Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presidential prevarications (United States)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. EdJohnston (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential prevarications (United States)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a POV war just waiting to happen.

For this article to avoid permanent POV issues, at the very least there has to be some consensus standard that can be used to determine which Presidential lies make it into the article and which ones aren't notable enough. For the life of me I can't imagine what such a standard would be. Without such a standard, you don't have an article, you're going to have a chain of frequently-reverted essays on "Why President X, Who I Hate And You Should Too, Lies Like A Rug".

(This is completely apart from the issue that "prevarications" in the title of the article sounds too elaborate and cutesy, which I realize is not a valid reason for deletion at AFD.) ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article presents arbitrary information. It leaves and impression that certain presidents did not lie or tell "untruths". It is subjective in its approach. I do not think the author intends to mislead and I don't detect a slanted bias. However, the omissions are misleading and the article does not provide comprehensive information or a solid thesis. While the effort and research are good, the article should be removed. Mike x moran (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly lean toward thinking that this article is problematic, but I don't see where the person bringing it to AFD has raised any reason for removal based in WP policy or guideline. Could someone provide one? Please provide a link to the relevant policy or guideline. Otherwise, this seems like a Wikipedia:I just don't like it type argument. Locke9k (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some of my thinking for why the article should be removed:

The article does not adequately cover all presidents' untruths, so as the author states in his/her postings it is a means to keep watch on the presidents. WP is not a forum for a soap. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not

WP is not an forum for advocacy, as stated by the author "I think there's a climate of presidential worship in America, and articles like this one can help people see that presidents are merely people too, with foibles, with passions, emotional people who can and will and do make mistakes." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not

It is an original work and incomplete representation of the facts. By omission the article suggests that T. Roosevelt and W. Wilson did not lie. The subject topic is newly named and is not providing information on existing work or thinking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

I find it to be relatively well thought out and very interesting. If it was a blog or a book I would read it and LOVE to discuss and argue the points. Kudos to the author. It should be deleted from WP simply because it doesn't belong here. Mike x moran (talk) 08:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response by the article's creator[edit]

