Talk:PolitiFact/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

THIS IS NOT A CHAT PAGE!

Hello editors! Please remember that this is a discussion page over how to best edit this particular entry, not an online forum for debating the merits of the entity the entry describes. There's plenty of political infotainment sites for that. This is an encyclopedia. We're here to record and maintain the facts. Nothing more, nothing less. Thanks, and happy editing! Sidatio (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Is PolitiFact.com Biased?

PolitiFact.com is owned by the St. Petersburg Times, which some say has a liberal bias. How do these two organizations ensure an arms-length relationship? I think a section to clear-up this question would be worthwhile.  kgrr ^talk 17:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It's quite simple. The group merely takes random, accurate, statements by liberal groups, and pretends they're lies, finally awarding them "Lie of the year" to make sure everyone knows how "independent" they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.137.120 (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Absent of an incontrovertible statement from the principals of PolitiFact.com that the site and its works are bias or incontrovertible evidence of such, then PF has to be taken at face value in that regard. Anything else is speculation, which needs to be kept on the blogosphere and out of an encyclopedia.

I don't care how anyone feels about PF. Let's just make this another neutral, fact-based Wikipedia article. Sidatio (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Politifact being owned by St. Petersburg Times is relevant, is not about "how you feel". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.17.30.155 (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Tampa Bay Times now, FWIW. Trivialist (talk) 02:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Same writers?

PolitiFact.com is a project that is operated by the St. Petersburg Times, a project in which its reporters and editors "fact-check statements by members of Congress, the White House, lobbyists and interest groups...."[1] This sentence through subject-verb agreements makes it sound as if the reporters and editors of the St. Petersburg Times are doing the fact-checking and also writing the PolitiFact.com pieces. Is this true?  kgrr ^talk 17:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• Depends on the edition in question, as PF now has a number of locales. For example, the Tennessee branch uses reporters from the Memphis Commercial Appeal and the Knoxville News Sentinel. In the specific case of the Tampa Bay Times, yes, at least one reporter - Louis Jacobson - writes for both the Tampa Bay Times and PolitiFact. Sidatio (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Aaron Sharockman also writes for both. The paper's Youtube channel, wwwtampabaycom, also posts "Politifact" pieces.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

"Reception"

The "reception" section of this article is a mess. It is overly-lengthy and filled with nothing but the highly-specific complaints of extremely opinionated pundits. A good reception section should not be a mouthpiece for every conservative (or liberal, technically, but six of the eight paragraphs are devoted to conservative) pundit who has a beef with the organization's rulings on their pet talking points. If there were any unbiased, authoritative appraisals and critiques of the organization (such as the Pulitzer Prize Committee's opinion, perhaps?), they would be appropriate to add to the section. The current section however, as it stands, should just be removed. Thoughts? —Berserk798 (talk) 04:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It appears to be unenclyclopedic muckracking that takes the form of person X said Y whereas an encyclopedia should say things like reliable source X said Y. Jesanj (talk) 12:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I just restored this section, after it was deleted in June. It may have been overly-long, but deleting it completely is not the solution - it contained relevant opinions, in notable sources, from notable commentators. Feel free to whittle it down, but the fact that PolitiFact's assessments have been subject to debate is both relevant and, yes, encyclopedic. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's an example of what I consider to be encyclopedic writing: Death_panel#Examples_with_similarities. As you see, reliable sources such as ProPublica, Foriegn Policy, and USA Today gave their opinions on what was a death panel. There could be a nearly infinite supply of "notable commentators", but notable commentators are not reliable sources. We're an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, we collect what reliable secondary sources say. Jesanj (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This article's "Reception" section cited the Wall Street Journal and Reason magazine, among others - major publications. How are those not reliable sources? Korny O'Near (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It's possible they could be reliable sources for a reception section, depending upon how they used. PolitFact issues opinions all the time, why select analysis on a handful of specific ones for an overview section? That's odd. What a section should do is to relfect what reliable sources have said about PolitiFact as a whole. Jesanj (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, now you're getting closer to making a coherent argument. Still, even if that's now the criteria, there were quotes in the section that still seem to fit - like a writer in The American Spectator calling PolitiFact "political opinion masquerading as high-minded investigative journalism" (based on a few different analyses of theirs), a writer for the Wall Street Journal saying that the St. Petersburg Times (PolitiFact's owners) seem to be "in the tank for Obama", and a WSJ editorial that stated that "PolitiFact's decree is part of a larger journalistic trend that seeks to recast all political debates as matters of lies, misinformation and 'facts,' rather than differences of world view or principles." All of those sound like statements about PolitiFact "as a whole" to me. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Funny how all those receptions are selected from a distinct slice of political spectrum hunh? ;-) Can you try finding a variety of sources for a reception section? Jesanj (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything particularly "funny" about it, or surprising - PolitiFact has been attacked more from the right than from the left since it started. There's nothing wrong with having the Wikipedia article reflect that - just like you wouldn't expect the Fox News Channel controversies article to include equal amounts of criticism from the left and the right. For the record, though, the "Reception" section did include criticism from both sides. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who has criticized it more, but I know a reception section isn't a criticism section. Jesanj (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, the "Reception" section contained a positive appraisal - from a White House spokeswoman, no less - and that got deleted, too. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. A positive appraisal on one of their many decisions, granted, it was their lie of the year. But White House spokespeople aren't high on the list. Jesanj (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

How about this, then: we restore the section, and rename it "Criticism" (which was actually its original name) to more accurately reflect its contents, and whittle down some of its contents to keep only the more notable criticisms. I don't think striving for ideological balance in the section is desirable or even possible, given that it's been criticized much more from the right. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I made this test version. How about put the PolitiFact criticisms, of it as a whole, under criticism there. With that expand template underneath reception, I think that will indicate more work needs to be done. Jesanj (talk) 00:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't make myself clearer, but I don't think any analysis of a specific PolitiFact decision deserves analysis at this point in the article's development. Please only include criticism of PolitiFact as a whole. FYI, after some reading lasdt night I saw Modern Healthcare completely agreed with their 2010 lie of the year. Jesanj (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I think analysis is too generous of a word. I can't remember a specific example that included any reasoning, whether on the part of PolitiFact, a neutral party, or a critic. Jesanj (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I understood what you were saying - I just think it's easier to start with the full criticism section, and whittle it down from there. Also, thanks for admitting your biases - I hope you're extra-careful, when editing this article, not to let them guide your editing decisions. I didn't understand the part about "remembering", though - no remembering needed, since you can check the citations in the article. Korny O'Near (talk) 12:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

So you restored information you know needed trimming after you know I said it didn't belong because you think that's easier? And my biases? Jesanj (talk) 12:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course it was easier - it's easier for me to just do a single restore, and let you delete what you want to, than to go through and delete things based on what I would guess you would want deleted. That goes without saying... Korny O'Near (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

No guessing was required. You already gave me examples of what were criticisms of PolitiFact as a whole. Jesanj (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I gave you examples, but you didn't seem entirely happy with them. And even if no guessing were required, it would still be less work to let you do the deletions. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Settle down, editors. I think we should just do criticisms that have incontrovertible viability. In other words, just because Blogger Joe from Omaha doesn't like the slant of a PF entry doesn't make it valid. Something like the Tax Foundation's recent issues with the Tennessee branch of PF, however, would be (in this case PF took the group to task for a statement it never made). But the first thing that needs to be done is everybody needs to relax and remember we're here for the facts - whatever they may be. Happy editing! Sidatio (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The argument you're responding to took place seven months ago. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Paul Ryan's Medicare Privatization

Americans agree that Paul Ryan's plan ends Medicare by privatization. Somehow the spin by PolitiFact is that the Democrats are liars, for telling the truth. Republicans have been wanting to kill Social Security (1935), Medicare (1965), and Medicaid (1965) since those programs have begun. --JLAmidei (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Politifact's latest mendacity: two true statements by Obama add up to "half true"

Wow. [1] 24.214.230.66 (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

An editor continues to attempt to insert content that is not conveyed by cited sources, shown here. The addition was previously removed with the edit summary stating (rem sentence not supported by source; (only says "runs the risk of..." and "sometimes do...") -- concerns that have not been addressed by reverting editor. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It would really be appreciated if you would explain the reasoning behind the revert you keep making. In addition to reinserting content that is not supported by the cited source, your repeated revert also undoes numerous edits and improvements that have been made by several editors over the past months -- without explanation. Your revert-warring isn't helpful. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Republicans more frequently found to be misleading

This section of the PolitiFact page carries a misleading title. The use of "found" indicates an implicit trust in PolitiFact as a source and in particular with its supposed finding that Republicans more often mislead. The cited study that leads off the section (by Dr. Ostermeier) was specifically about selection bias. I tried to edit the page to reflect that, adding that Ostermeier concluded that selection bias was a likely reason for PolitiFact rating Republican statements as more misleading. Another editor removed my revision, saying "'this potential selection bias - if there is one at PolitiFact' = no conclusion." But that doesn't follow. Ostermeier did not come to a firm conclusion that PolitiFact's results occurred because of selection bias. He admitted that he did not specifically know the selection process. But Ostermeier did conclude that selection bias was a likely reason. That's clear from the title "Selection Bias? PolitiFact Rates Republican Statements as False at 3 Times the Rate of Democrats" and its concluding sentence. The study's point is looking for selection bias. Ostermeier literally concludes with "By levying 23 Pants on Fire ratings to Republicans over the past year compared to just 4 to Democrats, it appears the sport of choice is game hunting - and the game is elephants." It is well within reason to paraphrase Ostermeier as concluding that selection bias is a likely explanation for the disparity in the ratings. Bottom line, the existing title doesn't belong over a section based on a study that questions the idea in the title. It's flatly misleading to use Ostermeier's study to give an appearance of support to the idea in the section title without mentioning the gist of the study (encapsulated in his conclusion). One could use studies by Chris Mooney of the findings at PolitiFact and the Washington Post Fact Checker that claim to show that Republicans more often mislead. But even then some mention of the problem of selection bias belongs in the section. Let's not allow it to be swept under the rug, please. Zebrafactcheck (talk) 07:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zebrafactcheck (talk • contribs) 07:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I would think it's rather obvious that Republicans are more frequently found to be misleading by Politifact as opposed to Republicans more frequently found to be misleading by all factcheckers. The context is enormously different if that title is occurring in this article or in an article about Republicans. One could argue that selecting a title of "Analysis of PolitiFact's ratings" actually serves to hide Polifact's bias against Republicans, in other words.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality of this article

