Talk:Joe Wilson (American politician)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Sons in the military

Watching the Pentagon Channel Rep. Wilson said he has "four sons in the military." I guess this means his youngest, Hunter Taylor Wilson, is no longer in high school and is in the military. Couldn't find confirmation. --ProdigySportsman 02:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Official bio

Born and raised in Charleston, Addison (Joe) Graves Wilson considers it a great honor to represent the Second Congressional District of South Carolina. He is a graduate of the High School of Charleston, Washington & Lee University, and the University of South Carolina School of Law. After settling down in West Columbia, Wilson became a founding partner of the law firm Kirkland, Wilson, Moore, Taylor & Thomas.

Since being elected to Congress in December 2001, Wilson has worked hard to promoting peace through a strong national defense, ensuring that every child in America receives a high-quality education, and urging personal responsibility through limited government. He currently serves on the House Armed Services Committee, Education & Workforce Committee, Policy Committee and International Relations Committee. Addtionally, he is the co-chair of the Congressional Caucuses on Bulgaria and Mongolia. In the 108th Congress, he served as the co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans, the largest country caucus on Capitol Hill.

From participating as a teenage Republican to serving in the halls of the U.S. House of Representatives, Wilson has dedicated much of his life to public service. He began his career as a member on the staffs of South Carolina legends Senator Strom Thurmond and Congressman Floyd Spence. He also worked in the visionary Ronald Reagan administration as Deputy General Counsel for the United States Department of Energy Secretary and served under former South Carolina Governor, Jim Edwards. Wilson was proud to serve in the South Carolina State Senate with perfect attendance for 17 years.

Throughout his life, Wilson has strongly supported the U.S. military. From 1972 – 1975, he served in the United States Army Reserves. After serving as a Staff Judge Advocate in the South Carolina Army National Guard for over 31 years, he retired from military service in 2003.

Joe and his wife Roxanne are the proud parents of four sons, three of whom serve in the U.S. military. Alan, his oldest son, is a Captain in the Army National Guard; Add is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and is now an Ensign attending Uniform Services Medical School; Julian is a recent graduate of Clemson University and is a Second Lieutenant in the Army National Guard, and Hunter currently attends Airport High School. He also has two grandsons.

I can confirm that the above was contributed by someone from Congressman Wilson's office. I think they did a wonderful thing by asking me first how they might improve the bio we have. I suggested they post to the talk page, and they did. Let's return the goodwill and improve the article! :-)--Jimbo Wales 22:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Got all that, and now I found this. Need his official U.S. (public domain) photo first. I would rather use the cute photo with his wife and newborn grandson on his website, but no perms for that. --James S. 05:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm finished; maybe a constituent should give him another pass now. I hope someone can get permission to put this photo in the Family section. --James S. 06:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's what the page looked like when Emily posted here, for comparison. In excellent Wikipedia fashion, all the original statements have survived in the expanded version. --James S. 08:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Protected

I've fully protected the article for a week. Suggest that the wording of the lead be imported here and suggested changes made, and consensus gained on the wording as proposed. See talk:Montefiore Windmill for an example of how the process works. If consensus is reached before the protection expires it may be lifted by any admin. Mjroots (talk) 06:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to see this page protected. I believe the problem is not the article but instead User:Fight the bias who continues to delete the paragraph on Jimmy Carter's comments. I believe the better thing would have been to do is block this user temporarily, because this block is getting in the way of moving this page forward. For instance, it appears User:Kenosis and I have a disagreement about the content of the same paragraph. I had updated the paragraph with the new development that Carter has since claimed he did not intend to say that Mr. Wilson's comments were based on racism.[1] This seems like an important clarification, yet Kenosis reverted my edits as if I had simply deleted the claim outright. (I did make a few other changes to the paragraph, but if Kenosis objects to those, he has not said so.) This revert also deleted another instance where Kenosis has an unexplained disagreement with my edits: I had added information about how Wilson had been described as a "fundraising star". I had at first included just one example, so Kenosis fairly rephrased this as "one" observer. So I added a second example and changed it back, however Kenosis saw fit to change this again without explanation. Now I am concerned that this outdated, inaccurate version will be locked in for at a week. I'm sure we can come to an agreement before then, and I invite Kenosis and others to discuss this section and resolve this matter before October 9. --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 12:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's the quote from the source provided, a brief article by Andy Barr on Politico.com:

Former President Jimmy Carter insisted Thursday that he did not say protests against President Barack Obama were driven by racism.

Carter touched off a firestorm three weeks ago when he said Rep. Joe Wilson’s (R-S.C.) “You Lie!” outburst was “based on racism” and that there “is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president.”

When asked about the comments Thursday during an interview on CNN however, Carter backed off the characterizations of his earlier remarks. “By the way, that’s not what I said,” Carter interjected as he was being asked about the comment. “If you read the remarks carefully, you’ll see that’s not what I said.” “I said those that had a personal attack on President Obama as a person, that was tinged with racism,” Carter explained. “But I recognize that people who disagree with him on health care or the environment, that the vast majority of those are not tinged by racism.”

