Many thanks to those who keep on eye on the Wikipedia entry on conservative Democrats.
This of mine has been left up:
"In South Carolina in 2008, the Democratic candidate for United States Senator is Bob Conley, a traditional Catholic and a former activist for the Presidential candidacy of Ron Paul."
However, I have just had to restore the following, equally uncontroversial but nevertheless deleted:
"Conley is expected to do well not least because so many African-Americans will be voting for the ticket with Barack Obama on it, while conservative votes for the ticket with Conley on it will also help Obama in what is expected to be a very close Presidential Election. Conley's moral views are in any case closer to those of many or most African-Americans than are those of Obama.
Nationwide, the morally conservative Black church will be key to getting out Obama's vote in 2008."
These statements are comparable to observing that the sun rises in the east. Nobody at all disputes that they are the facts of the matter. Yet they are intolerable to Wikipedia's editors. Why?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What do you mean by "Wikipedia's editors"? You are one of Wikipedia's editors. According to the revision history for this entry, the person who removed your words was removing "unsourced speculation" - which seems fair enough, in the circumstances. Give a source, and it won't be taken away again.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't need a source. Come on! If it does, then what the hell else does?
ReplyDeleteAnd I doubt that it will be taken away again after this. If so, then only once. After that they'll get bored, and realise that I am not going to go away.
So, which do we think that they are, "liberal" Democrats or "conservative" Republicans? And why?
In general, any factual claim which might be disputed ought to be footnoted. Wikipedia has a problem with political partisans of all persuasions putting up factual claims which seem obvious to them but could be disputed by opponents, so they're often fairly strict about it. Seems fair enough to me, and it's hardly unreasonable to ask you to source it if you can be certain it's true, is it? After all, if it's true then you'll be able to find evidence.
ReplyDelete"It doesn't need a source. Come on! If it does, then what the hell else does?"
ReplyDeleteAnd that, David, in a phrase, is your entire problem. Things that may be self evident to you must be, in your view, obviously self evident to other people And you therefore see no need to explain, justify or evidence your claims - to your detriment as a serious commentator I'm afraid.
To deconstruct this precise paragraph:
Conley is expected to do well not least because so many African-Americans will be voting for the ticket with Barack Obama on it
[source needed]
while conservative votes for the ticket with Conley on it
[source needed]
will also help Obama in what is expected to be a very close Presidential Election.
[source needed]
Conley's moral views are in any case closer to those of many or most African-Americans than are those of Obama.
[several sources needed - Conley's views, most African American's views, Obama's views]
Nationwide, the morally conservative Black church will be key to getting out Obama's vote in 2008
[source needed]
I'm not arguing whether you're right or wrong, merely that you haven't *proved* anything. Do you see? I fear you don't.
I don't know anything about this topic, and so your claims are certainly not self-evident to me. I think you should provide some sort of evidence for them, such as would satisfy a previously uninformed, but now interested, amateur. Like me.
ReplyDeleteWhere to begin? Which of the following is even vaguely contentious:
ReplyDelete- That blacks will be voting the ticket with Obama on it, and conservatives the (same) ticket with Conley on it, so that each is good for the other?
- That the moral views of a traditional Catholic are closer to those of many or most African-Americans than are those of Barack Obama (an upper-middle-class liberal lawyer and academic who is not an African-American in the original or ordinary sense of the term)?
- That the Black church is morally conservative, is the heart and soul of the Black community, and in that latter capacity is a key part (indeed, probably the single most important part) of the Obama electoral machine?
When Obama wins, he is going to owe people who demand both social justice and traditional family values. He will not get a second term unless he has paid that debt. Everyone knows this. Which is, I expect, why you can't say it.
David - read Obi and Gavin's comments again. And think about them. And then have some self awareness, and realise that what you think is self evident may not be to other people. If you defend and explain your position, you may well gain converts. If you simply refuse to believe that there is any other side of the argument, then you won't.
ReplyDeleteAnd in this example, if it's all so obvious, then it should be easy to explain.
All three of them look contentious to me. At the very least, they all require evidence. Certainly they make very suspicious-looking generalisations about the views and future voting decisions of "blacks".
ReplyDeleteHypothetically, David, do you think the following brief paragraph ought to have sources, if it were in a reference work like Wikipedia?
ReplyDelete"The British People's Alliance plans to stand candidates in every region in the 2009 European Parliament elections. They are expected to win wide support from traditional working class voters, as well as from Catholics and black voters, who share values which are widely held across the country and embodied in the policies of the British People's Alliance, but which are not adequately represented by the Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat parties."
Graham, no, hypothetically, I can't see a problem, although I'd include several other categories of voter as well.
ReplyDeleteI'd be very surprised if there were a BPA entry. If there is, then it's not by me.
I know that the rest of you are playing Devil's Advocate. Let's just see how long my words stay up this time, shall we?
Really? Who on earth expects the BPA "to win wide support from traditional working class voters, as well as from Catholics and black voters"? You'd certainly need a very credible source for that, because it seems absurd.
ReplyDeleteCompared to what?
ReplyDeleteWhat compared to what?
ReplyDeleteAbsurd compared to what?
ReplyDeleteAbsurd compared to voting for parties that despise them and everything that they believe in, and which refuse to consider them (all three of the categories listed, in all three parties' cases) as candidates?
Hardly!
David, do you think that the "is expected" in your Wikipedia entry on conservative Democrats, and the "is expected" in the hypothetical paragraph on the BPA, are of equal status? In other words, is it equally reasonable to think that Conley will do well for the reasons you give, as it is to think that the BPA will do well for the reasons the paragraph gives?
ReplyDeleteTo put it another way, does Conley have about the same chance of success as the British People's Alliance?
I just checked, and your Wikipedia amendments have been removed, on the following grounds:
ReplyDelete"Sorry, Wikipedia requires a recognised authority for such opinions, find one and cite him/her, otherwise they are considered "Original Research", and bloggers do not count either"
Looks fair enough to me.
God knows. And He hasn't told me.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, it's a meaningless comparison: Conley is one candidate, not a party.
And just in case you had forgotten, you yourself made up the BPA paragraph. It is not really on Wikipedia.
I'll just keep going back. They are determined not to admit these things. They are in for the shock of their sweet lives when Obama wins.
ReplyDeleteOf course, if Obama does win, then you'll be able to put some of those claims into the past tense, with proper sources from voting data. I'm sure they'll be accepted then. I'm not sure why you think these people are anti-Obama, though - I don't see any evidence to think that's the case. Do you have a source?
ReplyDeleteOf course it isn't on Wikipedia. But I was interested that you think it's factual, whereas I think it's laughable.
ReplyDeleteYes, Graham, we know that (as you really mean) you think that working-class people, black people, Catholics and various others are "laughable", and might not really exist at all.
ReplyDeleteAs long as they are given, and that in an organised and systematic way, no one to vote for, then they might as well not exist.
But those days are coming to an end, Graham.
They are not anti-Obama. They are anti the people who are pro-Obama, with whom neither they nor he agree about various key points. They woyld rather that this weren't mentioned.
ReplyDeleteSomething similar would have happened if Clinton had been the nominee: she had an appeal to poor whites, also well to her left economically, and also much more conservative than she on moral and social issues.