I've added the {{POV}} template to this article, because my impression is that it seems to go out of its way to criticise PolitiFact. I'm not sure the lengthy list of criticisms of specific fact-checks is necessary - pretty much everything they post is going to offend somebody, and if we're listing every time someone criticised them the article is going to get absurdly long. It would be better to just mention a few of the most notable times they were criticised. The fact remains that, despite these criticisms, PolitiFact is still a popular and widely-referenced source, and I don't think this article gives enough of a sense of that. (And no, I'm not affiliated with them in any way myself.) Robofish (talk) 00:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest a new page, say "Critizisms of Politifact.com" with the list so as not to clog the main article. I think it's important to call out when something is wrong, but if the list is too long perhaps a new page is in order. Zero Serenity (talk) 13:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

That would be POV forking, where the forked article will suddenly be in violation of NPOV, and deleted for it. --w^{L<speak·check>} 05:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Change in Chief Editor

As of July, 1, 2013, Bill Adair is employed by Duke University in Duke University’s Sanford School of Public Policy as Knight Professor of the Practice of Journalism and Public Policy. The position that Adair currently holds is one of twenty-five Knight Chairs endowed by the John S. and James L. Knight foundation. Replacing Adair as Tampa Bay Times Bureau Chief is former senior reporter, Alex Leary. ‬

‪This information is taken from Duke Today . It is in response to the information, located on the Article page in the History section. It is an attempt to assist Wikipedia.org in keeping the page’s information up to date.‬ Jaginger (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The History section could use a few more edits. Some sources: Bill Adair moved to Duke, and remains a contributing editor to PolitiFact, but is no longer the editor. Adair held two roles with the Tampa Bay Times, editor of PolitiFact and Washington bureau chief for the Times. Alex Leary replaced Adair as Washington bureau chief, and Angie Drobnic Holan replaced Adair as editor of PolitiFact on Oct. 2, 2013. I work for PolitiFact, so I'll leave any page updates to other editors. BeckyBowers (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

PolitiFact App

PolitiFact came out with an app for iPhone and Android August 22, 2012. The app, called “Settle It! PolitiFact’s Argument Ender” offers friends and family a way to quickly fact-check political statements and settle arguments. The app was produced by the Poynter Institute and former chief editor of PolitiFact Bill Adair. Users can enter names, subjects, or keywords and receive a Truth-O-Meter rating. In addition there is a PolitiFact Challenge feature set up with five levels to test your knowledge of political facts or falsities. The five playing levels include: “Intern,” “Aide,” “Lobbyist,” “Pundit” and the highest, “Wonk.” The app aims not only to end political arguments between family and friends, but also to get users more involved in politics. This page has not been updated to include information about this app. I am a new user to Wikipedia. Cjschust (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Death Panels

It would greatly improve the "Death Panels" section to recognize that the Wall Street Journal's James Rago criticized the "death panel" award in 2009 and that editorial was part of the group for which he was awarded a Pulitzer Prize in 2010. Rago's criticism preceded Taranto's and helped earn a Pulitzer. Zebrafc (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

References

PolitiFact Franchises

(Moved here from a user Talk page. -Xeno)
I appreciate your apparent zeal for not wanting to mention the end of PolitiFact Tennessee for lack of a source, but the source provided did implicitly indicate the end of PolitiFact Tennessee. The PF Tennessee page has no items dated after 2012. What's more, PolitiFact's main page doesn't even list PF Tennessee among its affiliates. So, does it make sense that the ending of the relationship didn't happen just because no formal announcement of it remains in evidence on the Web? What epistemological standard would you recommend in a situation like this? Zebrafc (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Apparent zeal for not wanting the insertion of original research in Wikipedia articles is a good thing; would that more editors shared that zeal. I removed this sentence:

The Knoxville News Sentinel ended its relationship with PolitiFact.com after 2012.

It was cited to this link, which does not state that the relationship ended "after 2012"; does not state whether the Sentinel ended it or PolitiFact ended it; does indicate that a Tennessee-specific URL exists off the PolitiFact main website. PolitiFact partners with at least 10 news organizations, and not all of those are listed in this Wikipedia article. It is also true that partnerships are formed and dissolved, and your observation that Tennessee isn't listed among PolitiFact's affiliates may indeed be indicative of a status change, but we still need an explicit source to cite for details like who ended what, and when. That section could benefit from better sourcing overall, so I'll see what I can dig up. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Point taken. I've found an appropriate citation and re-inserted the original wording with the new citation. It was never original research, but I'll cop to having used an inadequate citation. If you think you can reword it with less ambiguity without losing accuracy, be my guest. Cheers, Zebrafc (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Excellent find; that source is a dramatic improvement over the previous one. I'll see about copy editing and improving the references in that History section when I have the time. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Lie of the Year 2014

I saw this in a recent edit summary:

(2) "false claims" is biased, (3) saying airborne infection never happened is not the strongest argument that it's impossible

I checked the sources and I see where they say the claims are false (or "all wrong" or "pants on fire" or "falsehoods"), but I do not see in those cited sources where it says their finding is biased. Is that a personal opinion? As for the "strongest argument" comment, I don't see that argument being made (strongly or otherwise) by either the cited sources or our Wikipedia article. Here's the argument as presented in the cited sources: George Will says doctors are saying xxx; PolitiFact says Will's claim is false. PolitiFact makes no arguments that contagion is impossible; it only compares what medical professionals have said versus what Will claims they said. Perhaps you could be clearer on what your concerns are with that? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I only had a limited amount of characters to try to express everything in the edit comment field, so this is probably a better place to discuss it. By "biased" I meant that it is only the opinion of PolitiFact that these claims are false; it shouldn't be the opinion of this article. So "These false claims" is biased writing; better would be something like "These claims described by PolitiFact as false" or some such. As to "strongest argument", I meant that, given that what is being presented on this article is only a very short summary of a long discussion, we should try to "cut to the chase" and present a condensed version of their strongest argument. Perhaps "it's never happened before, thus it can't happen" really is their best argument for why George Will is wrong (or, I should say, not just wrong but a liar), but hopefully there's something better. I thought my original summary was better, where PolitiFact explained that a sneeze into the face might transmit Ebola, but that this would be defined as "direct contact". Or maybe the George Will thing should be taken out altogether - it's only one of 16 claims they grouped together, after all. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. It can indeed be challenging to convey as much salient information as possible in as few words as possible. That applies whether listing concerns in a limited "edit summary" field, or summarizing PolitiFact's reasoning for selecting its 2014 Lie of the Year. Regarding the "These false claims..." wording in Wikipedia's voice; you are saying that is mere opinion, and should be attributed to PolitiFact as mere opinion? If I am not mistaken, PolitiFact asserts as fact that the claims were wrong, and does not say it is only offering opinion. Furthermore, it individually examined each of those claims and determined each were false. I believe PolitiFact qualifies as meeting Wikipedia's Reliable Source requirements for fact-checking and accuracy. Attributing as mere opinion a factual assertion by a reliable source would be in violation of NPOV policy.

As for PolitiFact's strongest argument, do you refer to their argument for selecting their Lie of the Year? Or do you refer only to their argument for declaring George Will's comments as false? As I said initially, and I'll repeat here, PolitiFact doesn't argue "it's never happened before, thus it can't happen" - that appears to be a personal misinterpretation. The argument against Will is best summarized: "Fox News analyst George Will claimed Ebola could be spread into the general population through a sneeze or a cough, saying the conventional wisdom that Ebola spreads only through direct contact with bodily fluids was wrong." PolitiFact declared Will's statements "false", in part because he "took a medical commentary out of context", and he did so not just with his "sneeze" claim (see all three sources presently cited).

PolitiFact's 2014 Lie of the Year is summarized as "Falsehoods about Ebola" (See Reuters caption), from an amalgam of false statements intended as fear-mongering or politicizing of a health concern. I'm not sure why you selected just George Will to pick on as an example in that 2014 Lie paragraph. The George Will content does make that paragraph larger than the other Lie of the Year examples, so there is merit to your idea that perhaps it should be removed. My primary objection to the original Will content as you presented it was that it could easily be misunderstood by readers as saying there should be concern about catching Ebola from sneezes or coughs -- in effect, perpetuating the very same misinformation propagated by George Will. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, now we're getting into an interesting discussion. PolitiFact does in fact present its commentary as facts - down to its name - but it's really presenting a mix of fact and opinion. It's not a reliable source in the same way that, say, a straight news story or nonfiction book would be. To take an obvious example, the "Criticism" section of the article has examples of a variety of commentators, some themselves from "reliable sources" such as The Wall Street Journal, who disagree with various of PolitiFact's rulings. Are they all incorrect, simply by virtue of disagreeing with a source that labels its views as "facts"?

It sounds like getting rid of the George Will mention is the best option. I'll only note that my source for the possibility (though remote) of catching Ebola from a cough or sneeze is... PolitiFact itself. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• it's really presenting a mix of fact and opinion. It's not a reliable source in the same way that, say, a straight news story or nonfiction book would be.

Yes, it is a reliable source. (In fact, it's staffed by the investigative reporters and editors of a very reputable straight news organization.) BTW, I glanced at our article and looked for the WSJ Reliable Sources you mentioned, and can't find them. (I see plenty of cites to the non-RS opinion commentary pieces by Taranto, but not a single cite to a RS.) Since we obviously disagree, I suppose we could raise the issue at WP:RSN to settle the matter if you'd like, but I think we both agree that we can resolve the more immediate 2014 Lie issue before that. (I do, however, think if we look closely at those "criticisms" in our article, we'll find PolitiFact to be quite a reliable source after all.)

As for the possibility of catching Ebola from a cough or sneeze, PolitiFact is not a source of that information at all. All they do is relay the information from the actual sources (medical professionals, et al.), the same ones George Will refers to, and they don't say the public can catch Ebola from a cough or a sneeze. What they do say is it is possible for medical workers in close proximity to an infected patient at their most contagious might contract Ebola if that patient were to physically contact the medical worker's mucosal membranes with bodily fluids, including those expelled by a cough or sneeze. Hopefully you can now set aside your fears. ;-) I'll see about trimming the George Will-specific content shortly (if you don't beat me to it)... Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 09:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I never said anything about "the public"; all I (and the article) said is that, according to PolitiFact, and its sources, it is possible, though unlikely, for person A to catch Ebola from person B via a cough or sneeze. Which you evidently agree with as well.