I created this article. I'm responding to these dubious challenges.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may not agree with the challenges, but they aren't "dubious". You did a fine job with the article. It is something to be proud of. The only discussion I see is if it belongs on Wikipedia. I have not seen any posting questioning your or your work in a personal way. Stating that the challenges are "dubious" is dismissive and could be considered insulting. Based on your writing and other postings I would assume that is not what you meant, but I don't presume to speak for you. 68.194.178.228 (talk) 10:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, I totally disagree with the argument "POV wars about to happen" is valid. The article has been around for a month. But there have been NO POV wars. Why? Frankly, an editor's thinking that an article is similar to another article in which there were POV wars is an example of lackluster thinking at its finest. Further, all Wikipedia articles have some kind of WP:POV issues to varying extents. Articles like United States and Foreign policy of the United States have had huge POV concerns, and people will battle over them. It's the battling itself that's a recognized part of the fundamental process why Wikipedia works, because different opinions are allowed to battle each other, and articles improve as a result. Frankly, I'm more worried about articles which don't get much debate; sometimes, stupid thinking can fester in them for years.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second, so my second point is that POV warring, if and when it does happen, isn't necessarily bad.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third, the criticism that "I can't think of what a standard for presidential lying should be" is a nebulous criteria for deleting an article. There are numerous articles in which there is disagreement about what constitutes a proper standard. And this lack of agreement, in itself, isn't enough to justify deletion. And, here's my proposed standard for what constitutes a presidential lie: (1) coverage in major newspapers (2) attention by political scientists (3) coverage by major comedians like Stephen Colbert. By this criteria, the best overall lies are Clinton's "I did NOT have sex with that woman" and Nixon's "I am NOT a crook". I think these are the two leading contenders, but I realize others may have favorites. Notice that both a Democrat (Clinton) and a Republican (Nixon) are emphasized here; this isn't about partisan politics.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth, I think this IS the PRECISE TYPE OF ARTICLE FOR WIKIPEDIA. It merits inclusion because it holds ALL presidents accountable. If they LIE, they go here in Wikipedia. It's an incentive for current and future presidents to TELL THE TRUTH. That's what Wikipedia is all about, in my view. It's important. Presidential lying, when it happens, MATTERS. The word "prevarications" by the way, was a way to avoid the harsher sounding "Presidential Lies" which, for me, sounded too judgmental and too POV-ish. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, for these reasons, my vote is:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My above four reasons: POV warring hasn't happened; if it does, we'll deal with it then and even if it does, it will probably a good thing. It isn't partisan (both R and D presidents are included). The subject of which lies to include will always be subject to debate, but it's very similar to WP:VERIFY and WP:NOTABILITY; we're talking notable lies, important ones, whoppers. The article is well referenced. Last, it holds politicians feet to the fire; if they LIE, they go in WIKIPEDIA. An incentive to TELL THE TRUTH. And, moreover, let me just say, although this ISN'T a valid Wikipedia criteria for inclusion, but it IS for me; this article is fun. :)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inherently subjective and POV. You can't sensibly create objective standards for what constitutes a "prevarication" - even "coverage in reliable sources" wouldn't do the job because genuinely reliable sources will be too cautious to call a President a liar. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a magnet for original research and personal opinion. Example: Jeferson "prevaricated" when he said he "would uphold the Constitution" in his oath of office, then he purchased Louisiana. A response could be that the opportunity to purchase Louisiana was an unforeseen opportunity, rather than a grand scheme he had in mind when he took office. Ditto for Clinton not having "sexual relations" with "that woman." There is no evidence he had coitus with her, and there was a journal article during the impeachment showing that youth in the US do not consider fellatio to be "sexual relations." It a mess now with no indication it will get better, since it is and will be mired in partisan opinion. Edison (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article's topic has severe problems with bias in that a president's detractors are likely to seize on any misstatement as being a lie, while his supporters are likely to try to seek excuses or attempt to prove that his statement was accurate or at least not an intentional lie. This problem is likely to be most apparent with regard to recent presidents such as Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, which also raises the issue of recentism. There is also an issue with regard to defining what a lie is. I would not consider a broken promise to be a lie, unless the promiser never intended to fulfill the promise. Several of the alleged lies in the article are really just broken promises, and that's not the same thing. And what do we do about things like Obama's claim to have visited "57 states" during his campaign (not currently listed in this article, but then no Obama statements currently are)? Obviously, that wasn't a true statement, but does that make it a lie per se? (The following are additional problems which may not necessarily be reasons for deletion: Note that the article currently identifies only two "prevarications" made by any of the first 31 presidents. Unfortunately, I believe it is much more likely that editors will try to supply evidence of lies by Clinton, Bush, and Obama than by Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, and James Buchanan, thus leaving this article perpetually biased toward covering lies by the recent presidents. And the article has some irrelevant material, such as Parson Weems' myth about George Washington chopping down the cherry tree, which was not said by Washington himself, but about him after his death, and Abraham Lincoln's joke about being "two-faced". Finally, the article contains an excessive number of footnotes used merely to prove the order of the presidents, which is in no dispute anyway.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also note that something like 2/3 of all of the "prevarications" listed in this article are referenced to a single article from The Atlantic (see [1]), and several of the remainder are not referenced at all. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAP and WP:ATTACK. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. Thin boy 00 @956, i.e. 21:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I tend to see problems with this page, its not clear to me from any argument made thus far how it is in conflict with any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Many of the statements in the page are cited, so its not clear to me how it is unverifiable. Furthermore, the fact that a subject is contentions or a magnet for POV wars is no reason at all to delete. Arguments that the page will be 'used' for some particular purpose are irrelevant. Can someone explain a way in which a Wikipedia policy or guideline requires deletion of this page? Can you explain how it is non-notable, unverifiable, or something else Wikipedia is not? Locke9k (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The whole point of this article appears to be to characterize various statements as lies, which seems to be a violation of the WP:NPOV policy. