rallies. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, but it seems desirable to expand wider, not deeper. In other words, there's enough info and context to fairly frame Obama's "build" remark, so why belabor it? I suggest adding more Obama campaign statements that have caused a ripple in the pond in some way. Wookian (talk) 22:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - This isn't directed at any editor specifically, but I wish all editors would be consistent in their claims of neutrality. Are editors claiming that if the most respected, non-partisan fact checkers(Politifact and Factcheck.org), both stated that Mitt Romney's words were being taken out of context(or manipulated) by the Obama campaign, you wouldn't want that tidbit included in any mention of that issue? I try to back off in the minutia aspects of campaign events in Wiki articles, but this one seems pretty straight forward in terms of what should and should not be included. I would like to leave this comment as my only one concerning this issue, and hope editors here come to a consensus without a long drawn out process. It's a pretty straight forward issue. Flub in wording by Obama, quote taken out of context by opponent/s. Good luck. Dave Dial (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• I see a lot of sort of partisan back-and-forth above. What I don't see is any compelling reason why independent fact-checking was removed from this section. This is an encyclopedia, and even in politically controversial areas, we have standards. We don't just report the he-said-she-said of each campaign's ads, because we're not a 24-hour news network. We owe it to the reader to base our coverage on independent, reliable sources. If someone can briefly explain why they think we should hide the reviews of independent fact-checkers from readers of this section, please do. Frankly, the reasoning so far seems to be: "fact-checkers said that the Republicans were lying, so they're not neutral and we can't cite them". MastCell ^Talk 00:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi MastCell -- see my paragraph above where I quote the PolitiFact writer's addendum to his article, in which he in admits that he doesn't know the answer to the most important question he claims to be fact checking (making the whole effort pointless). It's simply a bad specimen of the genre and doesn't contribute much in this case. Presenting Obama's remarks in wider context are sufficient to let both sides be represented. Wookian (talk) 04:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

@MastCell: I'm sorry to revert you, but your edit appears to contain original research. For example, it says that "Politifact was harsher". Unless there's an independent secondary source which states that Politifact was harsher, this seems to be original research.

As I've pointed out elsewhere, this entire section is problematic, as it presents this information from one political perspective while neglecting other perspectives. Until this section can be fixed, I am removing it from the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Which perspective do you feel would be neglected, assuming inclusion of the president's remarks in context? I think both sides will see what they want to see in the section, so it is coincidentally non-favoritist here to stick to the facts and give the story straight. It's like I was discussing with another editor about Mitt Romney's "corporations are people" gaffe. In context, his friends will say "amen" and his foes will always continue to say "aha". Context is important, but even so it's also just one of those things that people see differently. Wookian (talk) 04:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, Politifact was harsher - I don't think anyone who's read both pieces would dispute that - but whatever. I'm fine with omitting the section entirely - it's a typically non-notable election-season gambit, and no one will remember or care about it on the day after the election. (I can guarantee we won't see any of the current advocates for inclusion bother with it after the election).

If we do decide to cover it, then we need to actually discuss the way this gambit has been received by reputable independent fact-checkers. This is a serious encyclopedia. It's not an option to simply repeat a campaign's line of attack without informing the reader that it's been judged completely false. MastCell ^Talk 06:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Appears that the conversation start, which was requested, has been modified (unsure if this falls properly under WP:TPO), and the content in question has been deleted.

The speech, and the content there in has received over 2 million hits, many of which discuss the speech in-depth to the point where the speech itself passes WP:GNG. I initially brought this up at the Barack Obama WikiProject and was directed here, as a section had already been created. Obviously at this point it no longer exist as of this posting.

I understand that this topic is highly contentious and that attempting to present this in a NPOV manor will be very difficult given that this type of article attracts well meaning editors who maybe unknowingly interjecting POV into the content, even if they themselves believe that they are making the content more neutral.

The reason why I tagged the content, as it was when the initial tag was added, was that the majority of the content was in defense of the statement, and rebuke of the Republican interpretation of the statement (an interpretation that was not included in the article). Additionally, the statement included in the section was not even the full paragraph that contained the statement which has become highly notable (which I later added). Well all that appears to be in the past now due to the deletion of the section (unilaterally, it appears (per WP:DYNAMITE?), and thus we are left with a discussion of how, if at all, whether to have a section about the speech.

