Revision as of 18:31, 5 October 2006 editChris Chittleborough (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers9,016 edits →Republicans or Conservatives AND is that the real point?: Reply to the parts of 24.163.196.252's comment that I could parse← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 10:12, 8 October 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,013,311 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] |
(45 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown) |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{talk header}} |
|
== Headline text == |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C| |
|
==Article title== |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Blogging |importance=High}} |
|
I think the title for this article might be better as "Powerline (blog)" rather than "PowerlineBlog". The only place I see the word blog run together with powerline is in the URL www.powerlineblog.com. Elsewhere the blog is referred to as Powerline. Any other thoughts out there? ] 15:24, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism |importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Websites |importance=Low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|archiveprefix=Talk:Power Line/Archive|format= %%i|age=2160|<!--90 days-->|header={{automatic archive navigator}}|maxarchsize=100000|minkeepthreads=4|numberstart=1}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Analysis of sourcing in the article as of April 16, 2021 == |
|
After looking some more, it is written "Power Line" on the blog itself so I would propose the "Power Line (blog)" as the title of this article. ] 20:47, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When I added the notability template on April 6, I did so with the following edit summary, "Is this blog really notable? Article only cites two sources, and I'm having difficulty finding material ABOUT it." Since then {{U|XavierItzm}} has done a lot of work on the article, and added a lot of sources. Today XavierItzm removed the notability tag with the following edit summary, "Putting this one to rest. When your sources include The New York Times, The Boston Globe, CNN, NPR, Time, Politico and The Hill, among others, the goose is cooked." Now, before I added the notability tag I had seen articles in those sources ''quoting'' Powerline (or Power Line - sources spell it both ways), but not articles ''about'' Powerline, so I was curious what had been found. |
|
I went ahead and moved the page, having heard no objections. ] 02:18, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:#{{cite news |last1=JEFF JACOBY |title=Harry Reid’s racial imbroglio |url=http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/01/13/harry_reids_racial_imbroglio/ |access-date=16 April 2021 |work=] |date=13 January 2010 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20100116050702/http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/01/13/harry_reids_racial_imbroglio |archive-date=16 January 2010 |quote=At PowerLine, a widely-read conservative blog, John Hinderaker}} - Not in depth coverage ''of Powerline''. It quotes Powerline, and justifies quoting Powerline by describing it as "a widely-read conservative blog"; but it doesn't constitute ]. |
|
:(Actually, the article still has its original title. ]<small>]</small> 13:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
:#{{cite news |last1=TOBIN HARSHAW |title=Are Democrats, Too, Facing a Civil War? |url=https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/06/weekend-opinionator-are-democrats-too-facing-a-civil-war/ |access-date=16 April 2021 |work=] |date=6 November 2009 |quote=And not from conservative bloggers, either. John Hinderaker of Powerline thinks a rebellion on the fringe may hurt centrist Democrats}} - Again, is not ] ''of Powerline''. Mentions it in passing while quoting it. |
|
|
:#{{cite news |last1=Jason Cohen |title=Holder Holds the Voting Line at LBJ Library |url=https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/holder-holds-the-voting-line-at-lbj-library/ |access-date=16 April 2021 |work=] |date=14 December 2011 |quote=John Hinderaker at the conservative blog Powerline also enjoyed the symbolism of Holder speaking at the LBJ Library, albeit for very different reasons: “Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act in 1965—Holder’s intended reference—but he is also associated with voter fraud.”}} - Same situation as the first two. |
|
|
:#{{cite news |last1=CHRISTOPHER BEAM |title=The Mourning After |url=https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2007/04/bloggers-on-the-virginia-tech-shootings.html |access-date=16 April 2021 |work=] |date=17 April 2007 |quote=Conservative John Hinderaker at Power Line Blog argues that normally there’s “nothing wrong”}} - Same as the first three. |
|
|
:#{{cite news |last1=JOHN BOWDEN |title=CNN's Tapper battles GOP senator over mean tweets |url=https://thehill.com/homenews/media/542815-cnns-tapper-battles-gop-senator-over-mean-tweets |access-date=16 April 2021 |work=] |date=11 March 2021 |language=en |quote=Cornyn tweeted, quoting the right-leaning Powerline blog}} - Again, no significant coverage of Powerline. |
|
|