“I meant exactly what I said,” he continued. “What I actually said, if you look at the transcript, is what I just repeated to you.”

Carter was widely criticized by Republicans and numerous conservative groups following the statement. In addition, his claim was not backed by the White House. “The president does not believe that that criticism comes based on the color of his skin,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said when asked about Carter’s initial comments.

And here is Mr. Bergstrom's rewrite of the paragraph, which removed reliable sources and replaced those sources with a completely new narrative that Carter was not referring to Wilson which is in contradiction of countless mainstream reliable sources, removing Cosby's echoing of Carter's remarks, etc.
.....Incidentially, I apologize that the extra source provided by Mr. Bergstrom (the Fox News piece about campaign funding increases describing Wilson as a "fundraising star") got inadvertently mixed up in my revert. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I am curious, Kenosis, how you interpret these new remarks, and how you would choose to include them. As has been discussed here before, Carter's reference to Wilson was only implied in the first place. Note that in the version that existed before my edits, it quotes Wilson addressing Obama's critics broadly, rather than focusing on Wilson. He does the same here. I also noted that Carter drew criticism for the remarks, which is true, and is represented in the headlines of news articles already included in the paragraph. As for Bill Cosby, with a week's perspective it seems clear that Cosby's agreement was not widely reported and not a critical part of the story. Perhaps we could agree that the Cosby and Edwards comments cancel each other out, and we could restrict discussion to just those directly involved: Carter, Obama (through Gibbs) and Wilson (through his son). As for removing RSs, I am not of the belief that every possible RS is necessary. This section in particular is hardly lacking in sources, but I feel less strongly about this point. --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The multiple RSs that were in there are necessary to give a reasonable sampling of the variety of media which all reported that Carter was talking about Wilson. And, we can add more if there continues to be any doubt about this such as is occurring right here. Even the source you cite in support of your interpretation says the same w.r.t. who Carter was talking about (because Carter's remarks were, on at least two separate occasions, both at the Carter Center and in the subsequent one-on-one interview with Brian Williams, in direct response to a question about Wilson's outburst). The Andy Barr piece on Politico.com says: "Carter touched off a firestorm three weeks ago when he said Rep. Joe Wilson’s (R-S.C.) “You Lie!” outburst was “based on racism”.
..... As to what Carter was referring to in his follow-up statements, it seems to me he was making clear he wasn't throwing all criticism of the president into the same bin, so to speak-- but that's just my interpretation which has little or no bearing on this WP article, unless of course there are RSs in support of this interpretation and the consensus is that such interpretation merits inclusion in this article. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Carter's comment to CNN seems to be him clarifying that he did not say that "the vast majority" of people who disagree with Obama are racist, but that "those that had a personal attack on President Obama as a person, that was tinged with racism.” That looks like a clarification that his criticism of Wilson and others doesn't extend to all who disagree with the President. I don't see why that would belong on Wilson's biography. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If the section keeps expanding like this I'm going to suggest a daughter article with a summary para in the near future. --kizzle (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I am still troubled that we are relying on interpretations for this paragraph, and I do not think this standard is being applied consistently. For instance, when I first added the mention of Donna Edwards disagreeing with Carter, Sharks initially removed it because "Edwards quote doesn't say what is attributed to her here". This was a fair point, so I located the original transcript which made it clear. Given that we are relying upon reporters' interpretations, I think the phrasing of this first sentence should not be "Former President Jimmy Carter said the outburst was" as it currently reads, but instead "Former President Jimmy Carter was quoted as saying". A little bit of distance is healthy here, given the lack of clarity that we all admit surrounds Carter's various statements. Second, Sharks asks why Carter's clarification "would belong on Wilson's biography." I believe the answer to this is simple -- because the current wording quotes Carter as saying "[t]here is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president" when here he is clearly talking about others beside Wilson. Either both should be included or neither should be, and now I think it should probably be the second. --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's what Mr. Bergstrom inserted into the article on 22 September 2009, immediately following the words "others disagreed" [with Carter's characterization of the outburst as 'based on racism]: "including Donna Edwards, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus"

Here is the Fox News source used by Mr. Bergstrom in support of the reference to Donna Williams' as and here's the relevant text from that source:

Rep. Donna Edwards, D-Md., a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, said she, too, didn't think Wilson's outburst was race-related.
"I think there's a lot of opposition, visceral opposition to his policies, but the reality is that this president won, he won with an overwhelming majority of support across the board from the American people and not not just from African-Americans, and it is time for us to move on and get down to the business of making the kind of change that the president outlined when he won the election last year," she said. 
But several Obama supporters say they worry that racism is not only at the core, but could lead to worse incidents than a shout on the House floor. 

Later on 22 September 2009 the reference to Donna Edwards was removed from the article by Sharksaredangerous here with the edit summary "Edwards quote doesn't say what is attributed to her here".

