Talk:Fitzmas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This article was nominated for deletion on October 23, 2005. The result of the discussion was no consensus. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Robert T | @ | C 05:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


Partisan disputes[edit]

If you're going to say "Many political scientists agree that since the Democrats can't win at the ballot box because voters distrust their policies and leadership, Democrats are now trying to seize power by other means than convincing Americans to vote for them." and that Democrats are actively trying to smear candidates, at least cite some sources. A crime was committed and it is being investigated. Investigating the outing of a covert CIA Agent is not some attempt to smear Republicans.

These one liners like "Democrats hate America" and "Kerry lost, MOVE ON" are starting to get pathetic.

What does "Bush won, Kerry lost, blah, blah" have anything to do with the Plame Affair?


This shouldn't be in Wikipedia. How many inside jokes or slogans are used throughout different blogs and message boards?

Plenty of those things are on Wikipedia. Check out LUEshi for example.

Edit war[edit]

I have requested this page be protected until we can settle the dispute on this article.
205.250.146.89 01:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the protection request. WCC2005 01:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Ditch the article. It serves absolutely no purpose. Wikipedia shouldn't be another "Dictionary of Slang Terms."

Paragraph that is in dispute[edit]

What is the problem with this paragraph?

Many Republicans believe that since the Democrats can't win at the ballot box because voters distrust their policies and leadership, Democrats are now trying to seize power by other means than convincing Americans to vote for them. WCC2005 01:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

It's irrelevant to the subject of the article. 150.108.235.22 01:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Lots of things are wrong with that paragraph: weasel words ("many Republicans believe"), lack of sources, outrageous formulations ("trying to seize power"), general innuendo. --MarkSweep 01:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Not just that but it is also factually inaccurate, Democrats have nothing to do with the investigation and aren't using it as some sort of plot to seize power. The investigation was started at the request of the CIA and Fitzgerald is an independent prosecutor.--216.211.43.17

How so? There needs to be a NPOV not a liberal one.

I don't support anyone but the sentence in question is clearly POV. -- Svest 01:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™

First of all the statement includes a presumptive clause that expresses a POV ("since the Democrats can't win at the ballot box..."). Totally inappropriate in an encyclopedia. Secondly, this entry discusses the definition and origin of a specific colloquial term, not different viewpoints on a related subject (the Plame investigation). 150.108.235.22 01:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the paragraph is irrelevant to this article. If similar material were to be included in some other article, it would have to be balanced by a report of the other POV -- something like "Democrats counter by charging hypocrisy on the part of Republicans, many of whom voted to impeach or convict Bill Clinton, apparently unconcerned about using charges of misconduct to overturn the results of an election when they were the ones on the losing side." JamesMLane 03:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Locked[edit]

This article was locked with some vandalism (or some major POV content). It should be reverted to this non-POV version.
--216.211.43.17

Merged with Plame affair[edit]

IMHO this article has no lasting independent value, since the neologism "Fitzmas" only applies to the Plame affair. It should be merged into Plame affair (and I've started to do exactly that) and a redirect left here once the present page is no longer protected. --MarkSweep 01:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. It's a neologism that would never survive AfD. Guettarda 01:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I invite your attention to Lost Liberty Hotel. It's a right-wing neologism that survived Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Lost Liberty Hotel on the stated basis that it had 50,000 Google hits. I just Googled the left-wing neologism "Fitzmas" and got 51,500 hits.
As for merger, it doesn't belong in the Plame affair article because this much detail about "Fitzmas" would be clutter in the main article, which is currently 106 kb long. The way to preserve this information is to keep it in its own article, with a "See also" link on Plame affair and on Patrick Fitzgerald. (I favored merging Lost Liberty Hotel into the article about its proponent, Logan Clements, which fills only two screens, because there isn't all that much else that's notable about Clements. Obviously, however, you can't say the same about the Plame affair. There's quite a bit of other material that needs to be covered in the Plame affair article.) JamesMLane 03:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
That many hits? Wow. Sounds good to me. Guettarda 03:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
For the record - seven days later it is up to 717,000 hits. --CBDunkerson 23:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I think blogs are over-represented in Google, because of all their links. See Googlebombing. -LtNOWIS 03:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Links affect rank, but not inclusion (AFAIK). There could be just as many hits even if none of them linked to each other. There is definitely "hit inflation", though. 1,000 hits last year are more significant than 1,000 hits today. Somegeek 14:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
It may only apply to the Plame affair now, however, this prosecutor is likely to continue to other high-profile cases, and the term may re-emerge. In addition, the term has started to appear in newspaper editorials and media outlets. Holding on the merge idea until a better idea of the scope of the usage is assessed would be more prudent (71.195.130.159 01:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC))

New comment[edit]

Since the term "Fitzmas" is a liberal term the article should include a conservative point of view, for fairness, but the sentence "Many political scientists agree that since the Democrats can't win at the ballot box etc" seems to be an opinion, not a fact. "Many political scientists," which political scientists specifically, and where and when did they say this? "Voters distrust their policies and leadership..." All voters feel this way? Where and how did the author gain this information? "Democrats are now trying to seize power by other means etc," needs further proof. More concrete examples of Republican feelings toward the Plame investigation, and possible displeasure at terms such as "Fitzmas" might be provided instead. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.144.163.122 (talk • contribs) October 23, 2005.

