Talk:You didn't build that

Warning: WP:CANVAS violation

This article's currently the topic of a WP:CANVAS flag by [1] editors. Extra care should be taken to ensure that edits are following WP:NPOV standards and that non-NPOV material is promptly reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.208.246 (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Removal of undue tag

The article was tagged in September and there appears to be no active discussion for several months. If there's no further discussion about this in a week, I plan to remove this tag. —Fishicus (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I just removed content as undue, and you restored it. The tag clearly represents an ongoing issue. As you restored the content about comedians, please explain how their views are at all encyclopedic and weighty enough for inclusion here. aprock (talk) 07:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that the Stewart and Colbert pieces are misplaced....they should be in the Obama campaign section.  :-) North8000 (talk) 13:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Is the comedian section what you are suggesting is taking undue weight on the page? It is unclear what the problem is because there is not a discussion about the tag. Can you outline what the problems are so we can talk about them? Dreambeaver(talk) 18:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The comedic content is in no way encyclopedic. Most of the sources used are unreliable, primary sources, or opinion pieces. There are no secondary sources outside of that news cycle which suggest that their commentary is worthwhile to include. This problem similarly burdens the political commentary, though there it more a problem of the sheer size of the section, as opposed to it's inclusion. Relevant policies to review include WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NOTNEWS. aprock (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

@Aprock: I don't think it particularly matters, but just wanted to let you know it was a different editor, not me, who undid your revision--although I am in favor of keeping that content as well.

There is plenty of commentary both in support and in criticism of the topic, so I don't see a problem with undue weight to one side or the other. Also, commentary, by definition, virtually always involves opinion/bias. In regard to this particular section, the statements are attributed to comedians and it's specified that these are satire shows, as opposed to 'true' news shows, providing a proper context for the views expressed. This does not, however, make the views any less important or significant, and these are both shows with very large audiences and influence. And while anyone is free to disagree with the views expressed, comedy/satire is not inherently untrue/incorrect/etc.

For WP:NOT#NEWS, these are not first-hand news reports (re:Journalism), these commentaries are no less worthy of inclusion as commentaries from other sources (re:News reports), the people involved are notable (re:Who's who), and the statement and subsequent coverage was certainly a nontrivial part of the election cycle (re:Diary). — Fishicus (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not about the existence of the commentary, it's about the sourcing. Currently there is very little sourcing from reliable secondary sources which indicate that this content merits inclusion. There is zero sourcing from outside the news cycle, indicating that the comedic commentary is not sufficiently weighty for inclusion. I've looked for source which give the comedic commentary lasting weight, and I've found none. aprock (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that people aren't discussing the comedic commentary, and so it shouldn't be included? Such an opinion would result in the removal of virtually the entire "Response" section of this article. How much discussion of what the WSJ or Atlantic or Washington Post have written continues to be discussed? There's probably none of that either... —Fishicus (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm saying that there are no reliable secondary sources separate from the event which discuss the comedic commentary. That indicates that such content is not sufficiently weighty enough to merit inclusion. aprock (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Why is there a requirement of commentary on commentary required? As I said above, I doubt much if any of the commentary in this article is further commented on. The comedic commentary is itself mostly a secondary source. They don't make up news stories; they discuss those that already exist. Why is what Jon Stewart says about this topic inherently any less worthy of inclusion than what Chris Wallace, Wolf Blitzer, Jim Leher, or any other national figures say? —Fishicus (talk) 04:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

For better or worse, (I think usually worse) policies can generally be used to support inclusion of that type of stuff. North8000 (talk) 04:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

@Fishicus, Questions about policy and guidelines are better suited for the talk pages of those guidelines. In this case, you appear to be questioning policy related to WP:UNDUE and WP:PSTS. If you want to start a discussion on those talk pages, I'll be happy to join you there. aprock (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that policies are going to provide much guidance here. Wikipedia:Strategic issues with core policies#The other of the two biggest holes in wp:npov. May I suggest that the editors here just discuss and try to decide based on degree of relevance, notability, and the amount of coverage in sources. North8000 (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I always think of Stewart saying that he shouldn't be taken seriously and that the show that precedes him is "puppets making crank calls" when this type of topic comes up. Unfortunately it does seem like it received a good amount of coverage, even if it was in comedic channels. The HuffPost Comedy ref is a RS even it acknowledges that it is comedy and not political commentary. It's almost like an "[i]n popular culture" section, but it's our responsibility to accurately and fairly portray the sources available. Dreambeaver(talk) 19:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

That Crossfire episode was hilarious...though I do miss Tucker Carlson and his bowtie ;) — Fishicus (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

