StillStanding-247 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
TheRedPenOfDoom (talk | contribs) →political/comedic commentator: :obviously the commentary and analysis of the meme is the most important part of placing the phrase in its context. it is perfectly acceptable to include such content from reliable sources and ridiculous to consider rem |
||
Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
The bulk of these sections are op-ed pieces that are interested in furthering the editorial writers personal views, and not particularly encyclopedic. I suggest that both sections be removed for the time being, and possible repopulated down the road when reliable secondary sources about the event become more commonplace. [[User:Aprock|aprock]] ([[User talk:Aprock|talk]]) 01:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |
The bulk of these sections are op-ed pieces that are interested in furthering the editorial writers personal views, and not particularly encyclopedic. I suggest that both sections be removed for the time being, and possible repopulated down the road when reliable secondary sources about the event become more commonplace. [[User:Aprock|aprock]] ([[User talk:Aprock|talk]]) 01:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |
||
:Thank you for your bold changes. After due consideration, I reverted all of them. The material you removed was an integral part of the article and often necessary for neutrality and comprehensiveness. I suggest that, if you disagree with my actions, you explain each particular change here and gain some consensus for it before editing again. Thank you. [[User:StillStanding-247|I'm StillStanding (24/7)]] ([[User talk:StillStanding-247|talk]]) 02:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |
:Thank you for your bold changes. After due consideration, I reverted all of them. The material you removed was an integral part of the article and often necessary for neutrality and comprehensiveness. I suggest that, if you disagree with my actions, you explain each particular change here and gain some consensus for it before editing again. Thank you. [[User:StillStanding-247|I'm StillStanding (24/7)]] ([[User talk:StillStanding-247|talk]]) 02:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |
||
:obviously the commentary and analysis of the meme is the most important part of placing the phrase in its context. it is perfectly acceptable to include such content from reliable sources and ridiculous to consider removing them en masse. -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom|<span style="color:red;font-size:small;;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;">The Red Pen of Doom</span>]] 03:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:00, 18 September 2012
Template:Community article probation
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
DYK nomination
This is missing a major aspect
This theme has resonated on a large scale. Most coverage is saying it's because people think that he really thinks that way. Even if he structured the wording of his speech so that he could make "out of context" claims about the statement itself... The resonation and the reasons for it are large scale and have a lot of coverage, but it is largely missing from the article. North8000 (talk) 10:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Part of the reason for it is that Republicans insist on painting Obama as the spawn of all evil. If anything is wrong with the United States, it obviously is Obama's fault. Kind of ridiculous to always attack a straw man instead of the actions of the real man. -- Avanu (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- The same is done in reverse, but I don't see how either is relevant to this particular topic, unless you are saying that the "middle ground" is being ignored in the frenzy? North8000 (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- As Jon Stewart tried to explain once to Rachel Maddow in a one-on-one interview, this system is set up to behave as if there are two sides. The media likes a narrative that is simple and easy to follow. But realistically, things aren't this simple. Is Obama more likely to reach for government intervention than a Republican to solve a national problem? I guess.... who knows really. Some people take it as a solid fact. But realistically, I don't know how much of a difference we have between one president and the next anymore. Most things develop in the various departments or outside thinktanks. So you ask, 'why does this statement resonate?' Because we recently had a economic 'crisis' where many wealthy people were handed a lot of money and in the case of GM, the unions were handed a lot of money. For those who didn't get a payoff, or those who care about our nation being in massive debt, or people who just want an excuse to attack Obama, this is a big deal. -- Avanu (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- The same is done in reverse, but I don't see how either is relevant to this particular topic, unless you are saying that the "middle ground" is being ignored in the frenzy? North8000 (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Trying to avoid the spittle back and forth is pretty futile, but thoroughly endorse your point, makes perfect sense, and raised the related issue in "NPOV - it is a political meme - it is either effective or not", which is above. The meme IS effective, not because of word-by-word textual analysis, but because it crystallizes, in Obama's own voice, what many voters already believe to be his bias.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Of course a part of resonating comes from opponents working to give any negative sounding story about their opponents legs. But beyond that I think that Anonymous209.6 hit the nail on the head. North8000 (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- The article doesn't do a good job explaining this topic. I thought about adding a..