A WSJ editorial is quoted in the "PPACA" criticism section. As to the larger point, if you didn't find my previous argument persuasive, here's another one: PolitiFact often fact-checks statements about the future; at least two of its "lies of the year" fall into that category. As one critic quoted in the article points out, you would need access to a time machine to be able to truly determine the "factuality" of those. But sure, feel free to take up the issue at WP:RSN. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

You never said anything about "the public"! Exactly. That's at the heart of the matter. George Will's misstatements were to the Fox News viewing public. PolitiFact made clear, "we understand that Will was talking about the risk to the general public", when they declared his statements to be false. The medical sources George Will was misquoting and taking out of context also made clear, their "views had nothing to do with Ebola spreading among the public at large." Of course "it is possible" (as in can't be proved impossible) that person B can sneeze an Ebola infection into the mouth of person A, but it is also possible that person A can be infected with Ebola during a probe by an extraterrestrial alien being. Though equally unlikely. Neither assertion should be put into a Wikipedia article. While you may have just made clear to me that you never said anything about "the public" getting infected, you did not make that clear to our general reading public when you added that content, who would naturally assume that information was intended for them. However, it's a moot issue now that the sentence has been removed.

A Taranto opinion piece is quoted in the "PPACA" criticism section; not a reliable source for the assertion of fact. A search of RSN archives for "Taranto" and "WSJ editorial" confirms this. It's cited in our article as a source for Taranto's opinion only, which is fine. Just as the piece by Avik Roy that you linked is an opinion piece and not a RS. I've seen no evidence that "PolitiFact often fact-checks statements about the future", but I would look forward to that discussion as well. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why we're still talking about the George Will thing: first, you took it out of the article (which I think is good), and second, your opinion on the veracity of his statement has the same bearing for this article as mine does - which is zero. Anyway, I just changed the wording of "The false claims" to "These claims", which is more evenhanded without sacrificing clarity. Assuming that's okay with you, I'd say we're done here. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a personal opinion on the veracity of George Will's statements (and wouldn't dare form one before I did a LOT more research into the matter). I have, however, looked carefully at what the present reliable sources say about the veracity of his statements, and tried to convey that information accurately in our article. I haven't looked at your edit yet, but I will soon. Right now I'm just going to wish you a Happy New Year. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Liberal ideologues

Why did the person change my accurate description of the people who criticized the lie of the year award from "far-left liberal ideologues" to simply "commentators". Every one of the commentators it links to is indeed a left-wing liberal commentator, particularly Krugman and Steve Benen. Their soul goal in political life is to carry water for the Democratic Party and other far-left causes. I'm changing it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cali11298 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

You can usually find the reasoning behind edits in the Edit Summary available by clicking on the History tab at the top of the article. With regard to describing people as "far-left liberal ideologues", that would have to be conveyed by the reliable sources you are citing, and it would have to be relevant to the article content. Otherwise, it violates Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. Hopefully that helps. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

This is basic wikipedia policy. Conservative leaning sites must be labeled as such. Liberal leaning must be presented as unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100A:B127:6565:C1DF:EAD3:AD99:C354 (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Adair quotes

This article contains excessive quotes of the creator of the subject in defense of the subject. The quotes are unnecessary, and IMHO de-neutralize the tone of the article. I will tag as appropriate.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Why not just turn the quotes into prose? Xenophrenic (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I went to reduce the "excessive quotes" by Adair, and only found three brief ones. Was it possible that you meant someone else? I've removed the tag for now. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Center for Economic Policy and Research

The sentence on the criticism section is a follows "This discrepancy drew criticism from political commentators on both sides of the political spectrum, including progressives Joan McCarter[37] and the Center for Economic and Policy Research." It related to how PolitiFact was criticized for rating Obama's claim that "if you like your health care plan, you can keep it" its lie of the year in 2013, when they had previously rated it true in 2008, and half-true in 2009 and 2012. However, the CEPR's criticism of the decision doesn't belong here. (I deleted it previously, but it was reinserted by Xenophrenic). If you look at their criticism here, you'll see that they criticized the choice because PolitiFact's examples of Obama saying this were from 2008-2010, not becaus PolitiFact had previously rated it differently. Now, I respect that Xenophrenic's edits were in good faith, but CEPR's criticism doesn't belong here. Also, this criticism section of PolitiFact's 2013 lie of the year is way too much one-sided. It makes no mention of PolitiFact editor Angie Holan's defense for switching its rating to "lie of the year", which is as follows: "The original statement is partly accurate. The lie of the year is not the most strong statement - it's the most significant impact and then the excuse got the ‘pants on fire’ overall". If you're going to mention a criticism of a PolitiFact ruling, I think you should also mention that person defense. Therefore, I'm adding PolitiFact's defense and removing the CEPR criticism. Regards, Cali11298 (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The sentence on the criticism section is a follows "This discrepancy drew criticism...

No, it isn't. That's not how the sentence read when you made your edit. That may have been how it once read, but it was changed (and corrected) before you made your edits. Perhaps you were working from a cached version? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Ted Cruz's info

Proposed content moved here from the article:

In his book "A Time For Truth" , US senator Ted Cruz argues that Politifact is a "new, particularly noxious species of yellow journalism". He cites three problems: 1)"they pick and choose what to check" 2) they often label statements by conservatives 'false' because the statement criticizes liberals" 3) "they regularly define left wing opinion as an objective 'fact'. Anyone who disagrees is therefore a liar. " Cruz cites three examples of statements of his which were rated as false by politifact that, he argues, were informed by the above mentioned problems with their methodology. (ref)Ted Cruz A Time For Truth pages 238-9 page 345. (/ref) Simalrly, after Politifact rated his statement "The Iran Deal will facilitate and accelerate the nation of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons." , as false, (ref)http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/10/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-says-deal-will-facilitate-and-accelerate-/ (/ref) Cruz responded in an article in National Review titled "PolitiFact’s ‘Fact Check’ Misses the Truth about the Iran Deal". He adduced "three real facts, which PolitiFact conveniently ignore[d]. as evidence of their "yellow journalism"(ref)http://www.nationalreview.com/article/424039/ted-cruz-iran-deal-politifact-nuclear-weapons (/ref)

---

I'm not entirely sure it works as it seems to really just be a single guy spouting off with no real veracity, and citing the national review. Is it that appropriate? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 20:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to try to respond point by point: "it seems to really just be a single guy spouting off with no real veracity" It's not like he's some random dude. He's a senator as well as a lawyer who's argued cases in front of the supreme court which means he probably at least knows how to make a decent argument. Most importantly however, Politifact obviously thinks he's somewhat relevant, given that they've bothered rating 60+ comments of his.

"and citing the national review" I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. All I'm citing them for is that he wrote the article. I did not cite them, (and indeed I do not claim) that those arguments are valid. That's not our place as Wiki editors. Are you claiming that they can't be relied upon because maybe they just made up an op-ed and claimed Cruz wrote it? Costatitanica (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and likewise feel it is inappropriate. (In addition, giving it a separate header? Completely undue.) You might find a place for it in the Ted Cruz article, as it says something about his opinions, but it doesn't say anything about the subject of this article, which is PolitiFact. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

"In addition, giving it a separate header? Completely undue" Are you serious? I originally folded it into the Analysis section. It was based on your objection that I added a new section!

I believe I've addressed all the objections. Please indicate if I haven't (or if you have any new ones.) Regards Costatitanica (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing some of the objections; now let's see if we can resolve them. I think it would be helpful if we remember this article is about PolitiFact, and not Cruz. Perhaps if you could tell us what specific information about PolitiFact you are trying to convey to our readers with your proposed additions? As another editor mentioned above ("a single guy spouting off with no real veracity"), and I agreed, the content you proposed tells us less about PolitiFact than about Cruz's opinions. As you noted, Cruz is a politician and lawyer, not an expert on fact-checkers or their methodologies; the best we can get from him is personal opinion and commentary. Likely skewed and subjective opinion at that, since as you also noted, he's been fact-checked 60+ times and has an axe to grind — and likely inaccurate commentary, as at least two-thirds of his assertions have been rated as false. So what we have is a negative personal opinion from someone who has received generally negative evaluations from PolitiFact; no surprise there. His "it's yellow journalism ... they choose what to check ... they state leftist opinion as fact" complaint from the National Review article, which is a mirror of the same complaint he made in his book, doesn't tell our readers anything about the subject of this article: PolitiFact. And you do realize PolitiFact fact-checked Cruz's criticisms of PolitiFact, right? As one might expect, Cruz didn't fare so well in the accuracy department with his supporting examples (and he even confused PolitiFact with another fact-check organization).

You added a little blurb / reaction from Cruz to a specific PolitiFact result. I don't think anyone has an issue with that (although the entry can use a bit of improvement). The objection is to your most recent additions. The issue has nothing to do with the National Review article (it's likely from Cruz or someone he authorized to write for him). The issue also isn't whether or not PolitiFact considers Cruz to be "relevant" (it fact-checks all politicians who say things people may question). The issue also isn't whether Cruz's personal opinions about the PolitiFact organization and methodology should get their own section header or be shoehorned into an existing section (it doesn't improve the article either way). Those are all distractions. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

For the sake of convenience, I'm going to open a new subtopic here on the talk page Costatitanica (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Further discussion about Cruz info

First a couple of minor points. Thanks for the link to Politifact's response to Cruz. Had I been aware of it at the time, I certainly would have included it in my edit. Overall, I think it supports my contention that my edit is relevant to politifact.(Parenthetically, I thought that the article you linked to shows politifact's mendacity. Just as an example, Cruz argued that while Obama never said the magic words "I'm sorry", his statements about America's misdeeds amounted to just that. In the article you provided they don't bother to respond; they simply repeat their original argument. (I also thought it rather childish for a fact finding organization to be gloating about what amounts to "he said Coke when it's really Pepsi; what a moron!", because he confused politifact with the Washington post fact checkers. His point was that self appointed fact checkers don't have a monopoly on the truth, and are in fact quite biased themselves. To use you word, politifact indulged in a 'distraction'- otherwise known as a straw man argument.

Secondly, I take issue with your implication that you have to be some sort of expert in fact checking methodology to be able to offer an opinion. As the name implies, fact checkers jobs are to, well, check facts. This isn't brain surgery. Also, as the Wikipedia article on it notes, it isn't exactly a perfect science.