@aprock, my questions were mainly supposed to be rhetorical. There is no requirement of commentary on commentary; that's why the entire last half of the article (the responses section) still exists. Commentary is, almost by definition, a secondary source, and secondary sources are what Wikipedia encourages and is primarily composed of. Stewart, just as most any reporter on any other channel, is commenting on—not inventing—the news (the former generally constitutes a secondary source; the latter a primary one), albeit in a humorous manner. If you're having difficulty understanding these concepts and how they are applied in sourcing articles, you're encouraged to seek help and ask questions at the Help Desk. — Fishicus (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

@Fishicus, You appear to be having trouble understanding how these concepts are applied in sourcing articles. Stewart is a primary source for his own commentary. Inclusion of any primary source is best handled by referring to reliable secondary sources. aprock (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, generally one who creates news is a primary source; one who comments on news is a secondary source. There is a reason that no other editor has argued that this is a primary source and is not allowed--because that is not the case; indeed, multiple other people have commented that it is permitted, though you seem to be ignoring their comments. Perhaps you mean to say "self-published source"? This still would not apply, however, as it is Comedy Central and its owner, Viacom, which exercise complete editorial control over content produced by The Daily Show and Colbert Report, and which are reliable providers of well-known satirical and humorous content.

I apologize that I have other responsibilities and will not likely be able to continue this discussion. Again, if you're having difficulty understanding these concepts and how they are applied in sourcing articles, you're encouraged to seek help and ask questions at the Help Desk. In the absence of a change in consensus to favor removing or otherwise altering this content, it should remain (see WP:CONS). As a reminder, in the absence of such consensus, any alterations may constitute a violation of WP:TE and/or WP:DE. — Fishicus (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, that last sentence is one of the more imaginative things I've seen lately. If a person makes an edit opposite your POV it is mis-behavior unless they get something huge (a process and a consensus). And presumably something that ends up in your POV being in the article is OK without that. North8000 (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:CONS explains that edits should be decided by consensus. At present, this supports inclusion of this information on two levels. First, that the source is itself verifiable and secondary. aprock is the only one who has disputed this. Second, that current WP re:npov/undue allows for the inclusion of this material, which I believe you agreed with. Again, aprock is the only one who has disputed this. Or do you agree with aprock on either of these issues? Please feel free to add your views. I would actually welcome a RfC or other process to invite more editors to add their views, which I am confident would support inclusion of this material, and because as I said, I don't have much time to continue investing here. — Fishicus (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Consensus cannot be used to override policy. (You can change policy by consensus, but that's an entirely different thing than what's going on here.) As for an RfC, I think that's a fine way of moving forward. aprock (talk) 03:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm neutral on the underlying question. North8000 (talk) 14:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you have an opinion on the legitimacy of the sources, and where in the spectrum of primary to secondary to tertiary they fall? I ask as much for my own personal benefit as for the benefit of this article. If my interpretation of these concepts is flawed, I'd like to know so that I can improve my understanding. Thanks. — Fishicus (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, I'm not concerned how this ends up, but here is my analysis/are my thoughts:

• Regarding suitability of sources with respect to meeting wp:ver, I think that they are suitable. The statements being sourced are who said what on those TV shows. They are a mix of secondary and secondary sources with respect to this. And the primary sources are used in the narrow ways that are permissible.
• Quality of text. The first sentence gives a complete thought. The rest of the sentences are missing key info which makes them frustrating to read rather than communicative.
• Regarding real world neutrality of coverage, this whole article is an assemblage of biased stuff on both sides, but on the whole biased pro Obama and anti-Romney. One of the reasons that this story "got legs" is because many people believe (with some basis) that that is how Obama really thinks. This would be one of the more intelligent things to cover but is missing.
• Regarding wp:npov, the core part is amount of coverage following the amount of coverages in sources. IMHO the policy is lacking because it lacks a metric for degree of relevancy, and also this standard is nearly impossible to implement in practice. But that policy (lacking as it is) would tend to lean a bit towards inclusion. I say "a bit" because wp:npov would tend to discount the primary sources for the purposes of the wp:weight "calculation".
• With respect to trying to write a quality article, the question arises "what it the subject of this article?". Most of the subject is not that statement, but what ensued from the statement. So I guess that prominent comedic reaction is germane and informative regarding that subject.

