Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Guy Macon (talk | contribs) at 09:40, 19 January 2013 (→"Lie of the year 2012" vis-a-vis Jeep.: Its WP:BRD, not WP:BRDR or WP:BRDRRR.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Media Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite NPOV : Content (media and publishing) Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Other : Answer requests for comments

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 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 Misplaced Pages article. Sidatio (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2012 (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...." 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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. 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)

"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 Misplaced Pages:Edit warring, Misplaced Pages:Consensus, and Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Secondly, do not remove material that is supported by a citation to a reliable source. See Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Civility. Fourthly, I don't care whether Romney was truthful and neither does Misplaced Pages. I don't care whether PolitiFact.com was truthful and neither does Misplaced Pages. All that I and Misplaced Pages care about is whether the article accurately reports what is in reliable sources. See Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages policy with your edit warring and your apparent belief that WP:BRD is WP:BRDR. You made a Bold change (B). YosemiteFudd reverted (BR) and started discussing (BRD). You reverted (BRDR) and when reverted, reverted again (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)

• Unassessed Media articles
• Unknown-importance Media articles
• WikiProject Media articles