Now to the crux of the matter: I don't think it's our job to rate Cruz's intelligence or fact checking ability. Or fact checking fact checkers fact checking ability. ;) I only brought in his background to demonstrate that he's not just some blogger with a twitter handle. I also agree that Cruz is highly partisan but I don't think that disqualifies his assessment from being relevant to this Wiki page. I would think it equally relevant if say, Bernie Sanders had written a similar article in Media Matters for America. I disagree that this says more about Cruz than about Politifact. This isn't a major event in Cruz's life. He devotes all of two pages in his book to it. And writing an article in National Review is simply not that big of a deal compared to shutting down the government or being a leading presidential contender. On the hand, it's highly relevant to a wiki page about a fact checking website if a famous (or infamous depending on your political persuasion) politician has written and doubled down on his claim that said fact checking website is in fact no such thing. In sum, what I'm trying to tell 'your readers' is basic info that I as a Wiki reader - which is what I do most of the time on Wikipedia- would want to know after a quick look at the article. They can then decide for themselves if they trust Cruz or think he's a fringe lunatic who's just mad that Politifact claims his pants are on fire. Best, Costatitanica (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Skipping right to the crux of the matter, I requested that you "tell us what specific information about PolitiFact you are trying to convey to our readers with your proposed additions?":

In sum, what I'm trying to tell 'your [sic] readers' is basic info that I as a Wiki reader ... would want to know after a quick look at the article. They can then decide for themselves if they trust Cruz or think he's a fringe lunatic who's just mad that Politifact claims his pants are on fire.

Therein lies the issue here. "basic info" would be facts about PolitiFact, not personal opinion (and being one of the 83 or so - I lost count - "presidential contenders" doesn't make his personal opinion any more relevant).

I take issue with your implication that you have to be some sort of expert in fact checking methodology to be able to offer an opinion.

That's not my implication at all. You misread. Here, let me repeat: Cruz is a politician and lawyer, not an expert on fact-checkers or their methodologies; the best we can get from him is personal opinion and commentary. Opinions from disgruntled politicians about fact-check results (and there are many hundreds of them by now) isn't "information" about PolitiFact. Need I quote the old saying about opinions and a specific body orifice? We should stick to reliably sourced facts, and at worst, expert opinion, when adding content about the subject of the article. This article shouldn't be used as a vehicle to paint Cruz as trustworthy or a fringe lunatic. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

"Therein lies the issue here. "basic info" would be facts about PolitiFact, not personal opinion" It is info about politifact. They rated his comments and as you yourself linked to, they responded to his criticism. Who do you think this about? The chinese communist party? Heck, I could even reverse the subject and object to make this: Politifact has drawn criticism from some of the figures it has criticized. It has been accused by one of it's fact check-ees of being yellow journalism. It defended itself against claims made in a book by Ted Cruz.

"Here, let me repeat: Cruz is a politician and lawyer, not an expert on fact-checkers or their methodologies;" Since you're repeating yourself, I guess I will too: As the name implies, fact checkers jobs are to, well, check facts. This isn't brain surgery. Also, as the Wikipedia article on it notes, it isn't exactly a perfect science.

You seem to think that politifact exists in a vacuum. It doesn't. It's a part of the political landscape. Moreover, it interacts with that landscape. And among the features of that landscape are people who have been the subjects of their fact checking. And one such person has claimed that they wear very flammable pants. They in turn have denied that and claim that their rankings are 'completely true' Costatitanica (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Who do you think this about?

Huh? Are you changing the subject? What prompted that question?

It is info about politifact.

No. It is not. It is opinion. "Info" would be facts about PolitiFact, not personal opinion. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

"Huh? Are you changing the subject?" NO. What prompted that question? Your continued assertions that info aboput politifact isn't relevant to politifact unless it somehow comes from politifact or some mythical "expert on fact checking methodolgy"

No. It is not. It is opinion. "Info" would be facts about PolitiFact, not personal opinion. His opinion of politifact is relevant to polititfact. See above Costatitanica (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I've never asserted that info about PolitiFact isn't relevant to PolitiFact. I guess we're done here. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Is the Ted Cruz info relevant?

The following discussion 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.

---

Is the Ted Cruz info relevant to politifact Costatitanica (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Xenophrenic and I have stalemated on this question above. I would appreciate further discussion Costatitanica (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Update: Per Xenophrenic's request below, the article would read something like this: Politifact has drawn criticsm from some of the subjects it has critiqued. Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz, who has had 27 statements of his rated as either false or 'Pants On Fire' by Politifact, [1] has described Politifact as a "new, particularly noxious species of yellow journalism" and given three reasons for his belief. [2] In an article for Politifact, the Editor of Politifact Texas, W. Gardner Selby stated that they stand by their claims and also noted that one of Cruz's examples of Politifact bias was in fact written by the Washington Post.[3]

Footnotes: [1] http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ted-cruz/ [2] Ted Cruz A Time For Truth pages 238-9 page 345. He cites three problems: 1)"they pick and choose what to check" 2) they often label statements by conservatives 'false' because the statement criticizes liberals" 3) "they regularly define left wing opinion as an objective 'fact'. Anyone who disagrees is therefore a liar. " Cruz cites three examples of statements of his which were rated as false by politifact that, he argues, were informed by the above mentioned problems with their methodology. (ref)Ted Cruz A Time For Truth pages 238-9 page 345. [3] http://www.politifact.com/texas/article/2015/jun/30/ted-cruz-book-calls-politifact-noxious-yellow-jour/

As for where it would in the article it would, appear, I still think a criticism section is appropriate, but I can put in as part of a reception section if it makes some people more comfortable. Costatitanica (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Ted Cruz? As in the Ted Cruz, who called Robert Lewis Dear a "transgendered leftist activist"? This is the guy whose opinions on fact-checking we feel matter........? But seriously, we might be able to include a criticisms subsection would might be able to include the Cruz material. If it did go in though, it should be heavily qualified. NickCT (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes. That Ted Cruz. I have no problem with the page reading "right wing firebrand ted cruz has argued that...." or something to that effect. Maybe you can come up with a suitable label? Assuming that he's properly identified, you would support inclusion? Costatitanica (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@NickCT: We don't add criticisms sections to Wikipedia articles, for the reasons outlined here. We can certainly include objective critical information, but the article already has subsections for that. I agree that his personal opinions on this subject don't matter as he is not an expert, so our readers would only get rhetoric common to politicians and lawyers instead of information.

@Costa: If Ted Cruz could be "properly identified" as an objective source of factual information about PolitiFact, then I would certainly consider what he has to say. But as you have admitted, he is a lawyer and politician — making him best qualified only for subjective argument and persuasive rhetoric — not a source for the well-considered information our readers are seeking. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

@Xenophrenic: - It is good to avoid Criticisms and Controversy sections, but in practice we implement them all the time. It might not be for us to decide who is or is not an expert on the truth. NickCT (talk) 19:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

We also "implement all the time" spelling errors, grammar mistakes, poor sources, and incorrect information - in practice - but we should not do so intentionally. I am glad that we agree that it is good to avoid criticism/controversy sections. As for "an expert on the Truth", when was that ever part of this discussion? Is that a straw man? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

"We don't add criticisms sections to Wikipedia articles, for the reasons outlined". It's rather ironic that you of all people should be relying on a principle that is very clearly stated as just being "advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors...not Wikipedia policies or guidelines", when your own Wiki page informs up that you don't bother to assume good faith despite it being a "generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow." Of course that's just my opinion and of course I'm biased, not an expert on Xenophrenica methodology, etc etc...... At any rate the essay itself notes that a criticism section is sometimes warranted. Costatitanica (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

You appear to have misread. Nowhere did I indicate I am "relying" on an essay for anything; I pointed you to it because that essay clearly explains to you why your desire to stuff even more Ted Cruz personal opinions into this article, in their very own "criticism section" no less, violates WP:NPOV (that's a "pillar" policy, by the way, which also contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors — and specifically directs you to the same essay I did - ironically). Xenophrenic (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

If Ted Cruz could be "properly identified" as an objective source of factual information... I have never claimed he's objective. Here's what I have said: "All I'm citing them for is that he wrote the article. I did not cite them, (and indeed I do not claim) that those arguments are valid. That's not our place as Wiki editors." "It is info about politifact. They rated his comments and as you yourself linked to, they responded to his criticism. Who do you think this about? The chinese communist party? Heck, I could even reverse the subject and object to make this: Politifact has drawn criticism from some of the figures it has criticized. It has been accused by one of it's fact check-ees of being yellow journalism. It defended itself against claims made in a book by Ted Cruz" Costatitanica (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

"It is info about politifact."

No. It is not. It is opinion about PolitiFact from a non-objective, non-reliable source (Ted Cruz). "Info", as in "information", is verifiable facts from reliable sources with reputations for fact-checking and accuracy, as clearly defined by Wikipedia policy. What you are proposing to add to the article is more opinion from Cruz, on top of opinion we already have from Cruz, which is an unsupportable proposition. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support - as a prominent politician, his views on the subject are noteworthy. However, they can just be summarized briefly. I don't think they require a whole paragraph, especially because his criticisms track closely with other's criticisms of the site. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it would probably be best to make a criticsm section with subsections for general criticism of the Cruz variety as well as folding in the specific incidents that are currently listed on the page. Agreed? Costatitanica (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned above, we don't add criticism sections to Wikipedia articles, for the reasons outlined here. We can certainly include objective critical information, but the article already has subsections for that. And as Korny astutely points out, Cruz' complaints aren't any different than the other routine complaints by disgruntled fact-checkees: "Selection bias!" — "Partisan bias!" — "Those facts are just your opinion!". "As a prominent politician", he ranks right up there with literally many hundreds of prominent politicians, and they all no doubt have an opinion. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: Far too subjective to be of any use. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 23:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

As I pointed out to you above "It's not like he's some random dude. He's a senator as well as a lawyer who's argued cases in front of the supreme court which means he probably at least knows how to make a decent argument. Most importantly however, Politifact obviously thinks he's somewhat relevant, given that they've bothered rating 60+ comments of his."

Are you similarly opposed to including vitriolic statements by Alexander Hamilton about Aaron Burr? After all, he's hardly a neutral party. What about Charles Sumner's comments? Costatitanica (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you did point out that he's a lawyer and politician, which makes him good at arguing instead of objective analysis of fact-checker organizations and methodologies. Yes, you did provide a link showing that he ranks just above a "random dude", along with hundreds of other politicians PolitiFact considers relevant enough to fact-check. I'd wager, however, that "random dude" would make less than 66% false statements. Hillary Clinton (as well as other 'presidential candidates') has been fact-checked more than twice as often as Cruz, and we wouldn't want her opinion in the article either.