:#{{cite news |last1=ARI SHAPIRO |title=Bloggers Fire Away on Miers Nomination |url=https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4944181 |access-date=16 April 2021 |work=] |date=4 October 2005 |quote=ARI SHAPIRO reporting: John Hinderacker spent yesterday criticizing President Bush on the political Web site powerlineblog.com}} - This one comes closer. But it's still essentially a quote and a brief (one sentence) description of the website rather than significant coverage. |
|
|
:#{{Cite magazine| title=Blogs Have Their Day| first=Unmesh |last=Kher |date=December 19, 2004| url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1009913,00.html| magazine=]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120504024550/https://time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1009913,00.html|archive-date=2012-03-04|url-status=dead}} - This seems like an excellent source for this article. It is in-depth significant coverage in a reliable source. So here's one. |
|
|
:#https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2007/02/016571.php - Not ], so doesn't contribute to notability, but fine for establishing some general facts. |
|
|
:#http://web.archive.org/web/20070304000738/http://newsbloggers.aol.com/category/power-line/ - See above; doesn't contribute to notability as not independent, but fine for establishing the fact that AOL included them. |
|
|
:#https://www.politico.com/news/stories/0607/4483_Page2.html - We're back to failing significant coverage. It's mentioned on a list of blogs they should talk to. |
|
|
:#{{Cite news |
|
|
| url=http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0607/4483_Page2.html |
|
|
| title=GOP issues rules to avoid Macaca moments |
|
|
| first=Carrie |last=Budoff Brown |date=June 13, 2007 |
|
|
| work=]}} - not significant coverage |
|
|
:#{{cite news |title=How Not To Discredit A Poll |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-not-to-discredit-a-poll/ |access-date=16 April 2021 |work=CBS News |date=23 June 2009 |language=en |quote=John Hinderaker at Power Line, a prominent conservative blog, pushed back}} - again, this is not significant coverage, even though they are quoted at length in the article, the article is not about them. |
|
|
:#{{cite web |title=‘‘Rathergate’’ |url=https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/tags/rathergate.html |website=] |publisher=] |access-date=16 April 2021 |date=2007 |quote=Of course your most famous bump-up in recognition came during the 2004 election. Can you just lay out the story for us? I called that post "The 61st Minute,"}} - This one is interesting. It is an interview with the bloggers about the impact the blog had on a specific story. General consensus on Misplaced Pages (which I disagree with, btw, but that's neither here nor there) is that interviews with article subjects do not contribute to notability as they are not ]. |
|
|
:#{{Cite web| url=http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2004/09/007699.php| title=The sixty-first minute| first=Scott |last=Scott Johnson |date=September 9, 2004| publisher=Power Line}} - Again, not ]. |
|
|
:#{{cite news |title=Courthouse Shooting in Seattle; Bolton Nomination Before the Senate ... Again; The Hunt of Osama bin Laden Continues; Saddam and the Downing Street Memo in the Blogs |url=http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/20/ip.02.html |access-date=16 April 2021 |work=] |date=20 June 2005 |quote=over now to Powerlineblog.com. This is the three conservative lawyers who blog over here and maintain this site. They were the ones who were widely credited, along with their readers, with really blowing what is called in the blogosphere as Rathergate, those CBS documents last year about Bush's National Guard service.}} - more coverage of that specific incident. |
|
|
Now, each of these sources serve a purpose in the article as it stands and I'm not advocating for removing any of them, but the only one that really meets the "{{strong|significant coverage}} in {{strong|]}} that are {{strong|] of the subject}}," requirement of ] is the article in ''Time''. Or, as I said in my original edit summary, "I can't find articles ''about'' Powerline". ~ '']''<sup>(]|])</sup><small>]</small> 17:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why are you blocking me? ] (]) 17:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
== POV == |
|
|
|
|
|
I toned down what I perceived to be some excessive POV, especially among the adjectives previous to my most recent version of this subject. |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm open to discussion - but it seemed to me to be pretty clear-cut. |
|
|
|
|
|
] 02:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Prior version focused on only 2 issues of policy disagreement with Bush Administration, where encyclopedia should list all major agreement and disagreement. H. Meirs Esq. not a policy position. More encyclopedic now. |
|
|
] 05:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)getterstraight] 05:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== September Rewrite == |
|
|
|
|
|