I for one believe that the speech is notable enough on its own, given its wide coverage and therefore clearly passes WP:GNG. Here are two examples of the multitude of the in-depth coverage about the speech: Bloomberg, & The Atlantic.

One can of course argue that the speech falls under WP:EVENT, and thus would need to pass WP:EFFECT; others may argue that since the speech was made as part of this topic, that it should be written about here instead and if it was an independent article and subject to AfD that it would be Merged & Redirected here anyways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RightCowLeftCoast (talk • contribs)

@MastCell, regarding your "reputable independent fact checkers" bit, you are invited to respond to my paragraph above that starts "My take on the FactCheck article". Wookian (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not "a bit", it's an indisputable fact backed up by unbiased, non-partisan sources. Your "take" is to malign the organizations and describe them as "liberal". That's your opinion, and nothing more. Which doesn't affect the facts. If the section is to be included, it must contain the analysis from those reputable, independent fact checkers. Otherwise, there should be no section. That also seems to be the consensus here. Dave Dial (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely right. If we have the section, we must have the fact checking part. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Read what I wrote and respond to that, please. I didn't just say they were "liberal" and shouldn't be used. The actual content of the FactCheck.org article explicitly disqualified itself from use for this purpose. Wookian (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Taking it out for now, as I suggested earlier, is probably the best move so far; I don't see any problem with its being mentioned. The main problem is that as of now, it's the only issue mentioned, prominently featured with its own section-header, and long enough to constitute a good chunk of the entire write-up. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

This is why I originally suggested that this speech receive an independent article, due to it's significant coverage.

For instance if one searches for Fluke Limbaugh, that only receives 1.37 million hits (which has its own article), compared to the 12.9 million hits for the phrase "you didn't build that". Yet, for some reason, there are other editors who insist that the speech should be part of this article (which I can understand), or that it not have any content on wikipedia at all.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a summary style would be applied in this case. Having its own article does not preclude it from being included here as a brief overview. It would also seem appropriate to include the lead in context, which I didn't see in earlier versions. It should include his characterization of work and intelligence of those successful business persons he's describing - the context that states "There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there." Morphh ^(talk) 16:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

RightCowLeftCoast needs to stop peddling the 12.9 million hits number, which is based on total Google hits rather than the more meaningful metric of news hits only. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith. The number is accurate, and even though that is the total number of hits, even the high number of news hits (14.1K) means that the speech clearly passes WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no magic number of Google hits that makes a subject notable. "Romney Hood" gets 40 million Google hits, and 62,000 Google News hits. But it's not notable - it's an election-season political gambit. I'm sure we're all interested in writing a serious encyclopedia, rather than using this site as a platform for partisan talking points, so let's act like it. MastCell ^Talk 02:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Reasons why FactCheck.org goofed in this instance

• At the end of the article, the writer admits "We don’t know what the president had in mind when he uttered those words, and his intent is not clear." So in other words, the antecedent of "that" may have been "your business", and not "roads", and therefore all the Republicans who piled on may have done so fairly, and the entire fact check article above may have been a waste of time. This is not only a valid way, but also the most natural way to interpret the president's words, and maintaining a NPOV requires allowing that possibility.
• In the very next sentence, the writer adds "Regardless, our conclusion is the same: Taking snippets of his speech ignores the larger context of the president’s meaning that a business owner does not become successful “on your own.”" The problem here is that the third ad video shown and also Mitt Romney's July 17 speech, quoted just above, did include those thoughts and fairly represented the president's point about roads and bridges. So this article is self-contradictory. Doh!
• It's just a mess. It's a badly written fact check article. I think FactCheck.org usually does better work than this, and they do their best work when they check truth or falsehood of statements, rather than "he said this, but he really meant that" type stuff. Bottom line, showing (a) President Obama's quote in context, and (b) a brief summary of the Obama campaign's explanation is sufficient, and lets readers judge for themselves. Wookian (talk) 03:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that we restore the "you didn't build that" content under a title of "Media Issues", which will exactly mirror a (longer) section in the Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign,_2012 article. We should do so without the defective FactCheck.org content as discussed above, but with the full context of President Obama's remarks. I hope this will reflect consensus, but if anyone disagrees, go for it, I'm all ears. Wookian (talk) 02:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You don't get to 'disqualify' long established, non-partisan reliable sources because you don't agree with their analysis. All of your issues with both organizations are original research and/or synthesis. You may want to take your issues to the appropriate board, because there is no question that both are reliable sources. Dave Dial (talk) 03:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You are using the term RS incorrectly. You can never say that an entire organization is an RS across the board for every purpose. It's more complex than that, because you have to determine which specific links can serve as an RS to establish which facts (see your Wikipedia RS link in meaning #1 of "source"). Also, it's not performing original research to notice that the FactCheck.org writer added an addendum to his article in which he throws up his hands and admits he doesn't know the truth of the matter. That's just basic reading comprehension. Summary: it is unreasonable to lean on the fact checkers in this situation in order to psychically divine "what the president had in mind when he uttered those words" (to quote FactCheck's disclaimer against its own article).Better way to say this: I accept the FactCheck article as an RS for the fact that it is not a RS to establish the intended meaning of the president's words at the time he spoke them. So it's about exercising ordinary discernment as to what can and can't serve as a RS for certain facts, not original research. Wookian (talk) 12:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

