Talk:Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy

Untitled

Does anyone know if Bush/Rove used this quote against John Kerry during the 2004 election? And if he didn't, wow, what a great opportunity he missed! I voted for Kerry, but it is kind of funny that he is a senator who tried to compare himself to JFK for having the same initials and being Catholic. And that Quayle was Bush Sr's VP. -Wizard1022 00:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Although others compared Kerry to Kennedy, I don't know of any instance of Kerry doing so. Do you have a citation? Dlabtot 19:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Title?

Is there a reason that this article is title under "you are no" while even the body of the article only uses "you're no"? Wouldn't it be more accurate to move this article to the current re-direct of Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy instead? JnB987 16:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Concur with move. Robert K S 11:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• Also concur Gracenotes^T § 15:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Eh, it seems like some transcriptions are split between "you are" and "you're". However, more use the former, and more references to this line use the former. Gracenotes^T § 23:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I mean, the latter. I'm going ahead and moving this. Gracenotes^T § 03:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem with footnote

The superscript "1", like for a footnote, about Brokaw and Mike Barnacle, doesn't link to anything.

I heard that statement. It was on the Democratic Presidential Candidate Debate on MSNBC last week (2 weeks ago maybe?). I'm not sure how to cite it correctly or I would. I think it deserves more than a passing reference because, if true, it means that a politician *gasp* lied. -- 12.116.162.162 17:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it actually wouldn't mean that he lied at all. He didn't say he had a personal relationship with Kennedy; he said that he served with Kennedy and knew him. You can know a co-worker without having a personal relationship with them. That's the case of millions of people with their colleagues or bosses and many people in Congress.--Gloriamarie 19:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Bentsen claimed to be "a friend" of JFK. You can't be "a friend" without a personal relationship. There are many pairs of people in congress who are not friends with each other. Jamesofengland 17:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Found the original transcript. It clearly claims that he didn't know him, which would contradict Bentsen's statement that he knew him. Jamesofengland 01:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Based on the number of years they served together in the House, the probability of them not knowing each other approaches the vanishing point. I'd be amazed if they didn't serve together on any committees. Brokaw wasn't merely spreading an unsubstantiated rumor -- he was spreading a lie. Dlabtot 00:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This seems like quite a strong statement. They were together in the House for 4 years, during which time JFK was on two committees, Labour & Education and DC.[1] I don't know if Bentsen was on either of these, but it certainly doesn't seem as if it would be "amazing" if he were not. He was even more junior than JFK. Assuming he matched JFK's achievement of two committee positions, with 18 committees there'd be a roughly 79% chance that they did not share a committee.Jamesofengland 17:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be included at all... it's a second-hand account of an anonymous accusation.... certainly not encyclopedic Dlabtot 06:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I've located the transcript. The claim was by Dave Powers, who was a close friend and special assistant to JFK, and who was then in a good place to be able to conduct the research as he was running the JFK library.Jamesofengland 01:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is no record of Powers making any claim. There is a record of Brokaw making a claim. Dlabtot 01:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Brokaw Brouhaha

I've made two alterations in this regard.

• Removed "perhaps dishonestly". This is editorializing and not proper style in any case. A better way to say this, if it needed to be said, would be to have another sentence beginning, "However, xxx has claimed..." etc., etc. Directly attributable phrasing is easiest to monitor for accuracy.
• Changed Powers claimed that research confirmed that Bentsen never even knew Kennedy to Powers claimed that his research could not confirm that Bentsen even knew Kennedy. This is simple logic; no amount of research can "confirm" a negative claim like that. However, one's research can tellingly fail to confirm it, and if the research is extensive, such a failure can be taken as the same as confirmation of the negative.