Mr. Bergstrom reverted here, also on 22 September 2009, re-including the material on Edwards. AFAICT, the brief reference to Edwards' position has remained in the article coninuously through 6 October 2009. So I fail to see what the problem is that Mr. Bergstrom is raising. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: "lack of clarity that we all admit surrounds Carter's various statements" -- Carter's statements seem very clear to me. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Using the editprotected template to ask an administrator to make the edit if it is supported by consensus.

The begining of the Outburst during 2009 Presidential address section currently begins "]]]]--> On September 9, 2009, Wilson shouted at President Barack Obama ..." I move that the four square end brackets, the two dashes, and the greater than symbol be removed from the begining of this sentence. I'd hate to assume there is consensus for this, so let the raging debate begin! Should these be removed? Should they be kept? Or should they be replaced with some other series of punctuation marks and/or symbols? Three inverted question marks, two closing guillemets, and a pilcrow with an umlaut over it? Sharksaredangerous (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleting the extraneous "]]]]--> " seems quite reasonable. --4wajzkd02 (talk)

I agree.Onefinalstep (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

And now this has been fixed thanks to User:Juliancolton. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete the "Other Controversies" section

I would move to delete the "Other Controversies" section. The two statements that are quoted by the congressman are not relevant to the subjects notoriety as required by WP:BLP. The fact that someone at sometime said something that was "controversial" to members of the public should only be included if it raised awareness of the person making the statement. The outburst at the joint session is clearly a "controversy" that elevated public awareness of the congressman, but these other statements made by Wilson do not seem to do the same. Unless there is a showing by those who want to keep the section that the information under the heading created notoriety for the subject, I think it should be removed.Onefinalstep (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The question is does the section meet the test of WP:UNDUE? While my opinion is that it does not, I am uncertain how to objectively determine that? Does anyone have any ideas? --4wajzkd02 (talk)

I'm not arguing that the facts stated in the section are untrue or even debated by a minority "flat earth" faction. I am arguing that the information does not meet the "criticism and praise" section of WP:BLP. The controversies in this specific section did not create the subjects notoriety as required by WP:BLP. They did occur, however they were made famous after the true controversy that made Wilson famous. I would argue in evidence that the Joe Wilson page existed before and after these "controversies" occured and this inormation was not added to the page until after the joint session outburst. This leads me to believe that the reason for Joe Wilson's notoriety is not in any way connected with the occurrences that are outlined in the section in question.Onefinalstep (talk) 02:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the information was here prior to the Joint Session. Is there any way to see a history of the page further than 500 edits? Reliefappearance (talk) 05:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Check the references, he was notorious for those statements well before the current controversy. Gamaliel (talk) 05:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the info was on the page before the joint session outburst. I do remember coming to this page on the night of the controversy and watching an explosion of "controversial" elements being added to the Congressman's page. At that time, there were no "controversies" on the page and such sections were only added after the joint session. Whether or not the "controversies" were on the page at some time prior to that night and had been subsequently taken down before ... I can't say.

I can't agree with Gamaliel that he was notorious for those statements before the joint session. I actually believe those statements came into the light in greater proportion after he was made famous for the outburst at the session. I'm unsure a statement on CSPAN some time ago that ruffled some feathers created the Congressman's notoriety. But this question can be put to a vote because it is somewhat subjective in that I may think it is not the reason for his notoriety and Gamaliel (or others) do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onefinalstep (talk • contribs) 15:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, no more guessing. Does anyone know how to put in a date and time so that we can see the article prior to the Obama's address? Reliefappearance (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's the 11 July 2009 version, which says "Wilson called Congressman Bob Filner "viscerally anti-American" and claimed that he had a "hatred of America"" and has a section on "Claims Democrats aid terrorists" Sharksaredangerous (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There was no Hugh Wilson in the Flying Tigers.

In the wikipedia write up about Joe Wilson Senator from South Carolina it said:

In an 2005 guest article on Rediff.com, Wilson stated that his father Hugh was a member of the Flying Tigers in World War II.[78]

according to the Flying Tiger's website and records

     [2]

the only Wilson that was ever a member was a Clifford Wilson (Mechanic).

There is no Hugh Wilson listed in the Flying Tigers rosters. as Joe Wilson claimed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmullan (talk • contribs) 15:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

As stated, the information you provide is original research. If a reliable source can be found to make the same assertion, then adding it to the article is a possibility. --4wajzkd02 (talk)

Wilson has been caught fudging his past before, but we can't use original research to disprove him. For all we know, that web page's roster is incomplete. Gamaliel (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS, WP:VERIFY and WP:BLP regarding Carter’s statements

This comment begins as a reply to the last reply in the thread above by Kenosis and Sharksaredangerous. We have disagreed about how to represent the Carter section before, and I hope to persuade them both, as well as others who may be following, that a full discussion of these circumstances has yet been held. In fact, the further I looked into it, the more I became convinced that the paragraph should be removed. I had earlier tried to revise the section and even restored the current version when deleted by others, so I hope my points are taken in good faith. My argument here is detailed and I intend to make a thorough case, so I have started a new section.