And besides, I never said that FactCheck.org was unreliable in general, just that this specific FactCheck article is a poor fit for this use. Don't misrepresent my words walls of text, please. :) Wookian (talk) 12:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation. The author of the article says they cannot be certain what Obama meant, but it is clear from the piece that in all likelihood they think the intent of Obama was to say that business owners would have a hard time operating without the infrastructure (roads, bridges, internet, et al) and that by leaving out the context, Republicans have changed the meaning to make it sound like something completely different. They back this up by referring to previous versions of the same speech where Obama said essentially the same thing, but less "artfully" (as they put it). Furthermore, I disagree with your assessment that this article is somehow poorly written. What makes it sound a bit crappy is the awkward "update" added to the end, but the original article is perfectly okay and the author reconfirms its assessment of the actions of the Romney campaign. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

And what if the Romney camp accepts that "you had help" is the wider point Obama was trying to make, but still hammers on him for saying "you didn't build [your business]"? Do you agree with me that the FactCheck.org author explicitly disclaimed his own ability to fact check that? If the FactCheck author backtracked and admitted he didn't know, it's certainly not our job to offer an authoritative assertion. Do you agree with that? Wookian (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

No, because it is painfully obvious to all but the tiniest of minds that Obama was not referring to businesses, but the infrastructure that supports those businesses. Not only is that interpretation supported by the context of Obama's speech, but as I have said before (and as Factcheck.org refers to) it would mirror Obama said in prior speeches. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but you don't get to selectively disqualify an independent, reliable source because you personally disagree with its conclusions. That's not how Wikipedia works, and I don't think it's a good idea to indulge this line of argument any further. MastCell ^Talk 17:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I actually agree with the FactCheck article's conclusion as expressed at the bottom of the article, which is that the editor doesn't know "what the president had in mind when he uttered those words". If you want the article to discuss that some of the Republican ads and speeches included Obama's wider context and some didn't, FactCheck can authoritatively back that up. But that doesn't seem relevant to the core of the dispute, which is "did the president mean your business or did he mean roads as the antecedent of 'that' ?" FactCheck can't help us there, and admits that it can't. Wookian (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You are reading too much into the comment that was added to the bottom of the Factcheck article:

After we posted this item, the Obama campaign said the president was referring to the construction of roads and bridges when he said “you didn’t build that.” (Again, the president said: “Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.”) The campaign also posted a new Web video in which the narrator says, “Actually, he was talking about building ‘infrastructure and education’ … ‘not that individuals don’t build their businesses.’ ” We don’t know what the president had in mind when he uttered those words, and his intent is not clear. Regardless, our conclusion is the same: Taking snippets of his speech ignores the larger context of the president’s meaning that a business owner does not become successful “on your own.”

