Fight the bias

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

User Name

Hi, from a userame that has attracted a lot of negative attention, you might want to consider a change. People will hound you, stalk you, and mischaracterize your edits. You will likely find less traction for your good edits, and people will dismiss what you are saying without weighing the merits. I know from sad experience. Good luck, and happy editing--Die4Dixie (talk) 23:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Joe Wilson (U.S. politician). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Seek and heed consensus from talk pages. I will add a personal comment after this warning. tedder (talk) 02:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Fight the Bias, I wanted to add a personal note to this. You've been adding, re-adding, and deleting information to the Joe Wilson article over a protracted period of time, despite consensus against (or at least no consensus for) doing so on the talk page. Please discuss this on the talk page and do not re-add to the article unless there is consensus. If you feel the article or talk page are biased, discuss it on the talk page or take it to an appropriate noticeboard. I can suggest a couple of avenues for doing so if you would like. tedder (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Joe Wilson (audience noise etc)

To clarify the matter, I will copy the below from the talk page. (And there is more further up the page.) Please excuse any duplication of points in the following.

[From Joe Wilson talk] Reference (transcription from primary/video)

• CSPAN 25m37s into video (20 minutes into speech, near midpoint) "MISINFORMATION" section [assertion of bad faith of some critics, including "prominent politicians" BEGINS: "Still ..."]
  
• FOX NEWS/From lower-angle, includes Biden/Pelosi faces (beginning with "is false.," to focus on chamber reaction at that point)

Transcription from primary/video

Now, such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple. (LONG APPLAUSE/OVATION) Now... (APPLAUSE CONCLUDING) Now ... (APPLAUSE CONCLUDING) There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false— the reforms ... (DISAGREEMENT: STRONG, BUT MOMENTARY) ... the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally. (WILSON: YOU LIE!) (STRONG DISAPPROVAL/BOOS) OBAMA: That's not true.

Commenting here

The above is my own version of an annotated transcription of the incident. Note that in all the RS descriptions of the event, there is no mention of the negative reaction I have put in red (which is not, a chorus of boos if you listen to the video—the chorus of boos follow the "You lie!" and all reliable sources describe that as a response to the breach of protocol, not to the president's remarks—which had already had a negative reaction when first stated. Wilson's noted "you lie" was a solitary noise in response to the restatement of the issue).

I strongly believe that more context should go into the description (including the president's "a lie plain and simple" just before which placed that word emphatically in everyone's mind, and the group negative reaction after "This too is false."), but only when a reliable source describes it. (NOTE: Wikipedia editors cannot describe from primary sources.) I have spent a dozen hours looking ... and fully expect there will finally be such a description that can be cited.

Bottom line: First, understand the sequence of events (including the negative reaction after "false" ... and the silent pause that Wilson shouted into (which is why everyone noticed). AGAIN NOTE: No one was booing when Wilson shouted the infamous "You Lie!"—although he or someone may well have shouted it earlier during the commotion after "false," but there are no sources discussing that earlier shout which caught Pelosi's attention and made her turn her head the first time.) Then watch for sources that support that.

BIG PICTURE: (1) Participation on talk pages can be frustrating and often fruitless, but it must (often) be done, if for no other reason than to demonstrate one is willing to discuss, and accept when one cannot prevail (for the time being)— and (2) there are many things one would assume can be sourced, but, surprisingly, cannot (at least during the "news" phase of history). Proofreader77 (talk) 03:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

==

Your comment is nonsensical and provably false. You can watch the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgce06Yw2ro&feature=fvw Right after Obama says "those claims are false", BOOING is quite audible. This was noted in the source I provided.

Also, on the talk page, there has been much discussion of the 'racism' canard and there is no consensus. Those with ideological motivation want to add it to further attack Wilson. Those interested in keeping this website as close to unbiased as possible realize there is absolutely no reason or justification for its inclusion. As the content is at an impasse there is more justification for its removal than keeping it.

It is trumped up, fact-denying, nonsensical charges like this that keep Wikipedia from being respectable. 00:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• The negative response after "false" is clearly indicated in my transcript. But no reliable source describes that reaction (which is not a chorus of boos, but many shoutings and grumblings of various kinds ... including perhaps an earlier "You lie.") The Washington Post transcript shows BOOS after the "You lie," but not after "false.' BOTTOM LINE: When there is a reliable secondary source for a reaction to Obama's statement, we can add it. There isn't. (But I continue to look.)

• The "racist" discussion is out of proportion. But you cannot persuade anyone of that by simply deleting it.

--Proofreader77 (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The source I provided indicated that there was booing during the speech, which is what is important. The paragraph as it is written makes it sound as if everyone was listening in rapt, silent attention, and a rogue man jumped up and screamed. This isn't what happened at all. The speech was interrupted by numerous grumbles and applause breaks, and specifically directly before the 'you lie' incident there was a loud chorus of boos, grumbles, and disagreements. So there's no real reason for us to be arguing this point.

As for the 'racist' part: the problem is that you want to apply the standard to removal of content when the standard is meant for the addition of content. In addition to all the issues I and others have raised (it slants the tone of the article, it is irrelevant, it is third-party commentary, Carter recanted, and Cosby never accused Wilson of racism), your own justifications insist upon its removal: there is no consensus to add it, and you certainly cannot persuade anybody by leaving it in. 01:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)