In reply to Kenosis’s question about why I brought up the Donna Edwards example, the reason is definitely not to complain about something I added remaining in the article. My reason was to point out that this addition was subjected it to close scrutiny, because the reporter in the Fox News article I first used asserted that Edwards had stated disagreement with Carter, although the quote the reporter used did not specifically address this. However, I found a full transcript and the context was very clear.

I intend to show here that there is a problem with the reporting surrounding Carter’s remarks that is nearly identical to the first Edwards article above: that the quotes don’t match the description, therefore while the sources are reliable organizations, their reporting is not clear enough to verify and substantiate the charge of racism, which has obvious BLP implications. I will argue below that Carter was very likely misquoted in the first place, owing in part to the fact that his quotes were very limited, which it seems to me is why he later went on record to change them.

To elaborate, the context of Carter’s remarks remain fuzzy, because of several complicating factors:

1. No transcript appears to exist in which Carter supposedly referred to Wilson by name or quoted context, and in fact all of Carter’s specifics refer to a general feeling held by “many.”
2. Carter later rescinded some measure of the remarks, specifically stating that reporting was incorrect, asking people to go to the transcript, when in fact there is none to be studied.
3. Considering that most of the focus of the initial reports focused on Wilson, it stands to reason that when Carter revised his remarks, he was intending to correct the impression that he had called Wilson’s outburst “racist.” Otherwise we are left with a Catch-22 – that Carter cannot be said to withdraw statements he is alleged to have made because he did not in fact make them.

The fuzziness of Carter’s statements have been addressed here before. When I expressed concern about whether it was clear Carter intended to impugn Wilson’s motivations directly, Kenosis replied:

After the paragraph was inserted and removed several times, I did some slightly more detailed research on this and unfortunately could not find a full written transcript of Carter's remarks in Atlanta and in his subsequent interview with Brian Williams. Having listened to a video of the Williams interview, it appears to me to be true that Carter was talking about what he sees as a broader issue. His comments, though, both at the Carter Center in Atlanta and in the Williams interview, specifically referred to Wilson's outburst.

From the evidence I have been able to compile, Kenosis is correct, however I do not understand the distinction made in the final sentence. The video as available on MSNBC.com makes no reference to Joe Wilson, and no allusion to him. I recognized that Kenosis has stated on the BLP Noticeboard that the video is truncated. I agree it is clearly not the full conversation had by the two men. However, we would need a complete version of this video to use it as a source in to support the alleged statements about Wilson.

Let’s look at the other sources currently used in the article:

• The Huffington Post story is based on an AP article which does not include conclusive evidence that Carter’s comments about racism in the United States implicated Wilson.
• The NBC Washington story includes no information not included in the Williams interview, and is very short. There is not even a reporter credited.
• The New York Daily News article never even asserts that Carter said Wilson’s outburst was based on racism, so its inclusion here confuses me.

It should be troubling to us that a serious charge of this nature has not been independently verified. I have searched widely for a better account, and I have not been able to find one. Kenosis has stated previously that many different sources from across the ideological spectrum have reported Carter’s comments. This is not strictly accurate. Many sources have repeated the initial stories, but no verification was done after the initial reports. Other stories are either reprints of the original AP item by Greg Bluestein, such as at Breitbart and Yahoo, or they are basically commentaries taking the claim at face value, such as the CS Monitor and CNN. Surely we need better sources.

Yes, MSNBC and AP are reliable sources themselves. But the sourcing within their articles is poor, and considering this is a very contentious matter, we should hold them to a high standard. I think it’s very likely AP and MSNBC made a mistake. Both assert that Jimmy Carter said Wilson’s comment was “based on racism” although they do not include the question or any further commentary on Wilson. Instead, they quote Carter going on to speak further about how “many” in this country feel. That is why I believe this should be removed, at least until, as we do know Carter did say, we can look at the transcript.

Now let’s talk about the Politico article by Andy Barr. This article simply reasserts the previous report, but again offers nothing new and again simply quotes Carter talking about “many.” It’s true that he did not specifically retract the charge about Wilson, because it looks increasingly apparent that he never meant that charge to specifically apply to Wilson. Here is the key section:

When asked about the comments Thursday during an interview on CNN however, Carter backed off the characterizations of his earlier remarks. “By the way, that’s not what I said,” Carter interjected as he was being asked about the comment. “If you read the remarks carefully, you’ll see that’s not what I said.” “I said those that had a personal attack on President Obama as a person, that was tinged with racism,” Carter explained. “But I recognize that people who disagree with him on health care or the environment, that the vast majority of those are not tinged by racism.” “I meant exactly what I said,” he continued. “What I actually said, if you look at the transcript, is what I just repeated to you.”