Hope this meets with everyone's approval. Kasreyn 04:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well it is an undeniable fact that Bentsen and Kennedy served together in the House for six years. The idea that they did not know each other seems pretty far fetched, don't you think? Let's not forget that this is a third-hand telling of the story - Powers supposedly told Barnicle who told Brokaw who told us... Dlabtot 04:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly why I tried to make it clear that WP was not the one making this (in my opinion ridiculous) claim. That Brokaw himself would even repeat something so ludicrous on the air saddens me. Thank you for adding the information on their service records. Cheers, Kasreyn 01:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Bentsen and Kennedy did not serve together in the House for 6 years, they served together in the House for 4 years. I've talked to representatives who were not familiar with other representatives (my focus is a fairly specialised area of law that most reps don't pay close attention to, which is why I end up talking about some of the more obscure reps more often). There's 435 of them, and most of them spend most of their time away from the house. I don't know if you're basing your claim on an idea that the House was more collegial in the '40s than it is now, but JFK was a socialite Catholic New Englander, Bentsen a relatively socially conservative Presbyterian Texan. It seems entirely plausible to me that they did not have much contact, as it apparently did to Mr. Brokaw. Powers was in a perhaps uniquely strong place to assess the strength of the relationship. While Bentsen would certainly have known of Kennedy by the time that Kennedy won his Senate seat, there is no reason to believe that the reverse is true. Certainly, if a close friend of Kennedy's and one of the foremost archivists of his papers could not find or recall evidence of their having known each other, it seems unlikely that the "friend" part of the claim is true. Obviously, it was true to say that they served together, and the "know" part probably survives Power's scrutiny, but Powers does seem to refute the claim that "Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine."Jamesofengland 13:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again - stop saying that Powers claimed something. Brokaw repeated a second hand rumor. There is no citation of Powers claiming anything. And you go on to say: "It seems entirely plausible to me" so what? your POV speculations have no place in an encyclopedia. Dlabtot 16:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Almost everything that Wikipedia cites to in modern political history consists of journalists saying what they have been told by other people. Barnicle and Brokaw are both highly respected journalists, apparently familiar with all parties in that dispute. What do you think is the basis for the statement that 'Bentsen did casually remark in a mock debate with Dennis Eckhart that "you're no Jack Kennedy and George Bush is no Ronald Reagan."'? Since Bentsen apparently denies saying it, it's at least double hearsay, the same as Powers' statement (Speaker: [Bentsen/Powers] -> hearer [Eckhart/Barnicle] -> journalist [Germond & Witcover/ Brokaw]). There may be even more links in the chain to Germond. They're both "facts" within Wikipedia's definition. Jamesofengland 17:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

By all means, take it out. I have no objection. I don't see what it adds to the article, anyway. Dlabtot 17:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

More personally, I've not been editing wiki for that long and I'd like to be a better wikipedian. You claim that Brokaw was "pretty far fetched." Kasreyn says that it's "ridiculous" and "ludicrous". I gather that these were not worth condemning and assume that your own choice of words was the correct one. Why is "plausible" POV, but "far fetched" or "ridiculous" NPOV? Jamesofengland 17:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with having a point of view or expressing it in the course of discussing how to make the article better. The problem here is that you are using a poorly sourced remark to push your particular point of view in the article in some futile attempt to discredit Bentsen. That is pretty transparent. Anyway, we are clearly not headed towards any type of agreement here, therefore I added the NPOV tag, so we can get some help from others in resolving this dispute. Dlabtot 17:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say Bentsen himself was in an even stronger position to assess the strength of the relationship. Even if you could prove what Powers really said, then it'd be one man's word against another. Kasreyn 12:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If it were one respectable and informed man (a close friend of JFK's) and it was just his word against Bentsen's, then the issue would just be one man's word against another, the same as Bentsen's word against Eckhart's from earlier in the article. Power's claim, however, is that the statement was not just based on his own familiarity with JFK, but that the extensive documentation of the JFK library supported him.Jamesofengland 17:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Before you proved what he said, you'd first have to prove he said anything at all. Dlabtot 15:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no difference between this statement and the claim that in order to prove that Bentsen said "George Bush is no Ronald Reagan" you'd have to show that he said anything at all to Eckhart. It's true, but meaningless. Heck, unlike the Eckhart claim, if Powers never said anything to Barnicle, it is still useful to understanding the impact of the quote to know that one of the chief TV journalists at the time could get news like that and sit on it. It's not as if Bentsen, or Quayle, were not important and widely interviewed figures for some considerable time after that. Jamesofengland 17:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

added NPOV tag

I've added the NPOV tag for the section that includes the rumormongering by Tom Brokaw. Rumors don't belong in an encyclopedia, even if spread by a Famous Person. Discussion of the issue with Jamesofengland has proven to be fruitless. Dlabtot 17:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

