Talk:Halftime in America/Archives/2015

"Chicago-style politics"

This passage is of questionable weight. It's addition appears to be only to create a link to a questionable article discussing the use of the phrase to attack the Obama presidency, not the more general use of the phrase. It seems this should link to Chicago-style politics not Chicago-style poltics (meme) if it exists at all.Springee (talk) 11:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The content is a significant viewpoint prominent in multiple reliable sources, including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, International Business Times, the Los Angeles Times, and others; please see WP:DUE.

In February 2012, Rove said Chrysler's Halftime in America Super Bowl advertisement featuring Clint Eastwood was a sign of Chicago-style politics.

1. Peters, Jeremy W.; Rutenberg, Jim (February 7, 2012). "Republicans See Politics In Chrysler Super Bowl Ad". The New York Times. p. A13. Retrieved September 5, 2015. "The leadership of auto companies feel they need to do something to repay their political patronage," Mr. Rove said on Fox News, where viewers of the network's morning program "Fox & Friends" rated the ad their least favorite of the game. "It is a sign of what happens when you have Chicago-style politics, and the president of the United States and his political minions are, in essence, using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising."
2. Bennett, Jeff; Vranica, Suzanne (February 9, 2012). "Corporate News: Super Bowl Ad Goes to OT --- Chrysler, Dealers Deny 'Halftime' Ad Was Political; Furor Draws Web Shoppers". The Wall Street Journal. p. B2. The following day, the advertisement became fodder for talk shows after Republican commentator Karl Rove said he was offended by the commercial. He described it as "a sign of what happens when you have Chicago-style politics and the president of the United States and his political minions are, in essence, using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising."
3. Weiner, Rachel (February 6, 2012). "Karl Rove 'offended' by Clint Eastwood's Chrysler ad". The Washington Post. Retrieved September 5, 2015. "I was, frankly, offended by it," said Karl Rove on Fox News Monday. "I'm a huge fan of Clint Eastwood, I thought it was an extremely well-done ad, but it is a sign of what happens when you have Chicago-style politics, and the president of the United States and his political minions are, in essence, using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising."
4. Rivoli, Dan (February 6, 2012). "Clint Eastwood Super Bowl Ad is Chrysler's Pay Back for Auto Bailout: Karl Rove". International Business Times. Retrieved September 6, 2015. I was, frankly, offended by it. I'm a huge fan of Clint Eastwood. I thought it was an extremely well-done ad, he added. But it is a sign of what happens when you have Chicago-style politics and the president of the United States and his political minions are, in essence, using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising and the best wishes of the management, which is benefited by getting a bunch of our money that they'll never pay back.
5. Horsey, David (February 8, 2012). "Clint Eastwood's Super Bowl ad riles Karl Rove". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved September 7, 2015. Rove said he was offended. He said it was Chicago-style politics at work.

Hugh (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Whereas the Republican machinery's reaction to this is probably relevant, the statements of a single individual like Karl Rove are not by themselves noteworthy. They don't particularly elucidate the subject, they seem more pertinent to Rove's agitation against Obama than anything related to the Clint Eastwood commercial. With Bush leaving office, Rove became a sidelined former behind-the-scenes operative, not somebody who is shaping much of anything. Moreover, if we're quoting him directly, we can't include a Wikilink at all because that violates MOS — the quote itself doesn't have a wikilink, so we cannot add one inside the quote marks". If we do link, it should be to the main Wikipedia article about the subject, not a pipe to something more specific. Also, I see that there is a newly introduced, redundant over-use of quotes within the footnotes. Quotes need only be used when sourcing something dubious that needs further clarification or support, not just to get a quote that doesn't belong in the body of the article into the footnotes. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Excerpting a reliable source in a quote in a ref is a good faith effort to contribute to an in progress discussion of sourcing and noteworthiness WP:AGF. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Anyway, the quotes in the refs are redundant and overused, and my first take is that the Rove quotes are not of due weight or relevance to include in the article. I'll go ahead and fix that in the article. If you want to discuss them you can reproduce them here. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

For the benefit if all colleagues contributing to this discussion of due weight, kindly leave the excerpts from the multiple noteworthy reliable sources in the references in place for the duration of this discussion. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

They're right up there, at the beginning of this talk page section. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• It is very likely the only reason this WP:COATRACKing was done was to try to add some links from other articles to a recently created WP:CONTENTFORK. The original article, Chicago-style_politics is of questionable notability. The one this article links to, the one about a "meme" is highly questionable. The recent edits here were not done because they enhance this article (or several of the other recent articles which had the same changes). They were done to create links to the POV fork article. Springee (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Please respect our community's standards for talk page behavior and focus on content and assume good faith and refrain from speculation about the motives of your colleagues. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• After reviewing the sources, I think that counter to my earlier statements Carl Rove's opinion of the commercial, and his use of the "Chicago-style politics" soundbite, are on the margins worth including. They add to an understanding of the political ripples occasioned by the commercial. Although a relatively small incident in of itself, the whole commercial is only of fairly low notability. Perhaps not significant to the life and times of Rove, Eastwood, Obama, or the American automotive industry, but as a telling of the little story of this one commercial, they are part of the narrative. They're certainly at least as important as the digital manipulation of protest signs in terms of weight — I edited that one down to one paragraph instead of two. I think we should link to the main expression, not the Obama meme, because the sources don't really make that distinction. It's a little WP:OR-ish for us to make that presumption. That meme article probably ought to be merged into the main Chicago-Style Politics article, but that's beyond the scope of discussion here. Also, as I was saying above, it's unnecessary and awkward — not typical Wikipedia style — to add a quotation from five or so different source articles to establish the weight of one particular statement somebody made. If it's sourced, it's sourced. The quote is in the articles, so readers can follow the links to read it for themselves. I've updated the article accordingly. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• As an FYI, I have mentioned the edits HughD added to this article in my WP:AFD discussion of the Chicago-style_politics (meme) page [[1]]

I am in strong agreement that the discussion of "chicago-style politics" should be removed from this article (and the others where it was recently added) Springee (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Please understand our community's standards for talk page behavior and focus on content and depersonalize your comments. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)