- ...template to it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thats because it is one of the stupid "breaking news" stories - it doesnt explain itself because there are no third party sources that can give any historical impact and context because the context is evolving or not under our feet. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
There are worse ones than this article; Mitt Romney dog incident comes to mind. Wikipedia is a complete, absolute 100% utter failure on topics which are involved in a significant real world clash. Nowhere is this more evident than before a major election where the related articles are all painful, unstable uninformative crap and articles get created on crap topics. Changes to policies and guidlines are needed to fix this. North8000 (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
- The issues is being discussed Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(events)#RAPID_contradicts_policy if anyone has any feedback to add. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Fake photo
Please stop adding a fake image of a t-shirt with a logo on it to the article. I see there is another t-shirt too. Why are we showing merchandise off? Would the same people be in favour of the addition of [1] to the respective dog article? Cheers, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
This speech vs. "tear down this wall!"
Okay, this speech by Obama has no greater impact whatsoever, as the one by Ronald Reagan did during his duties. "Responses" section is overbloated with recent comments. There is no need to make an article about some random speech covered and reviewed by media. I mean, "Tear down this wall!" I mean, why wasting time on this Obama speech? What's the point of creating it other than point out media sensationalism? --George Ho (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- I imagine this and all related election articles such as ones about Romney's dog, are just a product of advocate editors for parties in the US elections. They will probably be deleted/redirected/merged following the election. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- To be fair, it's not about the speech, it's about the GOP's abuse of a sound bite to smear Obama. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- At its heart, there is an idealogical nugget here. The problem is that both US national parties are guilty of using the government to further their interests when they see fit to do so. The idea that Republicans don't, and Democrats are always wanting government to run your life is a bit of hyperbole. Both parties will instantly become hypocrites on this in an instant if the need suits them. -- Avanu (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- To StillStanding, I fail to see some primary (even secondary, if non-existent) connection between conspiracy theories and the whole speech itself. Words are insufficient, and even too many opinions and comments in this article are not enough. Look at Berlin Wall and "Tear down this wall!". Reagan's advices to Germans to break down the wall inspired at least one commentary and one event, also known as "Downfall of Berlin Wall". This insignificant (yet well-written) Obama speech, however, was created randomly. You know what? This article would likely be nominated for deletion again if no importance is proven. Difference between one speech and Barack Obama on social media is an amount: we have one speech, and we have an unrelated topic about a collaboration of different media types. --George Ho (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Opponents try to give certain stories that sound negative legs; sometimes they succeed, sometimes they fail. In this case it resonated and got legs because people believe that Obama meant that because it aligns with his behavior and politics. Even if he structured his sentences to give himself deniability e.g. could claim it was out of context. And THAT is the widely covered aspect of the story that is missing from the article. North8000 (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, you keep saying that, but most people like myself don't see it. It didn't "resonate" and it didn't get "legs". This is a Fox News talking point, nothing more. This topic coverage is entirely undue weight and it should be redirected to an article about the speech with one paragraph devoted to its discussion. Viriditas (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- Opponents try to give certain stories that sound negative legs; sometimes they succeed, sometimes they fail. In this case it resonated and got legs because people believe that Obama meant that because it aligns with his behavior and politics. Even if he structured his sentences to give himself deniability e.g. could claim it was out of context. And THAT is the widely covered aspect of the story that is missing from the article. North8000 (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Hmm.... somehow, Speeches and debates of Ronald Reagan was recently created. Maybe we need to create Speeches of Barack Obama, as Category:Speeches by Barack Obama have non-notable speeches. What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- I support this. It'd provide a better place to describe the more notable speeches he's made, and one-off things like this, which may have little significance past the election (and even if it did, it's not our job to speculate on that anyway). elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
political/comedic commentator
The bulk of these sections are op-ed pieces that are interested in furthering the editorial writers personal views, and not particularly encyclopedic. I suggest that both sections be removed for the time being, and possible repopulated down the road when reliable secondary sources about the event become more commonplace. aprock (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your bold changes. After due consideration, I reverted all of them. The material you removed was an integral part of the article and often necessary for neutrality and comprehensiveness. I suggest that, if you disagree with my actions, you explain each particular change here and gain some consensus for it before editing again. Thank you. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- obviously the commentary and analysis of the meme is the most important part of placing the phrase in its context. it is perfectly acceptable to include such content from reliable sources and ridiculous to consider removing them en masse. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)