At at least one level, it's not a rumour. Brokaw was a major part of the media response to the statement. You say above that Brokaw is lying about it. If that's true, and I don't know what motive you think Brokaw might have for that, don't you think that that lie is an important part of the context of the statement?Jamesofengland 17:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

RfC: is the inclusion of the Brokaw material appropriate and NPOV?

The dispute concerns whether the Brokaw comments in the Aftermath section warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. Please see the prior discussion on this page. Tia for your comments.

• Interesting question. This seems to be a problem in verifiability. "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources." Brokaw does not seem to be functioning as a fact-checking news source, but rather as someone passing on hearsay evidence. That's not unethical on his part, but it's not great data for an encyclopedia. The idea that Bentsen didn't know Kennedy certain is an "exceptional claim" (per the above WP policy quote). It seems to me that there is a burden of proof to back up the Brokaw (reporting Barnicle reporting Powers ?!) claim. With all the attention on Bentsen's statement, it seems odd that you all haven't yet found a more reliable source to back up the statement. So, at this point, I would say that one should not put undue weight on a fringe claim with little plausible traction. Thanks for hearing me out. HG | Talk 01:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

If the article said "Bentsen did not know JFK", it would be poorly sourced. Instead the article claims that Brokaw made a particular statement. This is verified by an unimpeachable source, the transcript of his saying so on a national TV program, published by the broadcaster with no interest in falsifying it (there's also a commenter here who claims to have seen it, but I admit that I did not see it). There is simply no way in which the claim that the statement was made is poorly sourced. If it is wrongfully included, then it is wrongfully included for another reason.