I assume the conservative POV about the Plame affair is covered in our article on the Plame affair (which I haven't read). This article isn't about the whole scandal, but only about this particular term. I added the link to the National Review columnist's view. JamesMLane 15:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Fairness does not dictate that because 'Fitzmas' is a term used mostly by liberals (as opposed to 'a liberal term'), it must be 'balanced' by some sort of equal time provision allowing those of a conservative bent the opportunity to slander and defame liberals. Were that the case, then an entry for 'supply-side economics' should include verbiage to the effect that it is "a thoroughly discredited economic theory, the implementation of which caused massive federal deficits and the financial evisceration of the less fortunate in American society." Likewise, since 'Social Security Privatization' is a 'conservative term', language should be included in its entry indicating that it is 'a sinister plan to destroy Social Security while enriching the cronies of President Bush on Wall Street." 71.97.29.222 19:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Really, liberals need to stop harping on this so-called "Karl Rove" character, when the preceding link makes it clear that no such person exists.  BD2412 talk 22:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

This page should be deleted[edit]

Wikipedia is no place for partisan bickering. This is temporal information of a very specific nature and should only be included if this whole thing blows up further and the term makes it into popular culture. If we include this, then we have to include every other piece of garbage catch-phrase that anyone with a blog comes up with...if anything the term does not deserve its own article

--IRelayer 20:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking up coming up with "FetsaBubble" which is when Democrats get excited, but it turns out to be a bust. Or what about "NutsABusta" when a Democrat says to his friend "you were NutsABusta, for thinking Wilson was more important than he was", or maybe "PlameGameski" referring to the schemes that the anti-Cheney vipers used to cook up this problem by using partisan Wilson on purpose.... Rex071404 216.153.214.94 00:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Deleted? Why?[edit]

While the term politicaly-loaded, and comes from a particular side, it makes no sense to delete it for that reason alone 'Fitzmas' has been all over the web the past few weeks... Google returns 300,000 results. It's gone far beyond a 'catch-phrase' that some blog thought up. Wikipedia has articles about far less common terms. I mean Waluigi?

As far as Wikipedia not being a place for partisan bickering? It's going to be here regardless of what articles get posted.

Fizzlemas[edit]

Mr. Tibbs, when I wrote “explain 'Fizzlemas'" in my ES, I didn’t mean that I was calling on you to explain it. I meant it as a description of my edit. My edit explained the term by adding the point that there hadn’t been even more indictments. JamesMLane 00:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, present tense threw me off. Sidenote: Does anyone know the original source of the "Merry Fitzmas Video" that I just put up under links? - Mr. Tibbs 08:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Referenced in The Guardian[edit]

It is now referenced in an article by Gary Younge in The Guardian. [1] Please keep. – Kaihsu 14:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

A minor issue[edit]

Fitzmas is the name given by some liberal American bloggers to the atmosphere of excitement and anticipation primarily among Democrats and some others preceding the announcement of results of Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation of the Plame affair.

This seems to have it backwards. During the lead-up to October 28, nearly every use of "Fitzmas" I saw assumed that Fitzmas was coming, and that it would arrive the day Fitzgerald presented his first indictments. The "atmosphere of excitement and anticipation" itself would therefore be, at most, the "Fitzmas season." To relate it back to the holiday from whence the term came: No one would argue that, say, December 14th is Christmas, although it is certainly during the Christmas season.

I'd like to clarify this, but I don't want to mess with the lead sentence without at least opening the floor for discussion for a time. --PHenry 16:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, agreed. I'm not sure how to word it properly, but I'd agree with an attempt at doing so. — ceejayoz talk Flag of Australia.svg 03:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
"Fitzmas is a word coined by some liberal American bloggers in the atmosphere of excitement and anticipation, primarily among Democrats and some others, preceding the announcement of results of Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation into the Plame affair." Good? Wanted to change the least amount of words while still incorporating Henry's suggestion. - Mr. Tibbs 05:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I like that wording because it doesn't flat-out assert that Fitzmas was the day of the announcement, as opposed to the run-up period. The term appeared and spread so rapidly that it would be too presumptuous for us to declare definitively that its meaning was one thing rather than the other. There was at least one version of "The Twelve Days of Fitzmas", which more readily suggests a period of time as opposed to a single day. JamesMLane 07:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Transcript[edit]