The comment? What comment? Note that the most-widely reported “comment” was the one allegedly about Wilson. What is clear is that when someone did go back and ask Carter about the conversation, he substantially withdrew the charge. Given that a contentious and poorly-sourced accusation of racism is not generally considered significant, we should be very wary of including this kind of thing, especially after the initial accuser has taken issue with the reporting.

I recognize that the controversy has been covered in the press, but the BLP implications should supersede the fact that a number of news websites who did not dedicate their own reporting sources to it happened to pick up a wire story. The relative insignificance of Carter's remarks are underlined by the poor pickup when Carter made his correction.

Sharksaredangerous says Carter’s comments are “clear” but I think it’s very obvious that nothing is clear about this. Carter’s retraction was as hazy as his alleged initial accusation. Unless and until there is a clear transcript where Carter is shown to be clearly stating that Joe Wilson’s outburst was based on racism, this should not be included in the entry. I recommend that it be removed when the page becomes unlocked, if not sooner. --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the time you took to draw up this argument. First, we report what reliable sources are saying about the subject. IMHO, verifying whether or not a RS story is correct is a textbook case of WP:OR. Instead, (if we're going to include this section) we should report that MSNBC and many other outlets reported that Carter charged that Wilson (and others) outburst stems from racism or whatever exact quote comes from the piece, Wilon's family's response, and Carter's later clarification that he was misquoted. It's not our job with inconclusive evidence (we do not have access to the transcripts) to say what Carter "really" meant, but rather quote MSNBC and quote Carter and leave the reader to decide. Of course, this is a whole lot of information and clarification on a person's bio page, so I think we should start thinking about splitting this section off into a daughter article with a summary para left behind if we're going to start adding all this extraneous information. --kizzle (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That a CNN interviewer asked a question of Jimmy Carter that Jimmy CArter says was poorly framed doesn't seem like it belongs in a Joe Wilson biography. Here's the transcript:

• MS. CROWLEY: Mr. President, let me ask you, first, domestically, you made some remarks recently about how you felt about the protesters that were protesting against President Obama. You said overall you thought the protesters were upset that there was a black president, that there was racism involved. You said that many people --
• MR. CARTER: By the way, that's not what I said.
• MS. CROWLEY: Okay.
• MR. CARTER: I said those on the fringe element that had vituperative, personal attacks on President Obama, those were the ones that I included. But I recognize --
• MS. CROWLEY: I think your first remarks were that overall --
• MR. CARTER: No, it wasn't. If you read the remarks carefully, you'll see that that's not what I said. I said those that had a personal, vituperative attack on President Obama as a person, that was tinged with racism. But I recognize that people who disagree with him on health care or the environment, things like that, the vast majority of those are not tinged by racism.
• MS. CROWLEY: So you think they were taken out of context? You didn't mean that most of those protesters out there were racist?
• MR. CARTER: I meant exactly what I said. What I actually said, if you look at the transcript, is just what I just repeated to you.

I see no reason why this article about Joe Wilson should explain how CNN's Candy Crowley and Former President Jimmy Carter one time had a conversation where Crowley thought Carter was earlier talking about how anti-Obama protesters are racist overall, while Carter says, no he was clearly talking about a radical fringe. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit confict.

Simple answer: Multiple reliable sources report the Carter said Wilson's outburt was based on race, no reliable sources say "Carter, did not, in fact, say that after all. Therefore, it stays in until at a minimum, a reliable source disputes the earlier reporting.

Longer answer: You lay out a conceivable scenario, but for your theory of events to be true, a lot of different people would have to be independently failing at their jobs. The initial reporter would have to fail to correctly quote the former president of the united states making a very significant statement. Even if that were true, the reporter's editors/factcheckers would have had to fail to catch the error. Then, Carter and his staff would also have had to miss the fact every newspaper in the country was misquoting him, because if any of them had ever heard about it, they would have immediate made a public call for a retraction. Or, they were so bad at their jobs that they noticed Carter had been misquoted but just didn't intervene. Finally, when Carter was interviewed, he also would have forget to mention that the initial story was out and out false, or else the reporter and her editors would have had to mess up and accidently edit out the most important part of the interview.

Fortunately, I think I've got this groovy mystery wrapped up. Here's how I think it went down.

• Carter is reported to have said wilson's outburst was "based on racism"
• Some people agreed with Carter's alleged statement, other people disagreed with Carter's alleged statement.
• Gibbs says Obama does not feel that criticism is based on skin color.
• Politico interviews Carter and asks him a question this is not shown.
• The question is basically "Why makes you think recent protest rallies are based on race?"
• Carter replies that the Politico reporter's unshown question somehow misrepresented, misquoted, or misunderstood Carter's earlier remarks.
• Carter clarifies that "those that had a personal attack on President Obama as a person, that was tinged with racism, but the vast majority of "people who disagree with him on health care of the environment" are not tinged by racism.

The statement in bold is a guess, but notice how everything makes perfect sense once that guess is in place?