The significance of the statement being made is twofold. The first and clearest of these is that it means that Brokaw believed that the statement was questionable. This is a story about a debate moment that was significant because of its impact, because of the politicking, not because of its truth (apart from a couple of sentences, the article is not about how similar or dissimilar Quayle and JFK were). The fact that Brokaw (and Barnicle) had doubts and kept them quiet until Bentsen's death is an important part of the media context of the statement. With regard to the claim of "hearsay evidence", this would fall into the "effect upon the hearer" exception. Jamesofengland 18:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this later insert. Anyway, I believe you are confusing several things. (1) Only the statement by Powers is truly notable in regards to the debate moment. This statement is vague, indirect, and poorly sourced. Only Powers is supposedly calling into question Bentsen's veracity, Brokaw is merely passing on the claim d/b/a rumor. (2) Then you say the Brokaw statement is significant because it's part of the "media context" and how they "kept quiet" about the claim/rumor. That's a smart and fascinating inference! However, it is purely your own original analysis, it's what we call original research. If you can't find a source that deals with Brokaw/Barnicle hushing up the claim, then it's a non-starter. Otherwise, Brokaw is merely a very poor and unreliable source of a vague statement by Powers. Pls continue w/me below, if you wish. Thanks! HG | Talk 20:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Drat, this RfC is still on my mind. Another problem with exclusion is that the rumor-via-Brokaw is so vague. What does it mean that Bentsen didn't "know" Kennedy? Obviously, he knew Kennedy in various ways, observed him on various occasions, almost certainly was in the same room on multiple occasions. So what's the point of the rumor or exceptional claim, that (librarian?) Powers had no verifiable source for their friendship? The absence of a verified source, delivered as hearsay through Mike Barnicle (of all people!), is hardly an adequate reliable source of the article text. Sorry, it would be a fabulous little insight if you could document it. HG | Talk 21:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It is difficult to know precisely what he meant, but I'm not certain that the vagueness goes as far as you suggest. Being in the same very large room as someone seems like a very weak ground for claiming to know them. I've been in the same room as Menzies Campbell on multiple occasions and observed him on various occasions, but the suggestion that I "know" him would be absurd. Powers was a good friend of JFK's and his chief archivist. Powers couldn't (no one could) prove a negative, but he was probably the person in the best place to cast doubt on Bentsen's claim. Brokaw's claim is no less rigorously sourced than Bentsen's claim. Perhaps in the future someone will be able to come up with a photograph of them together or some link that they held. They don't appear to have shared a committee or social circles or a religion, or have come from similar parts of the United States, but there may be a link somewhere. Perhaps someday, it'll be found. Apparently, the link isn't in the expansive JFK library. The possibility that Bentsen was lying is not obvious, as most people would assume what Dlabtot did about congressional committees and such providing some verifiable link, since JFK's life was very well documented. It is fairly easy to discover that this is unlikely, but people would have no reason to believe that even a minimal amount of research was justified. The article gives supporting evidence for Bentsen's statement (four years working in the same large organisation), makes the degree of attenuation (Brokaw, Barnicle, Powers) clear, With regard to the claim of "hearsay evidence", this would fall into the "statement against interest" exception, as if Powers were correct it would mean that Brokaw was admitting to a fairly major failure of the news media and, specifically, himself and his friend. This is much less important than the idea that key media figures failed to investigate and further cover what they were led to believe was a potential major story, but it is something that readers should be given the information to make up their own minds about. Jamesofengland 18:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You've made your viewpoint known. There is no reason to keep repeating yourself over and over and over and over. Are you going to keep repeating the same arguments to everyone who replies to the RfC? Dlabtot 19:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Dlabtot, hi. Personally, I don't mind James conversing with me about my outside opinion, as long as he is responsive to my questions/argument and isn't repetitious with me. RfCs are often discussions. HG | Talk 20:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wish you good luck. Dlabtot 20:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi. Thanks for your feedback. I see you're (James) a party to the dispute. Follow-up questions. (1) If you don't think it's vague, then what does it mean that Bentsen didn't know Kennedy? Please supply me (and our readers) a non-vague, non-misleading, meaning of the Powers-Barnicle-Brokaw claim. (2) You say "Brokaw's claim is no less rigorously sourced than Bentsen's claim." Does this mean you'll drop it if enough 3rd opinions, or RfC on the sources, say otherwise? Bentsen's claim was made on national TV and covered by unimpeachable secondary sources. Powers opinion, is filtered by Mike Barnicle, a reporter forced to resign for fabricating one if not more sources (and who settled a Dershowitz lawsuit over a misquote), and ends up in a vague and casual mention (no direct quote) by Brokaw. (3) There's no big concession about media failure by Brokaw. At most, I might infer (but it'd be original research) that Brokaw implies that Barnicle dropped the ball in 1988 because he was loyal to Democrats. What evidence do you have for when Brokaw was told this rumor? Look, I admire your persistence. But you admit "The possibility that Bentsen was lying is not obvious" (yes, Bentsen's lying is farfetched and not reported elsewhere) -- and yet you'd supply a hearsay statement that implies he's lying, without even specifying the nature of the lie. I'd advise that you all remove the item because the burden of proof must be with those who seek a reliable source on Powers claim. HG | Talk 19:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with HG in all particulars; he's said it better than I could have. It just doesn't seem like something we'll ever be able to verify by WP's standards. Kasreyn 17:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC closure