Should Hamilton's statements be included in an article section which begins, "One of the most famous personal conflicts in American history, the Burr–Hamilton duel..." - of course. Should Sumner's statements appear in an article titled, "Caning of Charles Sumner" - I believe that answers itself. If the point you are trying to make is that Cruz's subjective statements should appear in an article about Cruz, then I agree. That might actually be informative for our readers. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

"Should Hamilton's statements be included in an article section which begins, "One of the most famous personal conflicts in American history, the Burr–Hamilton duel..." - of course... If the point you are trying to make is that Cruz's subjective statements should appear in an article about Cruz, then I agree. That might actually be informative for our readers." You're point is somewhat well taken. However it seems that you concede that biased statements belong in an article as long as they're relevant to said article. (if I have that wrong kindly correct me.). Please see below (or above) for why I believe Cruz's comments to be relevant to politifact. Costatitanica (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

"relevant to PolitiFact" is somewhat meaningless to me in this discussion. What information about PolitiFact are you hoping to convey to the readers with your proposed additions? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton ... has been fact-checked more than twice as often as Cruz, and we wouldn't want her opinion in the article either. Unless you were using the 'royal we' there, that statement is at least partially false. I certainly would want a similar critique by Hillary Clinton to be noted in the article. If you're aware of one, please provide a link. Costatitanica (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Why would you want an opinion from Clinton about a fact-checking organization? Would that opinion be more or less useful to you than an opinion from that random stranger standing in line in front of you at the grocery store? If so, or if not, why? (I think your response could be informative in this discussion.)Xenophrenic (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The "random stranger standing in line in front of you at the grocery store" hasn't been noted by anyone but himself, hasn't been fact checked by Politifact, and hasn't had Politifact respond to his criticisms. I'll say it again, this time all in bold: "You seem to think that politifact exists in a vacuum. It doesn't. It's a part of the political landscape. Moreover, it interacts with that landscape. And among the features of that landscape are people who have been the subjects of their fact checking." Whatever Clinton's knowledge/expertise, her prominence as a politician and especially the fact that she's been noted by Politifact, make her (subjective) opinions relevant regardless of who's right or wrong. Likewise, I am not claiming that Cruz is an expert or whatever, or even that his claims are true- but your claim that a recipient of 60+ ratings by Politifact who then proceeds to critique Politifact which then proceeds to address his criticism is somehow not relevant to Politifact, strikes me as ludicrous. Costatitanica (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect. Tons of "subjects of their fact checking" have claimed PolitiFact was wrong (a very natural and common reaction), and PolitiFact has responded (sometimes with a correction or more information, or more often, standing by their response because it is still unrefuted). By "tons", I mean a HUGE number over the years; Cruz's gripes don't get special privilege here. PolitiFact doesn't consider Cruz any more "relevant" than the hundreds or thousands of other people it fact-checks. Cruz's gripes (which aren't any different that the standard run-of-the-mill gripes everyone else has) don't deserve special treatment. Being fact-checked (many times), and being responded to after complaining, puts Cruz in the same boat with HUNDREDS of other politicians. It doesn't give his (or the other hundreds of checkees) subjective comments any worth here. (Did you check over at the Ted Cruz article yet?) Xenophrenic (talk) 02:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment If we are to include Cruz' criticism, it needs to be trimmed down significantly to avoid WP:UNDUE. Cruz, as a presidential candidate, is notable enough cite his criticism. Meatsgains (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I've already condensed from the book but I'll go along with a further condensed version that has the info. Maybe we could stuff it in the footnotes? Costatitanica (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I support those changes. Meatsgains (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

What changes, Meatsgains? It might help to alleviate confusion for future commenters if an exact wording of the proposed addition were appended to the top of this RfC (including refs and a description of where it would be located). Would you, Meatsgains, be okay with adding the personal opinions about PolitiFact from every presidential candidate (all 3 elections) to our article? (I'm not proposing to do so; I'm just curious.) Xenophrenic (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: After reviewing the reasons (or lack thereof) above, I agree that adding even more subjective opinion from Cruz, on top of what we already have, would not improve the article. I asked the proposing editor, Perhaps if you could tell us what specific information about PolitiFact you are trying to convey to our readers with your proposed additions? Subjective opinion from a non-expert (and likely also a non-reliable source, if fact-checkers are to be believed) can't tell us anything about PolitiFact; it can only tell us about what Cruz thinks. That isn't what this article is for. The proposer responded: "what I'm trying to tell 'your readers' is basic info that I as a Wiki reader ... would want to know after a quick look at the article. They can then decide for themselves if they trust Cruz or think he's a fringe lunatic" — no, that's not how Wikipedia works. We don't stick stuff in articles and then leave it to our readers to decide if we're citing a "lunatic" or a reliable source. Let's just stick with reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Once again quoting myself "You seem to think that politifact exists in a vacuum. It doesn't. It's a part of the political landscape. Moreover, it interacts with that landscape. And among the features of that landscape are people who have been the subjects of their fact checking. And one such person has claimed that they wear very flammable pants. They in turn have denied that and claim that their rankings are 'completely true' " Costatitanica (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect. Tons of "subjects of their fact checking" have claimed PolitiFact was wrong (a very natural and common reaction), and PolitiFact has responded (sometimes with a correction or more information, or more often, standing by their response because it is still unrefuted). By "tons", I mean a HUGE number over the years; Cruz's gripes don't get special privilege here. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

He's on the United States Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, and thus presumably has access to some classified information relating to the subject (Iranian nuclear capability). Surely that's worth something? Korny O'Near (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

...information relating to the subject (Iranian nuclear capability).

That is not the subject. The subject of this article is PolitiFact.com, a news organization operated fact-checking group. The subject of this article (and this RfC) is not the Senate Subcommittee, and not Iran's nuclear capability. I think maybe there has been a misunderstanding here; the title of this RfC is not as clear as it should be. Let me explain. This article already has a paragraph about Cruz's statements about Iran — and PolitiFact's rating of them - and Cruz's response to PolitiFact's findings. All that is already in the article. What this RfC is proposing is to add yet another, separate section containing Cruz's general personal opinions about PolitiFact as a fact-checking organization, it's methodologies, etc. And the answer to such a proposition should be: Of course not; let's get some objective, fact-based, reliably-sourced analysis instead. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh. No, that wasn't obvious at all, and looking through the comments, I'm not sure if most other people got that either. Is this RfC really necessary, then? We're talking about what I think is three sentences, which could be whittled down to one or even two. Of course, it's good to have consensus, but this article is kind of a meandering mess right now anyway, with some awkward and overly verbose writing, and citations of nobodies from the Daily Kos and some other blogs. Perhaps if the article were more polished, an undue citation would stick out more; as it is, it barely even seems worth noting. Korny O'Near (talk) 04:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought that might be the case. And I agree with you re: much of the article being a meandering mess. I'm working on some proposed changes and improvements offline, and will likely pester you for input since you have a little history with this article. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Korny: I agree that this rfc shouldn't have been necessary. The only reason I started it was because Xenophrenic declared "I guess we're done here". I didn't want to get into an edit war and I don't have endless time to debate so I figured I would get some other people in on the discussion in the hopes of making some headway. Alas, it was not to be (so far at least). As for what this rfc is about, I linked to the discussion above. Apologies that I wasn't clearer. Costatitanica (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

That is a very long and sprawling conversation up there, Costa. Would if be possible for you to add to the top of this RfC the exact text you are proposing, as well as the citations it would include, and the location in the article where it would appear? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support After reading the substance of objections (or lack thereof) I'm more convinced than ever that this info is relevant to Wikipedia. However, I've spent way too much time and energy on this discussion, so this will probably be my last edit to this talk or article page for the time being. I ask the other editors to read my (and others) comments in full and go from there. I probably won't be commenting further unless a comment or question is directed directly at me. Cheers Costatitanica (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

this info is relevant to Wikipedia

Wait; you said "relevant to PolitiFact" in your first sentence of this RfC. Relevant to Wikipedia (as in, on the Ted Cruz page?)? Now you've lost me, and I'm not even sure what you are proposing anymore. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I meant the Politifact Wikipedia article. Sorry for the ambiguity. Costatitanica (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

So "relevant to the PolitiFact Wikipedia article"? Still ambiguous. Still waiting to hear what information you hope to convey to our readers with your proposed additions. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: - First, thank you, Costatitanica, for adding your proposed text addition to the top of this RfC; that makes things clearer. And now that you have done so, I'd like to change my Oppose to Strongly OPPOSE. Here's why. You want to add, "new, particularly noxious species of yellow journalism" again? Once isn't enough? You want to add, "Politifact has drawn criticsm from some of the subjects it has critiqued"? That's unsourced (who and how many), and also nonsensical. PolitiFact doesn't "critique subjects", it checks statements for accuracy. You want to add, "given three reasons for his belief"? I don't think that phrase could be less informative, unless it was written like this: "He adduced 'three real facts'" — oh wait, that's also already in the article. In fact, your whole text proposal tells the reader nothing except that Cruz's statements have been rated false 27 times, and Cruz doesn't like PolitiFact for 3 mysterious reasons. Um... all that is info about Cruz, not PolitiFact. The Ted Cruz article is that-a-way →→→ Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The article already has a section Analysis of PolitiFact's ratings where Politifact ratings are abundantly criticized. The proposed text seems to be trying to single out special treatment for an arbitrary politician here. Alsee (talk) 03:19, 13 January 2016 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on PolitiFact.com. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.politifact.com/tennessee/statements/2012/mar/16/tax-foundation/tax-foundation-rankings-show-tennessee-beer-taxes-/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

A WSJ editorial, daily kos, Huff Po blog, Heritage Foundation blog, "Washington Examiner", blogs from CNN and Forbes, "mediaite" (wtf that is) etc. etc. etc. are not reliable sources.

Now, there might actually be some info in there worth salvaging, but even then it's clear that the length of the "criticism" section is grossly WP:UNDUE - it's freakin' 60% (at least) of the article! And it's written in an unencyclopedic, highly POV style. It's pretty clear that someone decided "I really don't like this outlet so I will go out there into the internets and find everything and anything bad that was ever written about it and make this whole article about that."

So please don't restore this stuff. If there's some portion of it which you feel is well sourced and very important please bring it up on the talk page here first.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually it's even more than 60% because there's another (!) criticism section which is quite long apart from the material I removed ("Analysis of PolitiFact's ratings").Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the section, but for the WP:UNDUE reasons, rather than the sourcing issues. It can be argued that the sources are reliable enough only for the opinions of their authors (certainly not for assertion of fact), but the point is that there is no encyclopedic reason for this list of opinions to be included in this article in the first place. PolitiFact points out factual inaccuracies in statements by politicians and pundits. So of course those who get criticized are going to respond with their own justifications, excuses, back-peddling, explanations and denials -- but this article isn't (or shouldn't be) a showcase for that stuff. And as pointed out by VM, we already have the "Analysis of PolitiFact's ratings" section, which is justified (IMO) as long as it contains only encyclopedic evaluations by uninvolved third-parties. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with VM and Xenophrenic. I would say that I wouldn't have a problem with some text in proper context cited to the Columbia Journalism Review (e.g., this from 2013, this from 2012). Neutrality^talk 18:21, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Reliable Sources Noticeboard: Is PolitiFact a reliable source for fact-checking?