In any case, if you think my reconstruction of events is correct, problem solved. If you still think Carter was misquoted, you need to contact the news media and alert them to this information, so that they can vet it and fact check it and issue corrections and retractions. In the event such retractions/corrections were issued, we'd still have to mention what would be the most confusing misquote in modern political history, and infact I'm sure such a huge error by the entire media would quickly merit a whole article.

--Alecmconroy (talk) 17:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

AFAICT, all of the RSs say Jimmy Carter said Wilson's outburst was "based on racism". See, e.g., [3]. Hundreds of sources across the entire political gamut all say the same thing, which by the way Carter repeated in his one-on-one interview with Brian Williams, also reported by numerous RSs. And, according to countless RSs, Carter also called Wilson's outburst "dastardly" ([4]). If someone has found RSs that say Carter wasn't referring to Wilson when he said "it's based on racism" or when he said the outburst was "dastardly", kindly put them on the talk page. ... Kenosis (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Kizzle, I do not understand why you say it is OR to look carefully at whether what has been reported by a RS is supported by the story. As explained above, Sharksaredangerous had a point when removing my Edwards citation the first time. I don't see how it is OR to read an article skeptically, and to demand a high standard for a serious charge. As I wrote about this in my very first take on this last month, if Carter did in fact mean to say that, it could not have been something he felt very strongly. Is every offhand comment by a former president significant, even if it was reported?

Regardless of what either of us says, a multitude of RS's reported that Carson was referring to Wilson. In truth, I actually agree with you that in the soundbytes broadcast on television, he doesn't mention Wilson by name, but that's just my supposition based upon the facts. But I can't put in my suppositions, I can only put in what has been reported. It has been reported that Carter called Wilson's remarks racist, and none of our armchair theorizing can change that. It also has been reported that Carter later said he didn't necessarily think all people who disagreed were racist. I haven't seen the portion myself, and if Sharks is right and neither the setup to Carter's answer nor the answer itself mentions Wilson by name, then I'm not sure it belongs in this section. But if he is referring to his previous statements and saying he never meant to call Wilson's comments racist, both the initial reporting and the later correction should be included. Just my 2 cents. --kizzle (talk) 01:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Alecmconroy, that is an interesting theory. However, it's based on more speculation than mine. If Kizzle thinks I am doing OR, then that surely is a more obvious case.

Sharksaredangerous, if that clarification does not belong in the story then why does Carter's statement that "[t]here is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president" belong in here? The latter statement is clearly not about Wilson, but I discern that you believe it should stay. And yet a response by Carter that may address that statement directly, or may address it indirectly, should not be? Just asking.

Carter's "inherent feeling" comment is in response to a direct question about Joe Wilson, which is why it belongs in an article on Joe Wilson. Neither Crowley's question nor Carter's response were about Joe Wilson, which is why they don't belong in an article on Joe Wilson. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Kenosis, I still think you are being too quick to cite "hundreds" of sources "across the spectrum"; these sources are merely passing on prior reportage. None that I could find did any verification of either statement. This is reporting by wire service, and that is not the same thing as independent verification. If this is to remain, we should not pretend that the NBC Washington, NY Daily News or Huffington Post article are sufficient. Instead we should seek the fullest transcript from NBC News and AP. --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that the sources can be improved, especially in light of the presently persistent denial about what and who Carter was talking about. I was the editor who inserted the Huffington Post (policitcally left leaning), NBC Washington (politically centrist), and the Washington Times (politically right leaning) (here's the link--my apology for the mistake in the footnote formatting in which I failed to include in the footnote the hyperlink to the Washington Times article). Of course, we could add the New York Times (widely accused by the left of being a tool of the right wing as well as by the right wing of being biased liberal); and CBS News (also based on the Associated Press version of events); the Wall Street Journal ([5]); the San Francisco Chronicle ([6], also based on the AP version of events); the Chicago Tribune ([7]); the Washington Post (sorry, apparently no longer available online), and yes, hundreds of other printed, televised and online media, yes hundreds that are not just mirror sites but news media of widely varying political, geographic, ideological stripes, both "domestic" and international. Indeed the "weakest" link between the words "Joe Wilson" and Carter's words "based on racism" I could find wiith a somewhat more lengthy seacrh was as follows, written by another Washington Post reporter/commentator, in relevant part as follows:

"The remarks seem sure to renew the controversy over South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst that might otherwise have faded following passage of a House resolution Tuesday rebuking him for his affront to decorum by shouting "You lie!" at President Obama during an address to Congress last week.
Carter spoke directly to the Wilson matter and the 9/12 anti-government protests during a forum at the Carter Center in Atlanta, also on Tuesday." [8]

..... I call attention now to the policy WP:PSTS, because it's not our job as WP editors to be analysts of primary-source research. Again, if there are reliable sources that disagree with the apparently worldwide notion put forward by hundreds of reliable sources that Carter was responding to questions about Wilson's outburst and referring at least in substantial part to Wilson, please put them on the table. Because otherwise, this discussion is becoming a complete waste of a number of WP editors' time and effort. Thanks. .... Kenosis (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I just watched the entire 1 hour 20 minute video of the event at the Carter Center [9] The question regarding Rep. Wilson is at 48:21 - 51:24. Anyone that wants to ask a question about the context of the event as a whole, I can try to answer.