I guess this RFC can be closed. Eiler7 21:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious as to how you came to this conclusion. Only one person has commented. You yourself have not even commented. Do you believe a consensus has been reached? What was that consensus? HG has asked Jamesofengland "Does this mean you'll drop it if enough 3rd opinions, or RfC on the sources, say otherwise?" and Jamesofengland has not responded. Your closure of the RfC seems to me to be extremely premature and unwarranted. Why do you you think the RfC should be closed? Dlabtot 22:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you had actually closed it; I see that you haven't. So I apologize if I had a scolding tone in my prior comment. But my questions remain. And, btw, I'm kinda new and I don't really understand what the procedure is for closing an RfC. Dlabtot 23:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. It looks like Jamesofengland is an intermittent user. So I'm not sure we should await his response before moving forward in editing the article. Of course, I tend to think my concerns about the source/rumor are valid and cannot easily be dismissed. For this reason, I think the burden of proof now stands with (or must shift to) those who need to demonstrate more reliable sourcing for the rumor. Therefore, I would suggest deleting the Brokaw/Powers item at this juncture. Thanks. HG | Talk 02:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I tend to apply the rule that an RFC can be closed when no more comments are desired by those who frequent the talk page. As you objected, I will not close the RFC for now. Eiler7 22:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• I feel it is appropriate for me to follow-up on the Brokaw-Barnicle-Powers text, based both on my own thinking and various other editors (above). For this reason, I'll delete the text as insufficiently sourced and await reactions. (In the event of a revert, I'd even be grateful for a courtesy note on my talk. See WP:BRD) This also is a reasonable way to see if we can close the RfC. Thanks. HG | Talk 01:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I too feel the RFC shouldn't be closed yet. What's the rush? Kasreyn 17:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

How many examples of use in popular culture should be included?

And what should be the criteria for inclusion? I don't want to edit war over this, but is doesn't seem to me to rise to the level of notability for including in this article. Dlabtot (talk) 03:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose that's a fair question. But I don't see much of a notability question here, that section functions like a list with a fairly well-defined (and sufficiently notable) criterion. Also, if you don't mind my saying so, the Xbox item is rather interesting, perhaps even clever, because the basis for dissimilarity is impersonation. Anyway, why do you think it detracts from the article? Strikes me that it makes the article more informative, makes Wikipedia a more useful source of (popular cultural) knowledge. Thanks, HG | Talk 04:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The examples that are in the article refer to either uses of it during subsequent campaigns, on SNL or other popular TV shows and even a novel. A reference on a non notable radio show for Xbox does not fit within that criteria, it should be removed. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You know, this is sorta funny. I didn't even know what Xbox is, though I had heard the word itself. I just assumed Xbox Radio was one more aspect of popular culture that I ignore and of which I am ignorant. You raise the excellent question: is Xbox Radio itself is non-notable? Well, it does seem that the radio and/or the broadcaster do satisfy Wikipedia notability criteria. See Gamertag Radio and Larry Hryb. Unless these articles get deleted, this example does fit within a notable aspect of popular culture usage. To be sure, our article could use a better link. Thanks. HG | Talk 10:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC) PS I never heard of Keith Jackson or Eric Neustadter but they seem to fit notability critera, too. HG | Talk

While I have no doubt the people involved with Gamertag are notable, the program itself may not be, notability is not inherited, and the current article reads like a fan page. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not exactly sure the distinction you're drawing between Quicksilver, Ugly Betty and Larry Hryb. (You may be correct that Gamertag should fail WP:N, but I don't see that for Hryb.) Personally, I'm not familiar with any of them and yet all strike me as relatively minor yet "notable" aspects of popular culture. If you would like to suggest a way we might distinguish them, I'd be open-minded about it. BTW, another way to get at your concern -- perhaps you'd like to tag the Xbox and Ugly Betty items to request a reliable source for each? RS is a better route for evaluating factoids within an article. Thanks. HG | Talk 19:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Tagging gets you nowhere, it is better to simply remove the information and ask it not be added back in until there is an RS, otherwise articles become swamped in trivia. I would be more comfortable removing all non pop-culture references and just leaving the political references. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, if I'm not mistaken, tagging is a courtesy and within a reasonable time it's ok to remove the item. However, I don't see a reason to remove everything but the political references. What did you have in mind as grounds? Thanks. HG | Talk 22:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, is it worth mentioning that it made USA Today's list of top quotes from past 25 years? source here Thanks. HG | Talk 20:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing joke about Marilyn Quayle

One joke went "What did Marilyn Quayle say to Dan Quayle after making love? 'Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy.'"

