Talk:Commission on Presidential Debates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sweet God, how did this get an automatic redirect to U.S. presidential election debates? It leads the reader to believe they are one in the same and completely glosses over the fact that the League of Women Voters were the moderators from 1976 to 1984. I'll expand on the article soon. Monkeyman 18:28, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stubbed. All comments should be sourced with reliable sourced. Danny 20:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section break

Thanks for the feedback on the Commission on Presidential Debates article, but I'm not sure what you are referring to as commentary and personal analysis. Analysis and opinion statements were properly quoted and attributed to the sources. The facts presented are well-documented and, to my knowledge, not disputed so I'm curious in what ways my contributions to the article are in violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. I don't mind being corrected or having any shortcomings pointed out, but without your input I really don't know what you are referring, why you removed a substantial amount of information from the article, and why you removed the parts you did. The information now presented lacks sources, fails to mention that the CPD refused to allow Ralph Nader -- who had a valid spectator ticket -- entry to the debates, that Nader was subsequently threatened with arrest (video footage of the exchange appeared in a documentary), or that the CPD settled a lawsuit over the incident. I believe the suit you mention is a different one, but you offered no sources. Calling the CPD a non-profit bipartisan corporation is misleading, though technically correct. It's strong connections to both the Republican and Democratic parties is well-documented and is a material fact that you removed from the article. None of this is criticism; I'm just genuinely interested in your thoughts here. We're obviously in disagreement about which facts will or will not be presented with the article. Jamie 19:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd invite you to refer to WP:NPOV, especially the part about undue weight. The version of the article after your edits was overwhelmed by a "criticism" section. Also, based on the tone and direction of your additions, it seemed clear to me that you were/are personally hostile to the CPD and your edits were mostly informed by this personal dislike. For instance:

• "Though the commission is meant to sound like an official government arm, it is actually a private entity" is extremely POV. You do not source or attribute the opinion on what it is "meant to sound" like, and your use of "though" and "actually" serve to paint a hostile picture of the CPD. My version, the one you don't like, is actually a neutral description.
• Regarding the LWV, you wrote that they "had worked to ensure that the debates were open, fair, and free from manipulation by major party campaigns." It's hardly subtle to see that you are implying that the CPD failed or did not intend to do that.
• You quoted the LWV press release at such length, when it wasn't really necessary. I can only assume based on the direction of your edits that you quoted at such length because the quote was so critical of the CPD. If it had been less critical, I expect that you would not have found it necessary to include so much. A shorter quote is sufficient to show the criticism an avoids the undue weight problem.
• "Much criticism continues to be directed at the Commission on Presidential Debates for its ties to both the Democratic and Republican parties, its corporate sponsorship, its policy of manipulating the debate environment in order to benefit the participating candidates, and its exclusion of independent candidates." Despite your assertion that all your material was sourced, this paragraph was not. It is a passive voice construction that does not describe where this "much" criticism "continues to be directed" from. It is, in fact, composed entirely of unattributed opinion.
• I have issues with your sources as well. One of them was answers.com, a Wikipedia mirror, and WP itself is not considered adequate to source other WP articles. Another of the links about the Nader matter was was to the a press release on the Green Party website. Ironically, you referred to Nader as an "independent" candidate despite the fact he was a Green Party candidate in that election.

On the matter with Nader and the ticket, I just don't think it has that much currency. It certainly doesn't reflect well on the CPD, but it also doesn't really go to their real function of running the debates. I suppose it could be relevant as far as showing hostility to third party candidates, but the relevant story seems to be that Nader was excluded and then criticized the 15% threshold as arbitrary. That material is currently in the article. Croctotheface 19:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see where you're coming from and you're certainly correct on several points. I also disagree on several points, but that's probably more of a disagreement with Wikipedia's policy of "equal weight" versus objectivity, which doesn't always lend equal weight. For instance, an article on the Nazis would undoubtedly be weighted towards war crimes and not give much attention to social programs, for instance. This would be unacceptable if we apply the logic of "undue weight" across the board because it would "unfairly" paint the Nazis in a bad light.

Yes, my research comes across as critical of the CPD, but not in the sense of being on a mission to discredit it. On the contrary, I've done the research, looked at the facts, and attempted to present them. The League of Women Voters has a history of fair and open debates; that was its purpose. The Democratic and Republican parties began interfering with this process, making all sorts of demands that benefited the candidates. This is fact. The purpose of the debates, at least the perception of the purpose, is to present the candidates and their ideas before the American public so that they can make an informed decision on who to vote for. When the League stopped hosting the debates in frustration, they essentially said that the debates had become a fraud perpetrated on the American public and this was based on its intimate experience with hosting the debates and the major political parties. The League is a credible source and its views and opinions carry a great deal of weight as a result. From a journalism standpoint, the CPD's ties to the Republican and Democratic parties and its corporate sponsorship makes it a less-than-credible organization simply because of its conflicts of interest. Pointing out that the two major political parties have a great deal of control over the debates isn't being overly critical; it is fact. The lack of an opposing viewpoint or set of facts does not make an article slanted. If there is another side, then by all means present it but don't eliminate pertinent facts simply because they reflect negatively on the CPD. If there is evidence that the CPD operates openly and independently and that those who ask questions aren't carefully screened, then present it. I'd love for the CPD to continue the open and fair traditions of the League of Women Voters and I'd love to be able to say that it does, but I didn't find any such evidence to support that view. Jamie 16:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading

This article is misleading as it states the CPD is nonprofit, bi-partisan, while its is clearly and transparently partisan and for profit: [1]. This needs to be revised to show that this is organization is usurping power from the democratic system. Much debate has been made on this issue already. Andrew (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I attempted to make this more clear with facts, quotes and citation of sources, but Croctotheface felt that this presentation of facts unfairly slanted the article against the CPD and therefore gutted the article. As a journalist, my training and experience is that you simply follow the facts and present them fairly and objectively, something I thought I had done (and I welcomed his statement that a sentence I had written had come across as a statement of opinion). However, the majority of information I provided wasn't removed by Croctotheface because it was inaccurate, slanted, or unsourced but because Croctotheface felt that the amount of information I provided created an imbalance of perspective. Apparently this means that there must be a 1:1 ratio of positive-to-negative information in a Wikipedia article. If a particular topic is overwhelmingly positive or negative (e.g. there isn't much positive information on Charles Manson) then, based on feedback from Croctotheface, the article should be edited to create an artificial balance. Jamie (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)