Here is the full question and answer. I typed this myself.

• What are your thoughts regarding the recent outburst by Representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina during President Obama's recent address to the Joint Session of Congress? Do you recall a similar event in your political career?

• (pause) I'm gonna be frank with you all. I think its based on racism. (applause) There's an inherent feeling among many people in this country that an African American ought not to be President, and ought not to be given the same respect as if he were white, and this has permeated politics ever since I've been involved in it back in the 1960's. Not only in the south but also in many places throughout the nation and the outburst(s?) that we see, this idealogical language, this sign that I saw on television last night, we should bury Obama with Kennedy, for instance, and Obama is a Nazi and Obama's picture with Hitler's mustache on it, those kind of things are not just casual outcomes of a sincere debate over whether we should have a national program in health care, or not, it's deeper than that and I had a long discussion about this today with Brian Williams and I think that that's what has happened unfortunately in our country. I believe it's going to be self correcting and today, as you may have, I watched the news this evening, Jim Lehrer report, and in the US House of Representatives today they condemned Joe Wilson for having made that kind of remark to the President of the United States (applause) We have to remember that this kind of thing goes on in Great Britain, in the debates in the Parliament, I've been to there and I've seen it, it's very vituperative sometimes, but that's different you wouldn't hear one of those members of the British Parliament saying that about the Queen of England, who's the Head of State, in our country it's different, the President is not only the head of our government he's also the head of state and no matter who he is or how much you disagree with his policies he oughta be treated with respect in an official forum like a Joint Session of the US Congress. I think it was a dastardly thing to do and I believe it was so bad that it's gonna be corrected by an overwhelming majority of Democrats and Republicans in the weeks to come. (applause)

I went over that several times. It's very close to what he said. As I said it is from 48:21 - 51:24 [10]. Personally, I would like to see this long discussion he had with Brian Williams. All I've seen are short videos on NBC Nightly News and MSNBC.com that do not satisfy. I'll look for that tomorrow. I believe it was taped for an upcoming special on Carter, so it may not be released right away. If anyone wants to help find it that'd be great.

Reliefappearance (talk) 04:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work Relief! Though Kenosis is right, it's helpful to know that he was in fact talking about Carter. Thanks for your help! :) --kizzle (talk) 08:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that it's excellent research, and I was remiss (in my earlier comment just below) in not explicitly stating how impressed I was. Thanks Reliefappearance for that contribution to the discussion. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, please see WP:PSTS, quoting in relevant part:

Secondary sources are at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their facts and opinions on primary sources, often to make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims.[3][4][5]
*Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims if they have been published by a reliable secondary source.
Primary sources are sources very close to an event. For example, an account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident. Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; original philosophical works; religious scripture; published notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations written by the person(s) who conducted or observed the experiments; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs. The key point about a primary source is that it offers an insider's view to an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on.[6],
*Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source.

... Kenosis (talk) 05:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying the C-SPAN video is a primary source? If so, I agree. But what is your conclusion? We can analyze it on the talk page if we wish, we just can't analyze it in the article. Reliefappearance (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying the secondary sources, countless ones that all say essentially the same thing as we can deduce ourselves from this primary source, are to be our sources in the article. And if we want, we can add this source to the secondary sources in the article without deviating from WP policy. My comments above were in reaction to the persistent and varied angles of argument and denial about the verifiability and relevance of these facts concerning Carter's comments (e.g., Mr. Bergstrom, Fight the Bias, Die4Dixie and several "anon IPs"). And yes, of course we can further analyze the concurrence, or possible lack of concurrence, of this primary source with the many reliable secondary sources. It seems clear to me that the secondary sources accurately restate what Carter said. So thanks for helping us out with your diligent research. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see. Well I agree with that. But also I see no problem actually quoting Carter and using C-SPAN and the secondary sources. For example we could include this (I realize it is a little long, but it is what he said. I tried to remove as much as possible)

• I'm gonna be frank with you all. I think its based on racism. (applause) There is an inherent feeling among many people in this country that an African American ought not to be President, and ought not to be given the same respect as if he were white, and this has permeated politics ever since I've been involved in it back in the 1960's. Not only in the south but also in many places throughout the nation and the outburst(s?) that we see, this idealogical language, this sign that I saw on television last night, we should bury Obama with Kennedy, for instance, and Obama is a Nazi and Obama's picture with Hitler's mustache on it, those kind of things are not just casual outcomes of a sincere debate over whether we should have a national program in health care, or not, it's deeper than that...()...the President is not only the head of our government he's also the head of state and no matter who he is or how much you disagree with his policies he oughta be treated with respect in an official forum like a Joint Session of the US Congress. I think it was a dastardly thing to do and I believe it was so bad that it's gonna be corrected by an overwhelming majority of Democrats and Republicans in the weeks to come. (applause)