The joke has been been part of the page since 2005, and is of course funny, but I'm not sure it belongs here. Unless it appeared in print, it doesn't seem encyclopedic. Would welcome input on this edit, or reversion if it is clearly wrong. Here's the link to the original edit, made by an anonymous editor. --Cheakamus (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Since it actually is referenced, with a page number, I don't think it is appropriate to remove it unless you bother to check the reference to confirm what I assume is your suspicion that it does not appear on page 441 of the referenced work, Germond, Jack W. and Witcover, Jules, "Whose Broad Stripes and Bright Stars: The Trival Pursuit of the Presidency 1988", Warner Books, New York, 1989. Otherwise you're not assuming good faith. I encourage you to revert your edit pending the completion of this research. Dlabtot (talk) 04:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I found another book reference which is verifiable online. PSWG1920 (talk) 04:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

References

Video copyright

The link to YouTube is CLEAR AND OBVIOUS copyright violation. The person who uploaded does not have permission to do so. There's no fair use exclusion for something of this nature, as has been fully discussed on WP:COPY and WP:EL lately... the editor who put it back needs to go read up on our policies here. I will delete the link soon, and if it gets returned I will look into filing a report for knowingly violating policy. DreamGuy (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Whose copyright do you believe is being infringed?  ? Dlabtot (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The copyright of the entity that filmed it, of course. Give me a break, what kind of question is that? Somebody named "jraan" didn't have a video camera at the debate, it was copied from a broadcast by the copyright owner. DreamGuy (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Since you are clearly unaware of the identity of the supposed copyright holder, and don't seem to have even bothered to engage in an even cursory investigation of the facts of the matter, your certainty seems rather misplaced. Dlabtot (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, could you provide a link to the discussions to which you refer? The only discussions of the topic that I can find did not result in a consensus such as you describe. tia

And please skip the preemptive threats. Dlabtot (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Not a threat, it's simply what we do with copyright violations. If you read WP:COPY, particularly WP:LINKVIO, and still don't understand then read it again. You can't just declare something "fair use" without understanding what the term means and expect that to be a blanket excuse for a copyvio. As I put in the edit comment, find a source with a LEGAL copy of the video if you want to link to it, otherwise it's a blatant violation of extremely clear policies. Per our policy, "Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material despite appropriate warnings may be blocked from editing by any administrator to prevent further problems.", so you can't just put it back once you were warned. DreamGuy (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking for a discussion of why you believe this is a copyright violation. Loudly asserting your certainty is not a substitute for discussion. Additionally, I'd like to politely request that you refrain in the future from personal attacks such as your declaration that I don't understand what the term fair use means.

There is no bright line determining fair use, but in general, there are four factors we look at: 1. the transformative factor, 2. the nature of the work, 3. amount and substantiality of the use, and 4. does the use deprive the copyright holder of income or undermine a new or potential market for the work. Dlabtot (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't even try to talk about fair use, because 1) you clearly have no experience with dealing with the concept, and 2) it's irrelevant for our policies on links to copyright violations. Fair ue is defense against copyright infringement. You have to admit infringement before fair use even comes in the picture. Our policies make it clear we do not link to infringements, period. Read the links provided and you'd have your ignorance cleared up. DreamGuy (talk) 14:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with DreamGuy, this link is a violation of WP's policy regarding linking to external sites displaying copyright works. It's a copyright NBC News clip and the YouTube uploader gives no indication that s/he has obtained permission from the copyright holder to upload the video. Per WP:LINKVIO, we can't link to this video. I've boldly gone ahead and replaced it with a link to a clip from a reputable source, the official CBS News website. It's a briefer excerpt and unfortunately has an interstitial ad, but at least it's compliant with WP's external link policies. --Muchness (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure how you determined that NBC holds a copyright on that video, but frankly it doesn't matter, as long as there is a video clip available with the article, it doesn't matter to me which one. Dlabtot (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The clip is watermarked NBC News, so presumably that was the original broadcaster. --Muchness (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, gee I don't see a watermark. Maybe there's something wrong with my eyes. I do see Tom Brokaw, one of the moderators, being identified as being from NBC News, however. Dlabtot (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm gonna leave the RfC up, because I do think the longer clip would be better if the consensus is that it can be used. Dlabtot (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I mistook that NBC News title for a station identifier. FWIW, the 1988 vice presidential debate was televised by ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and C-SPAN. References:

• Tanaka, Michael (1988-10-05). "Bentsen-Quayle Debate on Networks". The Omaha World-Herald.
• Staff (1988-10-07). "NIELSEN: 50 MILLION SAW DEBATE". The Boston Globe.