Someone cleaned this up and made it much higher quality and less partisan. Good job. However they also removed accurate information on the overall tone and content trend of this blog, reducing the accuracy of the article. To say the blog "generally" supports the Bush Administration is inaccurate; quantifying their supportive vs critical posts - even including the H. Meirs and Immigration debate periods - shows well over 9 to 1 are supportive. Furthermore, pro-Adminstration and/or anti - Bush critics content make up over half the posts since 2002. Also, they routinely attack the character of their political opponents - an important aspect of the blog. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Power Line vs Jimmy Carter == |
|
|
|
|
|
I've just expanded this paragraph. Here's the old version: |
|
|
:Power Line was criticized for describing former US President Jimmy Carter as being "on the other side" <font color=#6A6>which was interpreted to mean 'sympathetic to terrorists'</font>. Hinderaker later clarified his criticisms but went on to say Carter was "aligning himself with America's enemies" and had "never met an anti-American dictator he did not like." He called Carter "a disgrace"<font color=#6A6>, and later a "nut"</font>. |
|
|
I've left out the bits shown in green, partly because my version is already too long. |
|
|
*Does anyone have a citation for the "interpreted to mean 'sympathetic to terrorists'" bit? If so, we probably should add it back. |
|
|
*Scott Johnson called Carter a nut in the headline of . Fairness requires putting the insult into context, but that post is hard to summarize. Have the Powerliners called Carter a nut in other posts? |
|
|
Comments, edits, etc are welcome. Cheers, ]<small>]</small> 15:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC) <small>Edited 12:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
:Yes if you do a "Carter nut: search 18 hits come up, including this very srong reference; http://powerlineblog.com/archives/008247.php#008247 They have attacked Carter personally dozens of times {{unsigned|Getterstraight}} |
|
|
|
|
|
::The only use of the word "nut" in that post is in the sentence: |
|
|
:::It's hard to say who's nuttier, Carter or Matthews. |
|
|
::That sentence and the headline mentioned above would be well within the bounds of normal political discourse here in Australia. I know we're less polite than Americans, but I didn't think the difference was that great. |
|
|
'''Well,''' it is an American site, frequently referenced and described in this article as influential. Political politeness in Australia is not germaine.] 06:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Anyhow, I've moved the newly-added sentence here for discussion: |
|
|
:::The site had labelled Carter as "a nut" and referred to him as "Mr Peanut" |
|
|
::Given that we say they wrote that Carter was "on the other side", does them calling him a nut have much significance? |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Yes''' it is significant indicator that a site has frequently attacked a former and still living president, and does so in this fashion - especially one held in regard as reputable and erudite. It is a significant indicator of the views and expressive tone. As stated already it is a repeat accusation.] 06:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Also, should that be "had labelled" or "has labelled"? Cheers, ]<small>]</small> 09:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Removed "And Mirengoff added" section as it belabors the point, that already comprises a significant part of the article. ] 06:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Schiavo memo == |
|
|
I've rewritten the text about the Schiavo memo. It now links to our articles on ], ] and (gasp!) ]. Also, it now uses quote from Powerline itself, rather than tendentious "summaries". |
|
|
|
|
|
I've retained the final sentence: |
|
|
:Critics accuse Power Line of using innuendo and guilt by association on this and other occasions. |
|
|
but put a "citation needed" tag on it. There ought to be plenty of URLs for ''that'' statement! But I'm going to bed, so someone else can look for them. |
|
|
|
|
|
Cheers, ]<small>]</small> 18:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I've now shortened that section by summarising the 3-para quote, as discussed at ]. ]<small>]</small> 01:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== the Churchill of our times == |
|
|
|
|
|
I've removed the bit about Powerline calling George W. Bush "the ] of our times", because they haven't, at least not on the blog. (I used the blog's search facility to find all occurrences of "of our times". I used Google to double-check. The phrase "Churchill of our times" never appeared.) |
|
|
|
|
|
I've also asked for a citation for them calling Bush 44 a "genius", in case the word comes from a sentence like "The genius of the Bush campaign ...". |
|
|
|
|
|
Cheers, ]<small>]</small> 01:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Hinderaker wrote a lengthy post abput Bush being an unrecognized genius, another about his genius on the environment, and has posted other glowing posts about incredible insight. Youmust not have looked far. ] 06:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I found about the environment in which JH calls Bush a "man of extraordinary vision and brilliance ''approaching'' to genius" (emphasis added) then admits he was being deliberately ]. There are 3 posts containing the words "incredible" and "insight", but none mention Bush. There are lots of posts containing the word "genius", mostly attached to Karl Rove and prefixed by "evil". Please supply links. Thanks in advance, ]<small>]</small> 11:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Guilt by Association == |