They can't say if Obama intended to refer to "roads and bridges" or "infrastructure and education". There's no third option were Obama intended to refer to "businesses". That's your own misinterpretation of Factcheck. In any case, the result remains the same. Factcheck said the Romney campaign took Obama out of context and misled the American people. QED. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Now you're doing the same thing the (original version of) the FactCheck article did for Obama -- re-interpreting the author's words in a way you perceive to be favorable instead of acknowledging that it's possible that the simplest interpretation is correct. The simplest interpretation in Obama's case is that the antecedent of "that" is "your business"; and the simplest interpretation in FactCheck's case is that they don't know whether Obama meant "your business" or "infrastructure (which includes roads, bridges btw), education, etc." Nobody disputes the wider point the president was making, but if he said and meant "your business", politics is played "for keeps". There is no rule that says his campaign can perform damage control and roll it back after the fact. For Wikipedia, a NPOV requires allowing for both (credible) sides. Wookian (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the only way to interpret Obama's words after listening to the speech and reading the transcript is to say he meant "roads and bridges". Any other interpretation is, frankly, bullshit. The often-cited, impeccably reliable Factcheck.org agrees that the Romney campaign took Obama's words out of context and used them to manufacture a narrative. That isn't going to change no matter how much original research you apply to the facts. The attempt at post-speech spin by the Obama campaign has nothing to do with it, and the comment added to the end of the Factcheck.org article is a post-spin postscript that isn't relevant to the use of the article as a reliable source either, since it refers to the spin rather than the speech. Per MastCell, I suggest you drop this pointless line of argument. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Use of profanity doesn't make your point stronger. I'm going to continue to hang my hat on the fact that the FactCheck author admitted that he didn't know what was in Obama's mind when he uttered those words. But I think the argument is kind of pointless, though. Since the content with Obama's remarks in context are long enough without adding a bunch of stuff that boils down to saying "quoters should include the full context" (which I suggest doing anyway), I don't see what your big hangup is. Wookian (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe your hangup is that you don't think it's sufficient to include Obama's full context. Maybe you want to add the FactCheck content to protect ordinary readers from interpreting Obama's remarks unaided by this additional filter. Is that the case? Are you afraid that people will read Obama's remarks and come to a conclusion that you (and presumably also the FactCheck writer and Obama campaign) disapprove of? Wookian (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Really? You're going to use playground tactics to try to dare me into agreeing to a Factcheck-less section? My "big hangup" is that just as Republicans have deliberately misinterpreted Obama's comments to manufacture a narrative, you have deliberately misrepresented Factcheck to try to get it dismissed as a source. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

To say I "deliberately misrepresented" it is not assuming good faith of my remarks. And the primary reasons not to include it are that (a) it would make the section too long, and (b) it's just not needed. As I said, the whole point of the FactCheck article is "people should quote this in context", which is precisely what I suggest doing. Wookian (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the point of the Factcheck article is to show that the Romney campaign deliberately took Obama out of context to make political hay. That is why it is needed if we decide to include the section. I can't believe you are still arguing over this. It isn't even in the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I will continue to join the FactCheck writer in saying "We don’t know what the president had in mind when he uttered those words, and his intent is not clear." Since we are repeating ourselves, maybe time to either think of something new to say or let somebody else chime in. Wookian (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I do plan to put it back in the article. See suggestion above mirroring the Mitt Romney campaign article, which also provides a default (perhaps still imperfect) heading with a somewhat encyclopedic basis, i.e. that of consistency between two articles for which there's at least some value in keeping them parallel. Wookian (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea for you to reinsert the material in the face of a number of people with unaddressed concerns here. It seems like you're taking one sentence from the FactCheck.org piece out of context (ironically) to try to undermine its credibility, but that's inappropriate. You can't block an independent, reliable source simply because you personally, as a pseudonymous Wikipedian, disagree with its findings. If every Wikipedian acted that way, where would we be? Our content policies exist specifically to prevent this sort of thing - to prevent us from substituting our personal opinions for the content of reliable sources. MastCell ^Talk 03:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

"You can't block an independent, reliable source simply because you [...] disagree with its findings." OK, I apologize for allegedly disagreeing with FactCheck.org. I will now join you and the FactCheck author in affirming "We know precisely what the president had in mind when he uttered those words, and his intent is abundantly clear." That is what they said, right? /sarcasm Wookian (talk) 03:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You don't need to apologize for disagreeing with FactCheck.org. But by the same token, your personal disagreement has to take a backseat when you edit Wikipedia. MastCell ^Talk 06:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

