MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Robot: Archiving 1 thread (older than 10d) to Talk:You didn't build that/Archive 3. |
|||
Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
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) |
||
::I'll go ahead and remove the most problematic material one edit at a time for individuals to review. If there is a problem with a specific change, please revert and discuss that on the talk page. I presume that you won't be reflexively reverting going forward. [[User:Aprock|aprock]] ([[User talk:Aprock|talk]]) 01:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:obviously the commentary and analysis of the meme is the most important part of placing the phrase in its context. it is perfectly acceptable to include such content from reliable sources and ridiculous to consider removing them en masse. -- [[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) |
: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 01:08, 21 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
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)
- I'll go ahead and remove the most problematic material one edit at a time for individuals to review. If there is a problem with a specific change, please revert and discuss that on the talk page. I presume that you won't be reflexively reverting going forward. aprock (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- 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)