|
|
|
|
|
In the "Schiavo Memo" section, we say that "Critics accuse Power Line of using innuendo and guilt by association on this and other occasions." I'm sure this is true, but we should try to find links for such accusations. |
|
|
|
|
|
I tried googling for <code>+(powerline OR "power line") +"guilt by association" -site:powerlineblog.com</code> |
|
|
but found nothing in the first 120 hits. (Most of the hits are righty blogs accusing Democrats of guilt by association.) Can someone with more patience or better "google-fu" help out? |
|
|
|
|
|
Cheers, ]<small>]</small> 03:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Non sequiturs and softening accurate statements (apologists?) == |
|
|
Some editor(s) keeps adding statements that are extremely obvious, do not increase accuracy, make run-on sentences and difficult reading. Examples: the three lawyers "sometimes disagree with each other" With over 5000 posts and as grown men, why even say it? ] 06:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Republicans or Conservatives AND is that the real point? == |
|
|
|
|
|
A recent edit removed the text shown here in green: |
|
|
:Another ''Power Line'' hallmark is vigorous criticism of ] and liberals <font color=#080>(and sometimes ) |
|
|
I'm putting it back because (aside of the parentheses mismatch and the irrelevant link) it tells readers something important about the Powerliners: ''they are conservatives first and Republicans second.'' (Another way to make the same point is that they wanted ] to beat ] in the recent primary.) For us to come out and say that directly would be ]; the "and sometimes Republicans" bit is quite encyclopedic and demonstrates the point instead of stating it ("show, don't tell"). Cheers, ]<small>]</small> 12:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I think you have now completely revealed yourself CWC, . You "put it back" for a weak objective reason. In a blog that is VERY STRONGLY THEMATIC you have found an incident (or have you found two?) outside the theme. In contrast I offer statistical analysis and request that the article define that very strong theme You change it for the reason you described above - a reason weak on its face. '''Again''', in a blog with a highly consistent point of view, what relevance is the occassional, no - very occasional, relief from the theme? Is the fact that Genghis Khan once left a an Afghan Prince's home intact worth 8 or 9% of the recounting of his significance in history. No. What compels you to clutter the article with this trivia - have you realized their theme i sstronger than you like and now you want to soften the immage they have chosen on their own? The blog is statistically very very very supportive (nearly 3log) of the BA and very very very negative in its treatment of those not supportive of the BA (4+log). If you disagree - offer some evidence. All I ask is that is describes as what is objectively obvious. |
|
|
:I removed the insignificant material because - it is insignificant |
|
|
:{{unsigned|24.163.196.252}} |
|
|
|
|
|
::(I've signed and wikified the preceding comment.) |
|
|
::The fact that Power Line, like most political blogs, is driven more by ideology than by party loyalty is not at all trivial. It's an interesting and important aspect of the impact of Internet technology on politics. It's the same phenomenon saw Ned Lamont defeat Joe Lieberman in the primary. |
|
|
::Does "3log" mean 3 ]? If so, 24.163.196.252 is claiming that at most 5 Powerline posts criticised Republicans, an incredible assertion. |
|
|
::Cheers, ]<small>]</small> 18:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
When I added the notability template on April 6, I did so with the following edit summary, "Is this blog really notable? Article only cites two sources, and I'm having difficulty finding material ABOUT it." Since then XavierItzm has done a lot of work on the article, and added a lot of sources. Today XavierItzm removed the notability tag with the following edit summary, "Putting this one to rest. When your sources include The New York Times, The Boston Globe, CNN, NPR, Time, Politico and The Hill, among others, the goose is cooked." Now, before I added the notability tag I had seen articles in those sources quoting Powerline (or Power Line - sources spell it both ways), but not articles about Powerline, so I was curious what had been found.
Now, each of these sources serve a purpose in the article as it stands and I'm not advocating for removing any of them, but the only one that really meets the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," requirement of General notability is the article in Time. Or, as I said in my original edit summary, "I can't find articles about Powerline". ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 17:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)