So, what IS the deal with the transcript? If there is some relevant point maybe we can include it in something a bit more compact... but so far as I could see the text did nothing to further explain 'Fitzmas'. --CBDunkerson 08:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

"Fitzmas" is one aspect of the Plame affair. Available information on whether there will be further indictments belongs in that article and Rex has in fact inserted the same quotation there, where the point is relevant (athough it doesn't deserve to take up half the lead section, the way he's done it there). The "Fitzmas" article should be about the specific term and its usage. Neither the transcript nor a detailed summary of the Fitzmas Day indictment would belong here. JamesMLane

I have yielded here, but think that at Plame affair, my edit is valid. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 11:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Merchandise section[edit]

User:Rex071404 deleted the merchandise section. That part shows how the word is relevant and the links to online stores are sources. I have restored it. --waffle iron 23:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Inclusion of these links is debatable, but removing the entire section is not the proper response. The relevant policy on links is - Wikipedia:External links
It states that commercial links should not be used for advertising or sales purposes, but can be used to meet other requirements of standard practice. --CBDunkerson 00:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Correct, and the requirement applicable here is "Sites that have been cited or used as references in the creation of a text." Linking to these sites is a simple matter of citing our sources. JamesMLane 01:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

No one is debating the existance of the merchandise. What I oppose is the bad precedent of linking to vendor sites. I am certain that James would oppose me if I added details about anti-Kerry merchandise and associated links to John Kerry. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 01:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

That's apples and oranges. Here, we are documenting the development of a new phrase. Thus, the spread and popularization of that phrase via merchandising and google text ads is of note. We are not documenting the spread of the phrase "John Kerry." The links are clearly not placed for the purpose of advertising, but to document sources. Further, Rex, please stop using the falsehood "we can't supply links to merchandise resellers." As indicated by Waffle Iron above, per the rules of wikipedia, such links are allowed when used to document sources, and not to shill for products. I would also refer you to other pages such as Murphy Bed, where links to external resellers are included in the wikipedia article and are considered essential sources of information.
Linking to the Wikipages for America Blog and Cafepress as Rex has done seems like a reasonable compromise. Those articles have links to the actual sites, so if someone doubted the validity of the merchandizing they could track it down... balances the need to 'cite sources' with 'avoiding commercialization' by establishing a middle ground between the two. --CBDunkerson 13:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
That was not Rex's initial position. His initial position was to delete the entire merchandise section. In response to that, I moved to the position of restoring the section, with the wikilinks but without the external links (the position that Rex has since adopted after meeting opposition from you, me, waffle, Mr.Tibbs, and everyone else). But after reading your explanation in Talk, posted on 00:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC), I must agree with your earlier and initial judgment -- that the external commerical links are required as part of the sourcing. I've also perused other pages with an eye towards this requirement, and I note that those pages such as Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy_bed, most books and vast numerous others have external links to commerical sites, wholly fitting with the rule quoted by you above. It seems to me that these link here also meet the rule of sourcing criteria. Further, I believe a visual of what the pinata and and logos look like would be informative to the reader, although this informational function is secondary to the primary function of sourcing as per the rule requirements quoted by you. (Note, that this is by no means a comprehensive list of all resellers, but selectively chosen for the sourcing roles that they play, as relevant to informational purposes.) I do not see any copyright notices giving permission for the use of those images, so I move that a link to the site is necessary for sourcing purposes.

CBDunkerson, Rex did Not link to the Wikipages for America Blog and Cafepress, that was done on October 29 by William Graham (waffle iron). [2]. I subsequently sourced it. [3] And then it was moved to the merchandise section by an anon. [4]. - Mr. Tibbs 18:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I just saw the section still THERE after some Rex updates and assumed he'd put in the wikilinks. Still progress over removing the merchandizing section entirely. :] --CBDunkerson 19:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

External links[edit]

It looks like someone is adding articles that are critical of the Democratic response, but don't directly relate to Fitzmas. They just use the word and go on insult Democrats. See the links to the Gaurdian, Human Events Online and Townhall. --waffle iron 23:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Looks like Rex is editing back in the PoV links. --waffle iron 06:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

It also appears that at least one person thinks that Ann Coulter "is notoriously unreliable and does not deserve a wikipedia link" because she supposedly "falls below the quality and ethics thresholds, no matter how low you set them." This is not only partisan rhetoric being slipped into the editting process, but it is also blatantly ridiculous considering that there is a link to an Al Franken article. If you keep one, keep the other. If you get rid of one, get rid of the other. --Jinxmchue 02:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