What I will apologize for is for using sarcasm that you didn't pick up on. What's clear is that you reject the FactCheck article's characterization of itself. You're trying to make the FactCheck article something it isn't, which is a final word on what was in Obama's mind when he uttered those words. You're trying to pretend that the president's intent was clear. I agree with FactCheck. You disagree with it. Is that clearer now? Wookian (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I think playing word games is a great disservice to other editors. Factcheck makes it clear that Romney and the Republicans took Obama's remarks out of context. So does Politifact. So trying to distort the meaning of those fact checkers isn't going to do any good. Nobody here is going to all of a sudden lose their common sense, or lose the ability to comprehend the written word. There is no consensus to add the section here. So unless you have something new to add(besides the clear distortions and such), we should let this discussion end. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

"We don’t know what the president had in mind when he uttered those words, and his intent is not clear." -- FactCheck.org. Why would they say that if they didn't mean it? Look, I agree that FactCheck frowned on use of Obama's words out of context. That's not in dispute. But (at least in the postscript) they denied being certain of his meaning. I would suggest that you take a look at the Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign,_2012 article's "Media Issues" section, take a look at Cramyourspam's comments above, and do some soul searching. Are you trying to build a better encyclopedia, or are you exercising your editorial influence to create a hagiography for President Obama? Wookian (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm just going to reply to this be reposting my earlier comment:

You are reading too much into the comment that was added to the bottom of the Factcheck article:

After we posted this item, the Obama campaign said the president was referring to the construction of roads and bridges when he said “you didn’t build that.” (Again, the president said: “Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.”) The campaign also posted a new Web video in which the narrator says, “Actually, he was talking about building ‘infrastructure and education’ … ‘not that individuals don’t build their businesses.’ ” We don’t know what the president had in mind when he uttered those words, and his intent is not clear. Regardless, our conclusion is the same: Taking snippets of his speech ignores the larger context of the president’s meaning that a business owner does not become successful “on your own.”

They can't say if Obama intended to refer to "roads and bridges" or "infrastructure and education". There's no third option were Obama intended to refer to "businesses". That's your own misinterpretation of Factcheck. In any case, the result remains the same. Factcheck said the Romney campaign took Obama out of context and misled the American people. QED. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't bother to read it the first time, but you can see it exposes your flawed logic. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I see where they give the Obama campaign's explanations, but they make it very clear that they don't know what was in Obama's mind when he said those words. Look carefully at the subject of each sentence, and tell me where the FactCheck authors claim to know what Obama intended when he spoke those words. It's not in there. You're reading it as if FactCheck completely trusts the Obama campaign, which is not a realistic assumption. They are a bunch of jaded politics wonks over there, who have heard it all before. So I suggest you read it again with a critical eye, and tell me where I'm wrong. Wookian (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You are completely wrong about this. The update to the article notes that the Obama campaign gave two "clarifications" (statement, video) that were not the same, and Factcheck basically said they didn't know which of these Obama meant to say, if indeed it was either of them. But the fact remains that Factcheck (as well as other fact-checking organizations) have categorically stated that the Romney campaign took Obama's words out of context and used them in a way that Obama had not intended to mislead the American people into thinking Obama doesn't believe individuals built their own businesses. There's absolutely no dispute about that, regardless of how you parse what Factcheck has said. For that reason, any paragraph/section that brings this speech up must include at least one analysis from a fact-checking organization, and there is no reason that it couldn't be this one. Now, it is clear that regardless of what you think, everyone else involved in this discussion disagrees with you. So now it is time for you to drop this argument and move on to something else. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