You are invited to participate in the ongoing RSN discussion, "Is PolitiFact a reliable source for fact checking?".

I'm rephrasing the questions per core policies and for accuracy and readability.

1. Is the PolitiFact subsidiary of the Tampa Bay Times a reliable third-party source for material about the truthfulness of statements made by a candidate?

2. Is it a reliable third-party source for material about the ratio of false statements made by a candidate and checked by PolitiFact to true statements made by the candidate and checked by PolitiFact?

Expected closure date: September 24. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The overwhelming consensus at that RfC discussion is that PolitiFact is indeed a reliable source for use in Wikipedia articles. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Page protection

Due to a high speed edit/revert cycle temporary page protection has been applied. Please discuss contentious changes here on the talk page. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

POV in lead (if it wasn't clear)

Adding "left-leaning" in the lead is in violation of at least WP:NPOV - since it isn't reported as such by a balance of WP:RS sources. By taking the opinion of one (conservative!) journalist and putting it in the lead, we are effectively giving that opinion WP:UNDUE weight. Mentioning it in the criticism section might be acceptable, but you'd need more than that one source given the context of what's already there (id est it being described as biased by both sides of the aisle).

As for the issue of page protection, I reiterate: this page being related to current American politics, probably long-term semi-protect would be appropriate - this page has already been vandalised and protected in the past. P.S. added controversial issues tag at the top. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

"Lie of the year 2012" vis-a-vis Jeep.

Undid a previous revision as it had obfuscating and superfluous minutiae about Chrysler's motivations for producing Jeep vehicles in China. This page is about PolitiFact and the veracity thereof, not about the underlying competitive dynamics and motivations of the automotive industry.YosemiteFudd (talk) 03:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I have a couple of comments about this. First, if you look at my edit and at the edit where Xenophrenic attempted to remove it and replace it with something else (a change which YosemiteFudd reverted), you will see that what I added was a neutrally worded addition with a citation backing it up. Which is what you would expect if you knew me, because I am completely apolitical.

Second, there was an edit comment that said "'announcement; was actually back in October 2012". That's not what the source I cited said. It is dated "Jan 17, 2013" and says "Chrysler, in which Fiat has a 58.5 percent stake, said on Tuesday". If someone has evidence that Reuters made an error, I will be happy to put in the correct date, but please don't make claims that are not backed up by the source cited. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The PolitiFact source notes that the announcement about Jeeps in China was made in October of 2012. The Jan 17 source cited by Guy Macon is only a statement that they will be doing it with with Guangzhou Automobile Group ... one of several partners, in fact. The sentence you added might appear, to someone of lesser good faith about your completely apolitical edits, to be an attempt to mislead the reader into thinking the Romney-camp assertions were actually truthful. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. I was afraid that this would happen if I ventured into a political article. Firstly, Xenophrenic, you are edit warring. Stop it. See Wikipedia:Edit warring, Wikipedia:Consensus, and Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Secondly, do not remove material that is supported by a citation to a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Content removal. Again, if you believe that Reuters made an error, explain why you think that on the article talk page and seek consensus that an error was made. Thirdly, do not make thinly-veiled accusations about other editors, as you did above. See Wikipedia:Civility. Fourthly, I don't care whether Romney was truthful and neither does Wikipedia. I don't care whether PolitiFact.com was truthful and neither does Wikipedia. All that I and Wikipedia care about is whether the article accurately reports what is in reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, save the links to general policy. It's not needed here. Secondly, I haven't removed any material supported by reliable sources. Also, I never said "Reuters made an error", perhaps you are confusing me with another editor? Thirdly, please do not do massive page blanking of article content. Fourthly, reliable sources report that in October 2012, Chrysler said it would be building autos in China. In January, 2013, they named who they would be partnering with in that effort. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 08:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I find it difficult to reconcile your claim to be familiar with Wikipedia policy with your edit warring and your apparent belief that WP:BRD is WP:BRR. You made a Bold change (B)[2]. YosemiteFudd reverted (BR)[3] and started discussing (BRD).[4] You reverted[5] (BRDR) and when reverted, reverted again[6] (BRDRRR). You are at 3RR. I and YosemiteFudd are each at 1RR. Please undo your last revert, come back here, discuss your edit, and try to arrive at a consensus rather than engaging in further edit warring and incivility. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

You are far too generous in crediting me alone with edit warring, when it is your disputed edit at the crux of the matter, and you have been reverting. They say it takes two to Tango. Your (B)old change added the following sentence to the article that was otherwise untouched for the past month:

• In January of 2013 Chrysler, which is owned by Fiat, announced that it will start producing Jeeps in China.

That edit has been (R)everted, as noted above, because it (1) claims there was an "announcement", when Chrysler merely said it had made an agreement with Guangzhou Automobile Group, and (2) misleadingly implies Chrysler "announced" in January that it would be making Jeeps in China, when in fact Bloomberg reported on Oct. 22 that the company was planning to restart production of Jeeps in China. As clarified by the CEO back in October, "Together, we are working to establish a global enterprise and previously announced our intent to return Jeep production to China, the world’s largest auto market, in order to satisfy local market demand, which would not otherwise be accessible." I had (D)iscussed this with you above, but apparently it fell on deaf ears, and you went ahead and reverted again anyway.

I tried to incorporate your new source and what it (really) conveyed into the article, but it appears Mr. Fudd would have none of that. So, what do you propose? Xenophrenic (talk) 07:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

While the Reuters source you cited reported that Chrysler "said" they had an agreement with Guangzhou Automobile Group, this source from the Toledo Blade uses the word "announced", but makes clearer exactly what they announced: Speaking from the North American International Auto Show in Detroit, Mr. Marchionne’s comments reiterated — and strengthened — a statement he made to Chrysler employees in October when he said, “Jeep assembly lines will remain in operation in the United States and constitute the backbone of the brand.” Those comments came after Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney suggested Chrysler Group LLC was looking to move Jeep production to China ... Fiat Group SpA and Chrysler Group LLC on Tuesday announced an agreement with Guangzhou Automobile Group to expand their cooperation on passenger car manufacturing, including having Guangzhou build one Jeep model in China for Chrysler for sale in China. Jeeps were built in China from the mid-1980s until 2009. Perhaps that might better inform the crafting of article additions. In short, Chrysler said back in October that they were going to expand into China (again) -- Romney & Crew twisted that to mean American production was going to be relocated to China (false), and PolitiFact called them on it -- These new 2013 reports merely confirm that the previously planned and announced expansion is moving forward. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I stand by my edit. It was properly sourced, encyclopedic, and had a neutral tone. Your replacement does not report what is in the source, but rather PolitiFact.com's spin on it, and is not neutrally worded. I have no objection if, after you put my edit back into the article and remove your replacement, you change "announced" to "said". --Guy Macon (talk) 11:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You still have not addressed the concern about the date conflict your edit introduces (see above). Could you do that, please? Xenophrenic (talk) 03:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's analyze the edit which Xenophrenic has removed[7] four times and which three different editors have restored. First, please read the citation:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/01/17/uk-fiat-marchionne-china-idUKBRE90G0O620130117

It is our job as Wikipedia editors to report what is in that citation without any bias or spin. The wording I chose does that:

"In January of 2013 Chrysler, which is owned by Fiat, announced that it will start producing Jeeps in China.([ Ref ])"

Xenophrenic's replacement reads

"Chrysler, in which Fiat holds a 58.5% controlling interest after rescuing Chrysler from bankruptcy, announced in October 2012 that as part of its continued expansion it will restart producing Jeeps in China to compete with rivals like General Motors in the worlds largest auto market. ([ Ref ])"

Xenophrenic's replacement adds material not found in the source.

The source says "Chrysler, in which Fiat has a 58.5 percent stake..." and later "Since Fiat helped rescue Chrysler from bankruptcy in 2009," but Xenophrenic's replacement says "Chrysler, in which Fiat holds a 58.5% controlling interest after rescuing Chrysler from bankruptcy" - changing the meaning by removing the "helped" - this in a section directly relating to the governments actions during that bankruptcy.

The source (which is dated Thu Jan 17, 2013) says "Chrysler ... said on Tuesday".

Xenophrenic's replacement reads "announced in October 2012". He keeps the same citation, but changes the date. In various comments he claims that other sources give the October date, a clear case of WP:SYNTH.

The source says "Chrysler expect to roll out at least 100,000 Jeeps in China when production starts in 2014 as they seek to catch up with rivals in the world's biggest car market."

Xenophrenic's replacement reads "[Chrysler] will restart producing Jeeps in China to compete with rivals like General Motors in the worlds largest auto market." The word "restart" is not in the source (More {WP:SYNTH]]) and mentioning GM -- the other US automaker that accepted bailout money -- and not mentioning companies that didn't like Ford, Volkswagen, Toyota, etc. introduces a subtle bias, by, once again, straying from simply reporting what is in the source.

So, if these additions did not come from the source cited, where did they come from? "restart", "like other American automakers" (with a link to GM) and the October date, all came from the following page:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/blog/2013/jan/18/lie-year-still/

If Xenophrenic wants to add -- properly attributed and cited -- politifact.com's next-day response to the Reuters report, that's fine. Attempting to insert the politifact.com's talking points while deleting a factual and neutrally worded sentence that describes what is in the source is not. And certainly edit warring and going against consensus in order to do so is not.

Edit warring reported here. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You still have not addressed the concern about the date conflict your edit introduces (see above). Could you do that, please? Also, I see you quote (in boldface) my edit to the article, with a link to just one of the two references I cited, and then you claim, "Xenophrenic's replacement adds material not found in the source." That is very dishonest of you, Guy Macon. Perhaps you can't find the material because you only included one of my two sources. You ask, "if these additions did not come from the source cited, where did they come from?" The additions did indeed come from the cited sources, so that's a very dishonest question for you to ask, Guy Macon. You state they all came from http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/blog/2013/jan/18/lie-year-still/ , an article I haven't seen until you brought it to my attention. That's very dishonest of you, Guy Macon. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: "You still have not addressed the concern about the date conflict your edit introduces (see above). Could you do that, please?", the October date is not in the source. I don't know how I can be any more clear than that. I even went to http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/01/17/uk-fiat-marchionne-china-idUKBRE90G0O620130117 and searched for the strings "oct" and "10" just to make sure. Not there. This has been explained to you before. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Why are you looking for it in the Reuters source? This has been asked of you before. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe try a search on the string "The PolitiFact source notes that the announcement about Jeeps in China was made in October of 2012." on this Talk page, and see what that nets you. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Alternatively, you might try doing your word search for "October" on the source cited immediately after the "October" text. That's usually where I find the sources. You know, right after the content being cited. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

If you'd like more information about the October 2012 announcement about making Jeeps in China, that you wrongly claim was made in January 2013, you could check Source1, Source2, Source3, Source4, Source5, Source6, Source7, Source8.