So I guess I'd lean towards inclusion of the first sentence, and also inclusion of the subsequent sentences if they could be fleshed out / fixed up so that they actually communicate. But I'm not concerned about which way this ends up. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input; very detailed and insightful! I'll follow up when I have a moment. — Fishicus (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to Not Merge. Arguments supporting the merge were weak. They did not appear to based in reasons for merger, did not provide support for the "Speeches of Barack Obama" target by explaining why the content was a speech rather than a United States political catch phrase, and did not sufficiently address Merger proposed after a deletion discussion. As the close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech, this is a subtopic fork, which means that Wikipedia:Summary style should also be addressed in any requested merge. Arguments opposing the merge were stronger than those supporting the merge and appeared to be the trend beginning on 18 August 2013. -- Jreferee (talk) 05:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

---

After creation of speeches of Barack Obama and two unsuccessful AFDs, I felt that this article must be merged without trivial commentary. If not, then... summarize and then keep? --George Ho (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Since speeches of Barack Obama now exists, a merge is a good idea. FurrySings (talk) 00:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Hekerui (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I would agree that a merge makes sense. MastCell ^Talk 18:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep, maybe now is the time for that post-US election cleanup, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Keep. The speech was just mentioned in September Harper's by Thomas Frank who wrote

  The one occasion on which he took a forthright stand for the usefulness of government—his famous "You didn't build that" speech in 2012—was followed by an immediate retreat under fire.

  I think the article continues to be relevant, continues to be useful on its own. Binksternet (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Binksternet, but the whole "in researching the 2002 Winter Olympics, NBC News' Domenico Montanaro found" nonsense probably should be corrected to:
In desperately searching for something to hammer back at the Romney campaign, Domenico Montanaro attempted jedi mindtricks to convince Americans that Romney told Olympians they would be nothing without gubmint. †TE†Talk 16:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

KEEP -- with all due respect, why is this one user pushing a merge of major obama speeches? this speech received MAJOR coverage. it was a controversial issue during the campaign.

& i OPPOSE on principle the idea of a "post-election cleanup", or removing "trivial commentary", if that is meant to refer to press coverage & comment on the speech, & its use in the election campaign. if a topic has received sufficient coverage to merit an article, then that doesn't just "disappear", because time has passed.

this is wikipedia not conservapedia, & we don't do nnpov, or historical revisionism here.

as the merge proposal states THIS ARTICLE HAS SURVIVED 2 AFDS. it's time to get the message on this; & we can do the whole process all the way through arbitration if necessary.

Lx 121 (talk) 09:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Bad idea A 3rd AFD in disguise. For an immense amount of reasons, leave it be. North8000 (talk) 10:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Merge - Use WP:SUMMARY Morphh ^(talk) 14:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Notability is not reduced when time passes. Dimadick (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

International viewpoints

There should be reactions from countries, like Germany, Russia, and China, about this soon-to-be obscure topic. I've already seen U.S. reactions. Let's hear Chinese, German, and Russian reactions toward overreacted topic. --George Ho (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Are there international viewpoints? Even if there are, and I'm not sure that there are, how are they relevant, given that this is a U.S. election topic? Countries shouldn't interfere with another nation's elections. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Ahem! United States Secretary of State John Kerry is currently meddling with Afghan presidential election, 2014. [2][3] --George Ho (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I said "shouldn't", not "don't". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

It's still the over-the-top topic, which should never have existed in the first place. I searched for reactions from Angela Merkel, but no avail. Same for David Cameron, Ed Miliband, Dmitry Medvedev, and Vladimir Putin. --George Ho (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is a holdover from the 2012 US Presidential campaign season, when there was a concerted effort to create standalone articles about every possible throwaway partisan talking point. It should be merged into United States presidential election, 2012, but it never will be. MastCell ^Talk 22:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

That article isn't a good target, obviously. The structure, the content, and the topic are incompatible. United States presidential election, 1992 and United States presidential election, 1980 are honorable comparisons to that 2012 election. --George Ho (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

This article misrepresents what actually occurred.

The following is actually the comment that represents what Romney was talking about.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/13/remarks-president-campaign-event-roanoke-virginia

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielwpeer (talk • contribs) 16:19, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Obama's "You didn't build that" quote is hardly improved when placed in context.

"Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business – you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

I'm not sure what "fact checkers" thought that Obama's "You didn't build that" quote somehow gets a boost when placed in context. It is true that in order to thrive, all businesses rely on national infrastructure paid for by the taxpayer. However, to claim that business owners and entrepeneurs didn't do much of the hard work to build up their businesses is ludicrous. Obama would have been correct had he said "You didn't build that alone. Somebody else helped make that happen."

But he didn't. Hence, the objections are fully justified. Jacob D (talk) 09:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)Jacob D

The Road and Bridge Fallacy rides again.

To amplify Jacob D.'s comment, this is an example of how "fact checking" fails when it goes beyond checking verifiable facts and tries to render judgement on subjective analysis, which by definition rests on premises that are seen differently by two sides of an argument, even though they may be factually correct.

Even "placed in context," the road and bridge fallacy hangs on the degree of public financing that is apportioned to infrastructure. At the federal level this is less than 2% , and at the state level varies from less than a percent to 2-3% of total expenditures.

The degree to which friends, family, teachers, and other third parties have affected an individual cannot be quantified. We all recognize these effects, but for the purposes of determining results, which CAN be quantified, these can be ignored.

Atrobinson (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

References