"and Factcheck basically said" Whoops, synthesis is not allowed on Wikipedia. The only way to get where you want to go is to say, "here's what FactCheck said, but here's what I think they meant". But you can't do that here. Also, FYI, Wikidemon agreed above that the segment was better without the FactCheck content, so you're wrong about unanimous consensus. Wookian (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, you're the one talking about "implicit this" and "antecedent that", Mr Original Research. And Wikidemon might think it reads better without, but it isn't better. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of 2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm astonished that RightCowLeftCoast has ignored all the discussion in several threads above and created this article. Not good. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be working to keep the content from having any expression on Wikipedia at all, so I'm not astonished that you object to a new article. :) Wookian (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. I want the paragraph in this article and I want to see the fact-checking stuff in it. What I don't want is a POV fork of it, elevating above the level of importance it deserves. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Scjessey, you could be seen as implicitly supporting the creation of a separate article. What I see here is people stonewalling on inclusion of the "you didn't build that" content in this article, even though this is a natural home for it, as a political campaign type of thing. If we include the fact check content, then this one incident gets too long and inflated in relation to the rest of the article. If we leave factcheck out, you object that readers really need additional explanations on top of Obama's words in context. So the (oh, so sorry guys, whatashame) solution is that the whole thing gets left out. And Cramyourspam is chuckling[1][2] all the way to the edit link. Wookian (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It belongs in this article, in a paragraph or two at most. Just because it's now a Republican talking point doesn't mean that it is elevated to the notability deserving of its own article. I think it can be done in a paragraph or two in this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I definitely think it belongs in this article, but it must have the fact-checking stuff. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem if consensus is to include it. What I would have a problem with is if FactCheck is presented as knowing what was in the president's mind when he spoke those words, or being clear on his meaning. I would plan to edit such an inaccurate characterization that would be the exact opposite of what the FactCheck article said. But if the FactCheck material is used to point out that some (not all, according to FactCheck) Republican ads and speeches quoted Obama without context, that's OK by me. Wookian (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The Factcheck material would definitely be in. It will be used to show Romney and his campaign are making false statements. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to find a way to interpret your remarks that doesn't involve poorly performed synthesis on your part. I searched the FactCheck article for "lie", "false", "mislead", "misled", "untrue", "accurate", "inaccurate", etc. However, I was unable to find where FactCheck accused the Republicans of making false statements. Can you help me out? Please provide an exact quote from the article. My impression is that you are not only synthesizing, but doing so poorly and coming up with an interpretation that is absent in the FactCheck article itself. All I can find is that some of the Republican ads were guilty of quoting only part of Obama's remarks instead of providing wider context. And the FactCheck article actually commends Romney for including the wider context in his July 17 speech, from which FactCheck gives a quote. I don't see anything anywhere about false statements. If you are still saying that the FactCheck article claims that they are sure that the antecedent of "that" was "roads, etc." and that the Romney campaign lied by implying it was "your business", I fear that you will probably continue to assert that, even though the FactCheck article couldn't really have been more explicit in insisting that the author doesn't know what was in Obama's mind when he spoke those words, and Obama's intent was not clear. That is a reading comprehension failure on your part. Wookian (talk) 01:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that in Romney's July 17 speech which FactCheck commends, Romney still hammers Obama for saying (in his interpretation) "you didn't build [your business]". If FactCheck is taking a position on what was in the president's mind when he spoke those words, it's odd they don't mention it here. Wookian (talk) 12:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Obama Campaign's Ads

Should there be a section on ads related to this campaign? Some of them have been notable in their own right, for example, the Super PAC add that implied Romney was responsible a lady's death? That was pretty notable, should it not be included? Korentop (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you link to a source or two that supports your statement that it was notable? Wookian (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Please help with link to list of coming Obama speeches and locations

Wondered if anyone could help with a link to Obama's coming election speeches. I attended his speech in Prague, CZ, and was so impressed that I would travel to the US (east coast) to hear another. Tried to search his campaign website, but search results are heavily diluted with all sorts of local events, couldn't make sense of it. 90.184.249.33 (talk) 10:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The Talk page is restricted to discussion of changes to the article (see WP:FORUM). If in fact you're proposing putting this info in the article, it sounds like it's not a good fit, since it's so hard to find (therefore perhaps not well covered in reliable sources). Wookian (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Holy cow! This page is toxic. I was just asking for link. Why did you bother to reply with your kafkasque rejection? You should read WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. I created a talk page if anybody would be kind to reply. 90.184.249.33 (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You may have better luck at the Wikipedia:Reference desk, where editors are on-hand to answer non-WIkipedia related questions. Tarc (talk) 20:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

SVG Logo

Hello, I've replaced the logo with an SVG version. Because I couldn't find an appropriate official vector version, I did a manual trace from the PNG file. If anyone has any suggestions for improvement (especially with regard to the font used for the website address), please let me know on my talk page. gringer (talk) 14:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Relevance of "you didn't build that"