The sentence you introduced to our article is not supported by the source you cited. "In January of 2013 Chrysler, which is owned by Fiat, announced that it will start producing Jeeps in China."? Your source never stated that Chrysler said "it will start producing Jeeps in China" as you claim, it said Chrysler "had agreed to make Jeeps in China with Guangzhou Automobile Group." See that little word "agree", as in agreement, that you selectively omitted? That's what they were announcing: that they had struck an agreement to make cars together. Cars they announced back in October (not January) that they would be making in China. They also are not going to "start producing Jeeps in China" - your source didn't say that either. They are going to start producing cars together, hopefully as soon as 18 months, but they won't be "starting to build cars in China" since Chrysler has been making Jeeps in China for a long time, and only suspended production in 2009. Finally, you haven't said why you decided to add that sentence to an article about PolitiFact. Politifact isn't mentioned anywhere in your source article. The election is over, Guy Macon. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

What part of "when production starts in 2014" are you having trouble understanding? That's what the source says. I just reported what is in the source I cited. The source does not mention any 2009 production. If you have something to add to the article about production in 2009, write it up and follow it with a citation to a reliable source. You kept the same citation, removed text that describes what is in the citation, and replaced it with text that is not in the citation. I can save you some time here. To anything you argue for that does not have the basic attribute of the assertion on the Wikipedia page matching the source cited, the answer is No. If you repeat the argument, the answer is Hell No.

As for whether it belongs, three editors have already re-added it after your multiple attempts to delete it. That's a clear consensus. Feel free to post an RfC if you think that bringing in outside opinions will change the consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You appear to have a misunderstanding of WP:Consensus. It's not a vote, and 3 or 300 editors making a problematic edit without addressing the legitimate concerns raised about that edit is not consensus. Please try to set aside whatever emotional or ideological investment you have in this article, and work toward building consensus; a "the answer is No" or "the answer is Hell No" attitude won't help in that effort. I'll attempt to again respond to each of your questions and assertions here:

• What part of "when production starts in 2014" are you having trouble understanding? That's what the source says.

No, that's not what the source says. As I tried to explain above, there are actually words before and after that incomplete snippet -- a whole article, in fact. (And now several articles about the same announcement.) You ask what part I do not understand? The part you left out, the context. What production, exactly, is to start in 2014? The "start" of something marks a beginning, the advent of something new -- so what is new beginning in 2014? Is it that Chrysler "will start producing Jeeps in China", something Chrysler has already been doing for years, or is it that Chrysler "had agreed to make Jeeps in China with Guangzhou Automobile Group"? The latter is the production that will start in 2014, not the generic production of Jeeps in China.

• I just reported what is in the source I cited.

No, you did not. We're not allowed to selectively cherry-pick words from an article to convey one thing, when the article conveys something else. Even moreso when the cherry-picked assertion is contradicted by other reliable sources.

• The source does not mention any 2009 production.

Correction: Your new source does not mention any 2009 production. Other sources already in the article do, like the one I cited. See this edit of mine.

• If you have something to add to the article about production in 2009, write it up and follow it with a citation to a reliable source.

That is exactly what I did. See this edit of mine.

• You kept the same citation, removed text that describes what is in the citation, and replaced it with text that is not in the citation.

Incorrect: I kept your new citation, removed text that was contradicted by already existing reliable sources (date of the announcement about building Jeeps in China, for instance) and replaced it with uncontradicted text that is in your new source and an existing source.

• As for whether it belongs...

That wasn't the question. I wanted your input as to why you decided to add that sentence to an article about PolitiFact; what additional information are you attempting to convey to the reader? "Because two other editors reverted" doesn't tell me what information you are trying to convey to the reader. I ask because I'd like to come up with wording that conveys that information without contradicting itself. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: "Your new source does not mention any 2009 production. Other sources already in the article do": Again, the statement on the Wikipedia page must match the citation attached to it. Again, if you want to put something on a Wikipedia page that is found in another citation, either edit the text that precedes that other citation or write some new text and add your preferred citation to it. Again, the answer to your latest repeat of the argument that the text doesn't need to match the citation is NO. Go ahead. Ask again. The answer will always be NO. See WP:V.

Re: "I kept your new citation, removed text that was contradicted by already existing reliable sources". NO. The text must match the source that is cited to support it. Are you seeing a pattern here?

If you think that you can come up with a better wording, go ahead. I have no objection as long as your wording agrees with the source that is attached to it. That is Wikipedia policy and is non-negotiable. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

In case you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy on this, Wikipedia:Verifiability says "All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." In addition, Wikipedia:No original research says "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources." (Emphasis in original.) --Guy Macon (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Having read your latest comments, it appears we are in complete agreement. The only disagreement you expressed is disagreement with yourself, so I'll step aside let you work that out with yourself:

• Again, the statement on the Wikipedia page must match the citation attached to it.

Again, agreed.

• Again, if you want to put something on a Wikipedia page that is found in another citation, either edit the text that precedes that other citation or write some new text and add your preferred citation to it.

Again, agreed - I chose the latter.

• Again, the answer to your latest repeat of the argument that the text doesn't need to match the citation is NO. Go ahead. Ask again. The answer will always be NO.

That's not my argument, Guy Macon. I've never made that argument, nor would I. Feel free to argue with yourself over that one to your heart's content, I'm on your side.

• NO. The text must match the source that is cited to support it.

Agreed; and it does.

• Are you seeing a pattern here?

Indeed. Several. But I doubt I could comment on them without running afoul of WP:NPA, and this is not the proper venue in any case. However, if you'd like to invite me to speak freely at either your Talk page or mine, we can discuss it further.

• If you think that you can come up with a better wording, go ahead. I have no objection as long as your wording agrees with the source that is attached to it. That is Wikipedia policy and is non-negotiable.

Agreed. See the proposed wording I've placed under the subheading below.

• In case you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy on this, [lengthy quotes from WP:V and WP:NOR...]

I'm very familiar with those policies, and I have abided by them. If you feel otherwise, you are of course encouraged to indicate a specific instance, with a specific description of how a specific policy requirement has not been followed. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to involve myself in this edit war b/c it seems intractable, but for the record, if someone come to take a look to identify consensus, it seems to me like Xenophrenic is being a bit tendentious, and a couple minor word changes (rather than reverts) seem like they should accommodate his concerns, e.g., 'start' --> 'restart' and 'announced' --> 'said.' That said, the article as written now seems okay to me.PStrait (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, PStrait. Changing "start" to "restart" would indeed address one of my three concerns, but Guy Macon might object, as "restart" isn't conveyed by the source he provided. The "said"/"announced" wording is no longer a concern of mine, as I've found reliable sources that use the "announced" wording. Do you have a proposal for addressing my concern about the fact that the announcement to make Jeeps in China was actually made in October, 2012? And I think the word you are looking for is "tenacious", as I do tend to be a stickler about adhering to Wikipedia policy. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Response to PStrait: I have no objection to any wording changes as long as they don't violate our "...must include an inline citation that directly supports the material" and "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication" policies.

'announced' --> 'said.' isn't a problem (I believe I suggested that change earlier). Just changing 'start' to 'restart' and doing nothing else is a bit of a problem, because "restart" is not directly supported by the source. That doesn't mean we cannot add it though. The problem is easily remedied by adding a source that does directly support the restart claim, such as this from the WSJ.

I do think that we should discuss the relevance of the claim. The context is a Romney claim that Obama "sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China." I think we can agree that "Italians" refers to Fiat, which raises a question about the relevance of jeep production in China which had ceased before Fiat bought any part of Chrysler. Also worth discussing is what our Chrysler article says; in 2009 Fiat had a 20% stake and the UAW had a controlling interest at 60%. I think it fair to say that the UAW would never approve building jeeps with non-union labor overseas. It was June of 2011 that the Obama administration sold the US government's right to rebuy the UAW stake to Fiat[8] Romney made his "sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China" claim in October of 2012 and Politifact.com made it their "lie of the year" in December of 2012. A case can be made for "sold Chrysler" referring to the 61.8% stake Fiat owned when Romney made the claim (or perhaps the July 2011 increase from 46% to 53.5%).[9] I don't think "sold Chrysler to Italians" can be said to refer to the 20% stake Fiat bought in 2009[10], and I am having trouble seeing how it relates to jeep production prior to that 20% sale. I am not saying that it shouldn't be in the article, just that we should discuss how we want to treat it. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Guy Macon, just a minor correction, but I think it would make a world of difference in your understanding, RE: The context is a Romney claim that Obama "sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China." The context is "sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China" at the cost of American jobs. That is what PolitiFact (and several other Fact-Checkers and reliable sources) have called false. Just check the sources. Even the last paragraph of the WSJ source you just cited. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed wording change to the 2012 Lie of the Year entry

The existing wording for at least the past month:

For 2012, PolitiFact chose the campaign of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's claim that President Barack Obama "sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China."Cite1 The claim was rated "Pants on Fire" in its assessment in October. Cite2

I am proposing the following change / addition:

For 2012, PolitiFact chose the campaign of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's claim that President Barack Obama "sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China" at the cost of American jobs.Cite1 Chrysler, in which Fiat holds a 58.5% controlling interest after helping rescue Chrysler from bankruptcy, announced in October 2012 that as part of its continued expansion it will restart producing Jeeps in China to compete with rivals like General Motors and Volkswagen in the worlds largest auto market.Cite1Cite3 Romney's claim was rated "Pants on Fire" in its assessment in October.Cite2

The above proposed change adds or clarifies:

• "at the cost of American jobs" - this appears key to PolitiFact's determination
• Explains that Chrysler is 58.5% controlling owner of Chrysler since the bailout, which was conveyed in a proposed edit by Guy Macon
• Explains that Chrysler announced in October it is restarting (or resuming, or returning to) production of Jeeps in China - it isn't a January announcement

Comments and suggested improvements are welcome. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The above is an example of the Fallacy of the false dichotomy. Those are not the only choices available. Notably lacking is my original edit which Xenophrenic has deleted four times:

For 2012, PolitiFact chose the campaign of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's claim that President Barack Obama "sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China.Cite1 The claim was rated "Pants on Fire" in its assessment in October. Cite2

In January of 2013 Chrysler, which is owned by Fiat, announced that it will start producing Jeeps in China.Cite3

...or any variation of the above that does not violate our "...must include an inline citation that directly supports the material" and "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication" policies.

