Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
I suggest we move forward with removing the section. It is just a mess of random op-eds, none of which are reliable about the topic, and none of which have any secondary sources establishing them as having due weight. [[User:Aprock|aprock]] ([[User talk:Aprock|talk]]) 23:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC) |
I suggest we move forward with removing the section. It is just a mess of random op-eds, none of which are reliable about the topic, and none of which have any secondary sources establishing them as having due weight. [[User:Aprock|aprock]] ([[User talk:Aprock|talk]]) 23:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC) |
||
:I went ahead and removed the comedic commentators as being entirely undue and unencyclopedic. I was reverted by an IP sock, and then by two other editors who chose not to bring their concerns to the talk page. Before I remove that section again, does anyone have any policy rationale for including comedic commentary on this topic? [[User:Aprock|aprock]] ([[User talk:Aprock|talk]]) 04:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Post-election AfD? == |
== Post-election AfD? == |
Revision as of 04:42, 25 October 2012
Template:Community article probation
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 100 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)
- Then where can I find list of speeches, addresses, and debates made by Obama? --George Ho (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Suggest using Wikisource's to-be-created s:Speeches by Barack Obama, s:Public behaviour of Barack Obama (or such) and feed it raw source. Any public speech is open-source, isn't it? In the interest of accountability by the world's politicians, leading to their credibility, we can consider an "automatic feed", a comprehensive archive of public language (attendances, body language, speeches, debates, standpoints, signatures, ...) used by a public figure; we can, i'm confident, find a way to use less than hundreds of megabytes to describe the complete public life of a public servant. The Wikidata project, a Semantic MediaWiki RDF, seems fitting. Also support creation of Speeches of Barack Obama or Speeches and debates of Barack Obama. 83.101.67.8 (talk) 10:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Then where can I find list of speeches, addresses, and debates made by Obama? --George Ho (talk) 00:33, 15 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)
- Don't worry, any further revert on my part will be after due consideration. In fact, I may just bring up my objection here and ask you to revert yourself, as this article is under community probation, so reverting others should be limited. Speaking of which, you just opened an undue tag but didn't open a section here to discuss it. Please do. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:17, 21 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)
I suggest we move forward with removing the section. It is just a mess of random op-eds, none of which are reliable about the topic, and none of which have any secondary sources establishing them as having due weight. aprock (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
- I went ahead and removed the comedic commentators as being entirely undue and unencyclopedic. I was reverted by an IP sock, and then by two other editors who chose not to bring their concerns to the talk page. Before I remove that section again, does anyone have any policy rationale for including comedic commentary on this topic? aprock (talk) 04:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Post-election AfD?
Yes, Romney made this the theme of his convention. But it appears to be for nothing.[2] I'm thinking about nominating this for deletion again after the election, when we have a more clear vision of the lack of impact of this line, and it prepares to recede into the ether. Any relevant info belongs at 2012 Republican National Convention. Thoughts? – Muboshgu (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- A topic does not lose its notability over time. The notability it garnered in its prime continues into the future as historic notability. Binksternet (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's not clear that the topic was notable in the first place. It's just that it's not really possible to have a serious deletion discussion about a political attack line central to a major U.S. Presidential campaign during election season. I'd definitely support a simple merge/redirect, but I agree we may as well wait until after the election. There's no deadline, and in my experience these sorts of articles are promoted primarily as an election-season talking point. The most vocal promoters of this article are likely to have little use for it after the election, which would make it easier to have a policy-based discussion. MastCell Talk 16:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- Precisely my thought. Lots of articles have been created out of WP:RECENTISM of the election season. I'm thinking primarily of this one and the "legitimate rape" article, though there are some differences between the two. Anyway, I question the notability of this article still, and the fact that Romney has completely dropped the line of attack backs up that this isn't notable, but merely a POV fork from the campaign and RNC convention articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's not clear that the topic was notable in the first place. It's just that it's not really possible to have a serious deletion discussion about a political attack line central to a major U.S. Presidential campaign during election season. I'd definitely support a simple merge/redirect, but I agree we may as well wait until after the election. There's no deadline, and in my experience these sorts of articles are promoted primarily as an election-season talking point. The most vocal promoters of this article are likely to have little use for it after the election, which would make it easier to have a policy-based discussion. MastCell Talk 16:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
the US elections certainly do create a lot of crap articles by POV pushers and campaigners. at this point, this one still seems borderline, i have a feeling that it will continue to be hauled out regularly in pundit circles as a reference for this election for a long time (most likely precisely as, to quote the link above, an example of " But considering the time and messaging weight the Romney campaign and RNC threw into attacking Obama on this point -- it was the theme of a whole day of the Tampa convention -- the lack any apparent impact is notable"), but that is WP:CRYSTAL speculation. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- This discussion seems premature. We cannot know what notability the topic will have in the future. TFD (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- then you are agreeing that the article itself was premature; since notability is not temporary, if we have to wait for the future to establish notability, that necessarily leads to the conclusion that its notability is not currently established? -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- There is no issue with editors making plans for actions after the election to tidy up. Obviously if circumstances arise where notability is clearly shown that would be taken on board. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
- Wp:notability is a requirement for existence of an article, not an indication that it should exist. I think that this article (has legs because it follows how he seems to actually think) is on something more substantive than the one on Romney putting his dog's cage on the roof of his car on a trip 20+ years ago. . But, Wikipedia is a dismal failure on articles which reflect a real-world contest or conflict, including the existence of crap articles during the election season. We need policy modification to fix the problem. North8000 (talk) 00:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- There is no issue with editors making plans for actions after the election to tidy up. Obviously if circumstances arise where notability is clearly shown that would be taken on board. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Al Smith Dinner
I notice he also used the sentence at the Al Smith Dinner, when talking about churches. Maybe this is noteworthy, maybe not. http://popes-and-papacy.com/wordpress/?p=9490
199.21.182.31 (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)