Reading this article over, it's clear that the section on "you didn't build that" is misplaced. Besides the glaring issue of undue weight, this phrase is not part of Obama's Presidential campaign. It's a key part of Mitt Romney's Presidential campaign, and serves as a central focus for his campaign's attacks on Obama. As such, it is appropriately covered in Mitt Romney Presidential campaign, 2012 and in its standalone article. MastCell ^Talk 18:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree; although I would have no problem with weighting the treatment here in terms of what the Obama campaign actively did with the controversy, e.g. both damage control and reiterating the philosophical statement he was trying to articulate in the speech. Obama was the person who said these words, and he is running against Romney, so it seems relevant. Wookian (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Obama said the four words; Romney's campaign then built up an entire edifice of attack ads and campaign themes around it. As such, it seems clearly part of Romney's campaign and much less relevant here. Similarly, the section on "Bain Capital" in Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 could be moved here; Romney's time at Bain has been much more a focus of Obama campaign attacks than of Romney's campaign itself. Mostly, though, the undue weight issue is really, really glaring when you read this article. Obama's campaign has hit a number of themes, from the success of the auto bailout to attacks on Romney's role in firings and plant closures to drawing distinctions on issues relevant to women to immigration and so on. For the entire Obama campaign article to consist solely of material about "you didn't build that" doesn't make sense. MastCell ^Talk 19:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, last night at the RNC the Romney campaign capitalized heavily on Bain and presented it as a positive element on his resume, so "moving" it here would be premature. Beyond that, "you didn't build that" is broader than just the disagreement on what Obama had in mind by the word "that". It also is about, you know, his actual topic in that speech, and the philosophical differences between the two sides. The mainstream attention to the phrase started as a gaffe/gotcha type thing, but eventually opened up a legitimate and useful debate. Wookian (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. I continue to think this has been a relative non-issue in Obama's campaign, albeit a central theme in Romney's, but I've said my piece. I'm interested to hear others' opinions. MastCell ^Talk 19:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Your cohort Scjessey seemed happy to take off the undue tag [3]. CallawayRox (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

@CallawayRox, perhaps we should let Scjessey speak for himself. That may have been more of a "perceived consensus" thing than a "agree with the inclusionists" thing. In my opinion, it was simply a classy edit, and we shouldn't rock the love boat by making assumptions. I've also debated him way too long on this issue. :) Wookian (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with MastCell. The "You didn't build that" section would probably be better devoted to the actual themes of Obama's campaign, e.g. Medicare, taxes, women's rights. The non-existence of this phrase on the Obama 2012 website should serve to indicate that it is at most a minor part of the Obama campaign, even though it is a major part of the Romney campaign. Hal peridol (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

This definitely belongs here. It was a serious campaign issue and it is quite ridiculous to omit it. If you have an issue with undue weight then expand the article. Truthsort (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

It's part of the Romney campaign, not the Obama campaign. Hard to see the relevance here. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Edit warring this section is an absolutely no-no. Truthsort and Cramyourspam should seek a consensus for inclusion if they wish to see the section in the article. Cramyourspam should self-revert and at least make some effort to discuss it here. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Removing the content makes no sense and there is no consensus to removed the source content. This article is not a reprint of the campaign website. We cover the campaign as a whole, which includes setbacks. Next you'll suggest the John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004 should not include the Swift Boats, and John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 shouldn't mention Vicki Iseman. These articles need to cover such things. Morphh ^(talk) 17:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The content was already removed after discussion. It was added just today and it is now the subject of an edit war. And this is the wrong article for the content anyway. It is part of the Romney campaign, and has nothing to do with the Obama campaign (which is the subject of this article). -- Scjessey (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The sources seem to disagree with your belief of a lack of relevance here.[4][5][6] Truthsort (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Not part of the Obama campaign. "You didn't build that" was created by the Romney campaign. Ergo, it belongs in the Romney campaign article, not the Obama campaign article. Show me a single source that says that "You didn't build that" is an Obama campaign thing and I'll support inclusion. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Nor were the Swift Boats part of Kerry's. It was highly publicized criticism of Obama's campaign, thus should be included. Obama created it by speaking it as part of his campaign, Romney used it to his own ends to further his campaign. Morphh ^(talk) 18:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Not the same thing at all, and there's zero evidence that this meme will have the same impact on Obama's campaign as the Swift Boat attack had on Kerry's. This entire attack was created and executed by the Romney campaign simply by taking Obama's words out of context. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The final impact on his campaign is not the measure for inclusion of content. The article should cover controversies from the campaign, regardless if he wins or loses. Morphh ^(talk) 18:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of where it's mentioned, the current article gives this line of attack such grossly undue weight that it makes this article ridiculous. Look at the Kerry and McCain campaign articles; they're both much better developed than this one. There appears to be zero interest in developing this article except as a platform to amplify the "you didn't build that" line of attack. As I've stated above, the section should be removed or, at the very least, pared down and integrated into a narrative about the campaign as a whole. Right now it's completely out of compliance with WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT - anyone reading this article and comparing it to the actual breadth of reliable-source coverage of the campaign can see that at a glance. MastCell ^Talk 18:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Then develop the article then. Quit hiding behind undue weight to omit this important detail. Truthsort (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