Possibly broadcast on some PBS stations too. --Muchness (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Is the external linking of youtube video extract of the Bentsen-Quayle debate a copyright violation?

Is the external linking of youtube video extract of the Bentsen-Quayle debate a copyright violation?

---

• First of all, a copyright must exist in the first place for there to be a copyright violation. I've been trying to determine who might possibly hold this copyright but I haven't been very successful. The 1988 debate was sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates after the withdrawal of the League of Women Voters. A search on the Commission website on 'copyright' yields no hits. In the 2008 campaign, each debate was broadcast by only one network, and there was a lively national discussion of the copyright issues involving video clips of those broadcasts. My memory is that back in 88, the debate was simulcast on several networks, but I'm hesitant to rely on my powers of recall on this point and I haven't been able to find a reference that says which outlets broadcast the debate. If the debate was simulcast on several networks, a strong case could be made that it at that point entered the public domain. But this determination would need to be based on facts that are not within my purview.

• If we assume that a copyright exists, we must examine the question of fair use. Considering the four factors in turn, the video clip has not been tranformed or added to so it fails the first test. As to the nature of the work, it would be hard to find an example that more clearly meets the test of having benefit to the public. As to the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, the video is 3 minutes and 29 seconds of a 90 minute debate, and although it was a much-discussed exchange, it would be hard to make an argument that it constituted the "heart" of the debate. Certainly the Bush-Quayle campaign would take issue with that assessment. And does this youtube video clip deprive the copyright holder of income or a potential market? One factor to consider here is the poor video and audio quality of the clip. So even if we were to identify a copyright holder, I would say: no. The strength of three of these four factors leads me to conclude that if the debate as a whole is not in the public domain, the video clip in question is an example of fair use. Dlabtot (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You say: "a copyright must exist in the first place for there to be a copyright violation" -- good lord. Of course a copyright exists. Copyrights are automatic on all modern videos/books/etc. Your claims about it entering public domain if being on multiple networks is utter nonsense. Each would have a copyright to the version that they filmed, which would have different angles, cuts between images, etc. Then you start rambling about fair use -- fair use is a complicated topic, and one pulled out by people who don't know anything about copyright law to try to justify pretty blatant violations. Nothing in our copyright policy or external links policy says that some layman who doesn't even know if a copyright exists on a modern video can can link to something based upon a fair use claim. We have no exception for claims of fair use, because so many people make the claims with no legal basis. If the video is not by the copyright owner, we DO NOT link to it, period. You'd know this is you looked at our policies. Instead you seem to just ignore everything and make rambling, misinformed comments. DreamGuy (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want a comment then here is the answer to your question, yes. Any YT link from broadcast TV of any program broadcast within the last 70 years is going to be a copyright violation, it is as simple as that. News footage is not subject to fair use, written news reports are available for fair use, but only if we don't reproduce them word for word and pass it off as our own work. The whole exchange is quoted so what use is a YT clip? Other than causing a copyright headache, no use really. The simple fact is that unless you can get permission from all the parties involved then you could not have permission to link to this. In addition there is a reason why we don't link to youtube as the default position. In summation, give it up. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

From whence do you derive the principle that "News footage is not subject to fair use"? It seems to be an absurd claim. Dlabtot (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Show me it is. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No such principle exists in the Copyright Act of 1976, which codified fair use. I decline your challenge to prove a negative. Dlabtot (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you misunderstood the question, show me the policy on WIkipedia where it is regarded as fair use and that it would enhance this article, which already has a full transcript. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair use guidelines are not set by Wikipedia policy, but by US law. The applicable policy for when and how to use fair use material is WP:COPY#Fair_use_materials_and_special_requirements. Dlabtot (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

And the line you think is relevant is? And how would the YT link enhance this article? Darrenhusted (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the copyright status of the footage, C-SPAN has a video of the VP debate for sale on DVD (link). I emailed C-SPAN about the debate's copyright status and got the following response from license (at) c-spanarchives.org:

C-SPAN broadcast is copyrighted by C-SPAN. The underlying video feed is copyrighted by the commerical Network pool that provided it us. C-SPAN does not have rights to license this video. The video of the event is not public domain material.