Also, take a look at the word "outburst" Notice I put an (s?) after it. I'm not sure if he meants to say "outburst" singular, as in Wilson's outburst, or "outbursts" plural, as in general outbursts. I think there is a tinge of ambiguity here. Pres. Carter certainly said that it was "a dastardly thing to do" and I personally feel when he said "I think it's based on racism" that he was talking about Rep. Wilson, but I'm not 100 percent sure. That's not our job of course, so we use the secondary sources, but I just think we should give an accurate quote, not a truncated quote from the secondary sources. I hope that makes sense.

Reliefappearance (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Reliefappearance, speaking for myself as one WP editor I think this issue is pretty much settled, in significant part due to your diligent efforts in locating and transcribing the relevant portion of the C-SPAN video. I've tried to listen to that video to compare it to your transcription and it's presented in Adobe Flash in a format that is very difficult or impossible on many computers to snap to the approximate time period within the one-hour-and-twenty-minutes long video where the relevant material is located (nearly an hour into the video).
..... The policy WP:PSTS (part of WP:No original research) states, as it long has: "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." In my estimation, an original transcription of the C-SPAN video by a WP editor, while perhaps accurate, is a primary source, which would make WP a primary source for any quotes we pull from the transcription. The difficulties involved and the time consuming nature of the way the video is formatted by C-SPAN would require most viewers to listen to the entire video for something like an hour for each run-through to the relevant material, then start over and wait another hour if they wish to listen again, etc.
..... So I think the C-SPAN video, via your transcription of it, has adequately served its purpose by confirming, for those involved in this editorial discussion on the talk page and in related edit summaries, that the many secondary RSs we've reviewed have in fact presented what Carter said in a reliable, factually accurate manner. it seems plain that Carter's comments were directed centrally at Wilson's outburst and also included a wider swipe at an amorphous "fringe", a closer analysis of which appears somewhat beyond the appropriate scope of a brief bio article about Wilson (though perhaps appropriate in another article about issues beyond Wilson himself, if seen by WP editors as adequately notable to meet WP:NOTABILITY and other relevant WP policies and guidelines). Also, User:Kizzle has recommended breaking out a separate daughter article about Wilson's outburst, which I don't think is absolutely necessary, but it's a proposal to which I have no objection in principle ... Kenosis (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What are you actually proposing, Mr. Bergstrom? The article currently says "Former President Jimmy Carter said the outburst was "based on racism ... [t]here is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president"." Are you questioning the accuracy of this? Or do you want to add some more information that clarifies that Carter is saying Wilson's brand of racism is common only to the fringe of anti-Obama protesters, and not all protesters? Could you explain how you would reword this, Mr. Bergstrom? Maybe: "Former President Jimmy Carter said the outburst was "based on racism ... [t]here is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president" and that Wilson's racism represents "those on the fringe element." Sharksaredangerous (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Replying to Bergstrom

Don't quite know where to put this, so I'll just put it here.

Earlier, I read bergstrom's comment and gave a short answer as to why the Carter reference stays:

"Multiple reliable sources report that Carter said Wilson's outburt was based on race, no reliable sources says 'Carter, did not, in fact, say that after all.' Therefore, it stays in until at a minimum, a reliable source disputes the earlier reporting."

I also made the longer answer, in which I speculated that the question Carter replies to in the Crowley interview was probably something like: "What makes you think recent protest rallies are based on race?"

Bergstrom replied: "Alecmconroy, that is an interesting theory. However, it's based on more speculation than mine. If Kizzle thinks I am doing OR, then that surely is a more obvious case."

To which I now reply:

Of course my little theorized question was OR-- that's why I didn't suggest incorporating it into the article. I just wrote that because I wanted to try to help answer a question you had. But I want to be clear that I wasn't trying to hold myself to a double standard-- I would have just as strenuously argued against inserting my speculations into the article.

Of course, it turns out Sharksaredangerous went the extra mile and found out exactly what the question, in fact, was. "Crowley: You said overall you thought the protesters were upset that there was a black president, that there was racism involved."

So that does, in fact, lead to this groovy mystery being wrapped up. I guess all that's left is to find out who you really are, President Carter. (rip off mask) Why it's old man Nixon!!! Nixon: "And I've have gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for you meddling wikipedians."  :) --Alecmconroy (talk) 22:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

All right, I am satisfied by the facts as presented here. I don't care for the tone, but I think this settles the matter for me. --Mr. Bergstrom (talk) 00:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

We're all just chillin' like villains here Mr. Bergstrom, I don't see any tone. We all appreciate your contributions, and when you brought it up the first time I agreed with you. --kizzle (talk) 04:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)