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just thought I'd come back and explain the "unverifiable" thing. Although it is verifiable that various "prevarications" have occurred, we cannot easily verify whether a given event constitutes a "prevarication" or not ("prevarication" isn't well defined, in a sense). Hence the article is inherently unverifiable. This comment is an anachronism (see time stamps in signatures). --Thin boy 00 @991, i.e. 22:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Need a policy? See verifiability and WP:NPOV. Edison (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Revisionists always seem to make lies out of truth and truth out of lies. Partisan cites can be found for just about any Presidental Prevacation one way or the other--Mike Cline (talk) 03:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mkativerata. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 07:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'd like to reiterate from the article creator above: "Fourth, I think this IS the PRECISE TYPE OF ARTICLE FOR WIKIPEDIA. It merits inclusion because it holds ALL presidents accountable. If they LIE, they go here in Wikipedia. It's an incentive for current and future presidents to TELL THE TRUTH. That's what Wikipedia is all about, in my view." To quote from Jed Bartlett, "there it is." This article is the creator's soapbox, and just on that alone - never mind the BLP or the POV issues - this article cannot stand. Ravenswing 09:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting idea but WP:YDIW. WP:NOT#FactCheck.org. Redirect to Almost everything a President has ever said. An infinitely large subject; we don't have articles on All crows that are black; maybe Presidential truthtelling (United States) would be a manageable size. There's only "one source," a 2007 magazine article, for the Washington "cherry tree" story being false, and it only "suggests" it "probably" is? In all seriousness, there are some books on the subject such as When Presidents Lie: A History of Official Deception and Its Consequences‎, Big Bush Lies: The 20 Most Telling Lies of President George W. Bush, The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq, Fraud: The Strategy Behind the Bush Lies and Why the Media Didn't Tell You, To Err Is Reagan: Lies and Deceptions from the President, and so on and articles like "The Contemporary Presidency: Presidential Lies" in Presidential Studies Quarterly, but as a practical matter I don't know how one would do an encyclopedia article about it, for the reasons others have stated above. Шизомби (SZ) (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite aside that, as has been accurately stated above, whether a President "lies" or not these days comes down overwhelmingly on whether he belongs to the political party for which you vote. Ravenswing 18:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the reasons others have stated above, as you accurately state above "has been accurately stated above," I agree. In fact, for the reasons stated above, I wrote "for the reasons others have stated above." So above all other reasons, for the above reasons. :-) Шизомби (SZ) (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Switching from Keep to Delete. Yes I'm coming around to agreeing with all you fine people. Yes it was fun creating it; but it will be even more fun deleting the fuc--r. I only wish we could all gather around the article and, somebody with a plunger, could blow it to smithereens. Years back, my buddies and I spent a day making this model of a fort with popsicle sticks and glue during the day; but at night, we gathered around outside, and lit it up! Such fun! Too bad Wikipedia doesn't have something similar where we could take out an article and LIGHT IT UP or somehow watch it go POOF. I always think Wikipedia should be fun fun fun, and it's too bad we can't have some fun moment where we all destroy stuff, like kicking down a sandcastle is AS fun or MORE than actually building the critter. In the future I'll probably write more articles for the express purpose of enjoying the destruction cause I think that's what's great about this weird experiment called Wikipedia. I think on some level that we can all grasp the weirdness, that creating and destroying are what's so great about life.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Forget destroy, someone, perhaps you, could write a coffee table book with this material. I'll write volume 2, Biblical prevarications!! I like the concept of your article, but wikipedia, imho, is not the proper venue.--Milowent (talk) 05:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's always Wikipedia:Subpages for experimenting or trying to develop an article that might not make it when written in the articlespace, and you can delete your own subpages as you like. Doing so in the articlespace, if you're serious, would be WP:Disruptive editing, I suspect. There might be wikis for collaborative writing of pieces that don't fit the concept of an encyclopedia, but I'm not familiar with what options might exist in that regard. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while i think we can all agree that its a well documented fact that most, if not all, US presidents have lied while in office, what makes this notable? individual instances may be notable. lying UNDER OATH is ALWAYS notable for a public figure. but this article sets up a structure that is inherently pov. Why is this subject so important? because someone wants to show that presidents are human? great goal, great website idea, lousy encyclopedia article. of course, the article name is utterly hopeless due to its unnecessary assonance, but even if changed to, say "presidential lies" what makes presidential lies specifically important? the president is held to no greater degree of honesty than any other public official not under oath, or for that matter anybody. the prez is not elected to tell the truth, but on the basis of the success of their campaign to show that they can perform the duties of prez: signing bills into law, negotiating treaties, etc. some of this may REQUIRE telling lies. its not against the law to lie, generally. I just see this as a huge effort to push a point of view. if there were numerous books and articles on the subject of presidential lies (not books which simply mention specific lies), i would say yes, write an article. Noam Chomsky would see every president since truman tried for treason. was that for lying, or for executive actions? keep the important instances in the articles on each president.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inherently subjective. One man's prevariation is another man's diplomatic hedging. Lying is a common allegation against presidents one dislikes, while never alleged against presidents one likes. I will say this article is laudably nonpartisan, but still suffers a number of problems including original research and recentism. It'd inherently non-encyclopedic. However, it would make a great web page or blog, and I would suggest the author consider that outlet instead of Wikipedia. (presidentialprevarications.com?) --MelanieN (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Melanie[reply]
Strong delete. The essay is incredible POV. Selective bolding of words show the POV. Also, the idea of counting "lies" told during public statements in the interest of national security as being the same as lies told under oath about getting a blowjob is apples and oranges. The format (the boxes) don't allow for significant comparison by differing POV's. Instead it just says "here is the truth" as a statement of fact. Was Nixon a "crook"? That would depend on how you define crook, wouldn't it? When I hear "crook", I think thief. Nixon lied. Is that being a "crook"? Depends on who you ask, but this thing simply says "he was". Runs afoul of WP:OR, WP:NPOV and possibly WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.