Re: "'at the cost of American jobs' - this appears key to PolitiFact's determination", this is fine if it is made clear that it is a direct quote[11] but putting it in Wikipedia's voice is inserting an editorial opinion. Those supporting Obama argue that as long as production in the US is not reduced no jobs are lost, and those supporting Romney argue that if those 100,000 jeeps weren't made in China, they would be made in the US and shipped to China. We cannot argue either, but we can report -- with attribution -- that Politifact said it. I think we should do so.

Re: "Explains that Chrysler is 58.5% controlling owner of Chrysler since the bailout", this is factually incorrect. Fiat's interest reached:

20% in June of 2009 (when the bankruptcy / bailout happened)

25% in January of 2011

30% in April of 2011

46% in May of 2011

52% in June of 2011

53.5% in July of 2011

58.5% in January of 2012

61.8% in July of 2012

"Re: "Explains that Chrysler announced in October it is restarting (or resuming, or returning to) production of Jeeps in China - it isn't a January announcement", I find this to be an odd edit considering Xenophrenic's experience level. he lists two citations, one from a reliable secondary source (Reuters) giving the January date and one from a tertiary source -- PolitiFact.com itself -- giving the October date, all with no attempt to explain the discrepancy.

It took me about a minute to follow the links from PolitiFact.com to a Washington Examiner column[12] to the original story on Bloomberg.[13] "Jeep Output May Return to China." "...plans to return Jeep output to China and may eventually make all of its models in that country." "We’re reviewing the opportunities." This is the source for "October" that I am supposed to accept along with my edit being deleted? Not gonna happen. As for starting vs. restarting, see discussion in the section above this one.

BTW, the Romney Ad Itself does not actually "at the cost of American jobs" (although as one would expect that is implied) but it does cite the Bloomberg article. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

False dichotomy? On the off-chance that you weren't trying to be humorous, uh ... no - I didn't offer any choices, so there is no dichotomous situation. I made a proposal, and asked for feedback on that proposal. I did appreciate the chuckle though, whether it was intentional or not.

So let's take a look at the feedback you've offered on my proposed edit. On the matter of "at the cost of American jobs", you say you are fine with it if it is attributed. So perhaps we could reword that part to say:

...Mitt Romney's claim that President Barack Obama "sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China" at the cost of American jobs, according to PolitiFact,Cite-PF and at the expense of jobs in the U.S., according to The Wall Street Journal,Cite-WSJ and therefore idle assembly lines and U.S. workforce, according to Chrysler,Cite-Chrys and at the expense of jobs in Ohio, according to FactCheck.org,Cite-FC and American jobs are being sent to China, according to the Washington Post,CiteWP and was looking to move Jeep production to China, according to the Toledo Blade,Cite-TB and would shift production from Ohio to China of the Jeep brand, according to the Detroit News,Cite-DN and is planning on moving Jeep production to China, also according to Detroit News,Cite-DN2 and the Detroit Free Press.Cite-DFP

Sure, we can do that. Or we can quit playing word games and acknowledge the fact that he both stated and implied that US jobs would be lost to China, in stump speeches, radio addresses and TV ads. You are correct that the Romney and Obama supporters can argue over whether what he said was truthful (in some other venue, please), but neither camp denies he said it, so it doesn't need attribution here.

As for your pile of percentages of Fiat ownership, thanks, but you are correcting my general statement, not the actual text I proposed. Regarding "all with no attempt to explain the discrepancy", there is no descrepancy in my proposed edit. I don't make the mistake of trying to confuse the reader about when the announcement to build jeeps in China was made. Regarding my cite of PolitiFact to support the October announcement, that was just a matter of convenience since the cite was already there in the article. We can, of course, add a cite to a statement straight from Chrysler if you do not trust PolitiFact, and we can add other news reports contemporary with the Bloomberg report. As for your link to YouTube, I didn't watch it - I assume it's one of the several instances criticized by the fact-checkers as misleading and false. I don't reference any specific ads or YouTube videos in my proposed edit. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not going to argue with you any further. I also believe that you are being tendentious (and no, I don't think anyone here does not know the difference between tendentious and tenacious.) I stand by my edit. I don't like your version. I don't see any evidence that anyone agrees with you, and I see that multiple editors have restored my version, so the consensus is clearly against you. You have made your proposal, I have explained why I don't like it, and now I am waiting to see if anyone agrees with your version and if anyone agrees that my version should be deleted. I am done arguing with you. I advise that you seek consensus and I advise against you attempting to get your way through edit warring again. Feel free to have the last word if you wish. I will not reply. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

As your arguments fall apart, you decide you are not going to argue any further - thanks for that much, at least. Of course you stand by your proposed edit; the fact that you have repeatedly avoided explaining what it is you are attempting to convey with your proposed problematic edit is very telling. Is the "I don't like your version" ploy a last-ditch effort? I've encountered you before, Guy Macon. You launch your accusations of edit warring against editors, and then you are informed that you are edit warring and you apologize. When editors disagree with you, you divert from discussing content and edits and launch into personal attacks against them instead, until you are repremanded and you apologize, or "trout" yourself, whatever. It's becoming old hat. I see you've also once again demonstrated your misunderstanding of terminology. Consensus (add that to your misinterpretations of "false dichotomy" and "tendentious") has nothing to do with how many editors will revert-war without addressing expressed concerns. You've made your proposed edit (including reverts back to it), and I've made my proposed edit (including reverts back to it), and now legitimate concerns have been subsequently raised and presented on this Talk page. You have begun to respond to some of those concerns, while the revert-war participants thus far have not. That's not "consensus" by any stretch. I advise that you seek consensus and I advise against you attempting to get your way through edit warring again. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's my own proposal: directly citing Chrysler's actions strikes me as synthesis to some extent. So instead of doing that, why not just quote criticism of this "lie of the year" that refers to Chrysler's actions? The most notable example might be Mark Hemingway's post "Whoops: PolitiFact's 'Lie of the Year' Turns Out to Be True" in the Weekly Standard blog. Similar criticisms are included in this article for other "lies of the year". Korny O'Near (talk) 13:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Korny O'Near's solution, and would have no problems with having what I wrote deleted and replaced with Korny O'Near's solution.

IMO, this is a better URL for the Weekly Standard article (single page with fewer ads). --Guy Macon (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

People are going to be coming to this article because of this "Lie of the Year" and as we have seen there are strong arguments on both sides. Perhaps mentioning that there is disagreement on whether it turned out to be a lie or not,and providing both points of view. I don't think that would take more than maybe three or four sentences. Marteau (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I also have no problems with adding a criticism of PolitiFact's 'Lie of the Year' determination to the article in lieu of Guy Macon's proposed addition. As part of that solution, I'll forego my proposed additions about Chrysler's actions in China, too. If there are are no further objections, however, I still intend to make the technical correction to the first sentence by adding "at the cost of American jobs", since that is what PolitiFact is actually criticizing. It's a non-controversial edit, and even that Hemingway criticism includes that wording in their definition of PolitiFact's determination, before Hemingway argues against it.

So would any of you like to propose a concise summary wording of that criticism that we can add to the article? (I agree that the Weekly Standard link offered by Guy Macon is much cleaner, BTW.) Xenophrenic (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Marteau. I don't think there will be any problem finding reliable sources for both points of view. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Since no one else has suggested something yet, here goes:

For 2012, PolitiFact chose the claim made by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney that President Obama "sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China." (The "Italians" in the quote was a reference to Fiat, who had purchased a majority share of Chrysler in 2011 after a U.S. government bailout of Chrysler.) PolitiFact had previously rated the claim "Pants on Fire" in October. PolitiFact's assessment quoted a Chrysler spokesman who had said, "Jeep has no intention of shifting production of its Jeep models out of North America to China."

In January 2013, writer Mark Hemingway of The Weekly Standard criticized PolitiFact's ruling, writing that Romney's claim had turned out to be true. Hemingway cited the fact that Chrysler had announced that they would move manufacturing of their low-end Jeep model, the Jeep Patriot, from the United States to China.

By the way, right now criticism of each "lie of the year" is in a different section from the main description of it. I suggest to put them all back together again, for easier readability. If people don't like that idea, then that second paragraph should probably go into the "Criticism" section. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the initial criticism proposal and the alternate 'Lie of the Year' text proposal. Looks okay, with the exception of two minor wording corrections so that the text conforms to the cited sources (I'll put those changes in bold):

For 2012, PolitiFact chose the claim made by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney that President Obama "sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China" at the cost of American jobs. (The "Italians" in the quote was a reference to Fiat, who had purchased a majority share of Chrysler in 2011 after a U.S. government bailout of Chrysler.) PolitiFact had previously rated the claim "Pants on Fire" in October. PolitiFact's assessment quoted a Chrysler spokesman who had said, "Jeep has no intention of shifting production of its Jeep models out of North America to China."

In January 2013, writer Mark Hemingway of The Weekly Standard criticized PolitiFact's ruling, writing that Romney's claim had turned out to be true. Hemingway cited the fact that Chrysler had announced that they would expand manufacturing of their low-end Jeep model, the Jeep Patriot, into China.

References

I note that the Detroit News cite doesn't use the word "move", and instead says it is part of the expansion. Checking Hemingway's criticism, I see that he also avoided using the word "move" when citing that news story. Regarding combining the "Lies of the Year" section with criticisms, the criticisms don't appear to criticize the selection of the "Lies of the Year", but rather the initial findings by PolitiFact even before they were selected as LotY. These criticisms and analysis of PolitiFact's findings (whether they later get chosen as LotY or not) are presently in one section for ease of reading and continuity, which seems logical. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I will note that a good number of the criticisms listed in the "Criticisms" section were, in fact, made directly after the "lie of the year" section, like the Weekly Standard's was. But that's somewhat of a separate issue. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Our Jeep Patriot article says "The Patriot is manufactured at Chrysler's Belvidere, Illinois assembly plant". I see no indication that this will stop in any of the sources (and it's the sort of thing that lots of people would be shouting about), so "move" is clearly incorrect and "expand" is correct. I am fine either way on where to put the criticism. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll implement the above changes as a starting point. We can continue the discussion on the merits of merging the analysis of PolitiFact's assessments with the 'Lie of the Year' section if there is interest in doing so. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)