"mostly unfulfilled" is accurate[edit]

Most Dems and pundits who made predicitons were counting on 3-5 indictments. That they only got one, is obvious proof that the expectations were mostly unfulfilled. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 00:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Why are you always spliting hairs to try to introduce your point of view? Adding adjectives like alledgely and such. --waffle iron 00:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Tell me this, is it true that the generally (among Dems) hoped for number of people were indicted or not? Rex071404 216.153.214.94 01:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't even waste your time, waffle. Take a look at the 3RR on Rex[5]. Put simply, it is not worth the community's time to argue endlessly over Rex's bad edits.[6] [7] -- Mr. Tibbs 07:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Tibbs - that's a super way to contribute to good faith. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 07:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Accurate, not accurate... who cares? Either way it is plainly "point of view". Heck, it's your POV about the POV of most people who were hoping for 'Fitzmas'. It can't be an absolute because some people were disappointed, some were ecstatic, and some were in between. If you were quoting poll results on the percentages which fell into each of those categories that'd be NPOV, but inserting your own opinion of how the reactions broke down is clearly not... you don't know the minds of thousands (millions?) of other people. For the record, five indictments is nothing to sneeze at... especially with all the text implies about the possibility of further charges. --CBDunkerson 10:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree there is real possibility of more charges. In fact, I posted the Fitz Q&A about that several times and it keeps getting deleted. You have just confirmed that it should go back in. As for mostly unfulfilled, 3-5 people were being suggested and expected. One was charged. 33% and 20% sound like "mostly unfulfilled" to me. how else would you phrase it? That the expectations were not in large part fulfilled is a fact. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 01:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what your take on it is, whether you fall on one side or the other of the issue, it's still POV. I'm going to have to agree with CBDunkerson's stipulation of the NPOV requirements. Here's an analogy you might understand. "Bush is an unpopular president" -- true, accurate, fact. But still POV. "Averaging the results of major XYZ, YZX, and ZXY polls show Bush has reached a low approval rating of 1%" (I know it's not 1%, but I'm using 1% to illustrate the point) -- NPOV. See the difference between POV and NPOV. Do you have a poll showing the breakdown of how many of the millions of people expected whatever indictments, and how many were disappointed/satisfied/overjoyed/something in between when the 5-count indictments of the vice president's chief of staff came out? Also note that number of indictments is not the only indicator on whether the potential or promise or expectations were fulfilled or not, especially when there is no consensus view or analyzed breakdown of the expectations to begin with.

Uh, invalid analogy. I am reporting only on the percentage unfulfilled, which is "mostly" based on the already cited expectations of the Dems. I am adding no opinion. If I said "justly unfulfilled" that would be different. Rex071404 216.153.214.94 19:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you have an NPOV analytical breakdown of what percentage expected what number of indictiments? How many people expected 30 indictments, how many expected none? What percentage expected 3, what percentage expected 5? Do you have a similar NPOV breakdown of what percentage felt elated/dismayed/blah with the results? I'm going to have to side with CBDunkerson here.

Google hits took a major drop - permanently?[edit]

Just a few days ago, I editted the section on web hits to reflect the current (at that time) totals. Google hits were under 300k. With the recent news about Fitz having to make a major correction, I checked the hits again and found that the Google hits had suddenly dropped to below 32k! Is this permanent (more or less) or some temporary quirk with Google?

Nevermind. It's back to normal. Jinxmchue 14:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Rove not charged. Fitzmas is a bust?[edit]

According to Washington Post, 06.13.2006:

Senior White House political adviser Karl Rove's successful avoidance of criminal charges in the CIA leak investigation is a huge win for the White House.
It's also a massive blow to those who had hoped that special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald's investigation would end Rove's career as a cunning and outlandishly successful Republican strategist.

Should we work this into the article somehow?

I think this article might be re-written or deleted/merged. It's completely dropped from the radar, as Google Trends shows [8]. --Hamiltonian 22:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Disagree. It's a notable bit of history, and Wikipedia is not paper. rewinn 20:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Happy Fitzmas?[edit]

Fitzmas was a real disappointment to me again this year. I asked Santa Kos for a GI Joe and instead got three packages of underwear.

198.232.63.43 23:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Re-redirect?[edit]

I propose that this be directed to Patrick Fitzgerald, rather than to the Plame Affair. bd2412 T 04:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The content that has been put here several times, and reverted each time, is a dictionary definition. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs at Wiktionary, but each sense must meet Wiktionary's CFI to be included there (unless you can come up with one broad sense covering everything). Absent that, if it's being used with respect to Blagojevich, then it should redirect to Patrick Fitzgerald, as that article covers every event to which the appellation could apply. bd2412 T 10:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)