It's only important to the Romney campaign, Republicans and their sheeple. The rest of the world has moved on already. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

It would appear that this line of reasoning has made it so that this article contains almost no information other than Obama approved information. No policy position, no campaign issues, nothing on foriegn policy, nothing on pretty much anything. Mast and Scjessey you both should go help remove all of the non Romney approved stuff on the Romney presidential election page. Arzel (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The Romney campaign article contains "No policy position, no campaign issues, nothing on foriegn policy" as well. (foreign spelled wrong though). As the other editors noted, the whole "You didn't build that" concoction and misleading misconstruction is something that was born out of Romney's campaign and needs not to be given undue weight in this article. Teammm ^TM 21:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you even read the Romney page? Arzel (talk) 03:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Obama addresses campaign staff

Scjessey , you are giving WP:UNDUE weight by re-adding the sentence "The day after the election, Obama gave an address to members of his campaign staff at his Chicago headquarters. In the video Obama wipes away tears and chokes up, saying he was proud of the work they did." - M0rphzone (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, and I've restored the sentence that you have now twice deleted. It is part of the campaign, which this article is about, and it is covered by multiple (thousands) reliable sources. Also, I've changed the heading title of this section to something non-neutral. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

utter trivia of no impact. WP:UNDUE coverage to a meaningless bit of the campaign when there are so many actual import and meaningful parts which have not been covered. there is no consensus to include.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. Over 30,000 news hits on Google, so it definitely belongs in the article (in some form). Tag-team edit warring not good, RedPenOfDoom. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of what you think, it is still undue weight to include the second sentence of the part. Also, do you mean you changed the section title to something neutral, cause you've just admitted that you changed the section title into something non-neutral (i.e., biased). Also, thanks RedPenofDoom for intervening. Scjessey, please do not revert until other editor's have given their opinions on this. - M0rphzone (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Just because the media covers a single incident doesn't mean it's relevant or notable to the article as a whole. Thousands of tabloids/blogs cover incidents like this, but they are not included on encyclopedia articles because they are WP:TRIVIA, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NEWSEVENTs. If you stubbornly re-add it without further discussion, that is disruptive editing, and you are participating in tendentious editing. - M0rphzone (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) Just cause somethin appears in the papers dont mean it is encyclopedic in value. Show that there was any actual impact and that the number of hits is evidence of anything other than a slow news day. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It would have been news if he had ignored his campaign staff and showed no emotion. This is trivia. HiLo48 (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, the media seems to think it was a big deal and reported on it ad infinitum, so I have no idea where you get the idea it is trivia. And for the record, I did not write the paragraph. I merely restored it after it was deleted without good reason or talk page discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Repeated cries of "its in print so its important" are unlikely to have a persuasive effect. Bring me a commentator that says this was anything more than routine coverage of a standard event and I would have the potential for changing my mind. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The media acts like it's a big deal because the media needs content to fill masses of column inches or news bulletin minutes every day. We don't have to. HiLo48 (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Spelling

did no ne notice that at the end of the article, discuss is spelled as discus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cole levine 24 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 24 November 2012‎

Already fixed by User:TheRedPenOfDoom. - M0rphzone (talk) 10:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)