--Muchness (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

the commercial Network pool that provided it to us - that's an odd name for an organization that holds a copyright. Dlabtot (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

commercial Network pool is not a company name. C-SPAN is the company, and they have stated they own the (c). You seem to have switched to accusing C-SPAN of copyfraud, exactly how does that further your argument for including a link to a youtube video that has not been posted by C-SPAN? Darrenhusted (talk) 11:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, what they stated was they they owned the copyright on their own broadcast. The assertion that the underlying video feed is copyrighted by "the commerical Network pool that provided it us" is pretty laughable. An organization must actually exist and have legal standing before it can hold a copyright. Dlabtot (talk) 22:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Remove the link It is obvious to me that the link should be removed. We don't have to make a 100% determination whether external material is being hosted in an infringing way. We can't. Only a judge or jury could after hearing the case for what may be months. But in a case here where there is significant doubt whether the material is being hosted legally, we should just remove the link. Gigs (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Transcript

I was surprised to see the words (gasps from audience) after Bentsen made the statement in question. In the actual video, the audience applauded, instead of gasped. I put a POV-section template and a POV-statement after the disputed words. Dust429 (talk) 14:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I just removed the vandalism. Be bold! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palladmial (talk • contribs) 21:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The editor's assessment of the audience reaction may be wrong, but that doesn't necessarily make it vandalism. I also don't see why it needs a POV template, instead of just a reversion, since a template is placed in order to indicate an ongoing discusison. I removed it. Nightscream (talk) 05:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Audience Reaction

I think there should be more describing the audience's reaction to the exchange. I watched the video of the exhange on YouTube and noticed that based on the audience's reaction, they supported Quayle over Bentsen in the exchange. Following Bentsen's "You're no Jack Kennedy", there is a loud burst of laughter and sporatic applause. Then after Quayle's calm rebuttal, "That was really uncalled for senator", the audience gives a loud, enthusiastic round of applause (the current description says shouts but I don't hear any on the YouTube video.) It clearly shows that the audience is sympathetic to Quayle and indirectly derides what Bentsen did.

Is This Really a Strawman?

I'm not so sure Bentsen's attack on Quayle is a "strawman argument". This is just my opinion and here's how I see it. The article states that Quayle compared himself only to Kennedy's length of congressional service and not Kennedy's accomplishments. The person who writes the article then says Bentsen's attack on Quayle is over Kennedy's accomplishments which I say is incorrect. First, Kennedy did not have many accomplishments and is not remembered for that. He is remembered for his persona and image, how he moved a nation. More importantly, although Quayle only compared himself to Kennedy's length of service in Congress, it's what Quayle's really doing that Bentsen called him on. Quayle putting a subliminal message in people's minds. By mentioned Kennedy in passing in a comparision, it's to make people imagine Quayle's just like Kennedy. This is what lawyers do in court and advertizers do in sales pitches. It's a subliminal tactic. Bentsen simply called Quayle on it. I don't see this as a "strawman argument". I see this as someone calling the other person on using a subliminal tactic. Then again, I'm canadian so what do I know about american politics!

OK, I just read the reference and the "strawman argument" comes from an article written at Stanford University. Still, I disagree with it. A better example of a "strawman argument" in politics happened during the 1984 Democratic presidential candidates debate. Gary Hart cites his policies as "new ideas" to which Walter Mondale says, "When I hear your new ideas, I'm reminded of that ad, 'Where's the beef?'" Hart never made a reference to the commercial. Mondale brings up the commercial and uses it as a comparision to cut down Hart. That's a "strawman argument". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Almcneilcan (talk • contribs) 08:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think it qualifies as a strawman either. Such a description in this case seems to be based more on political opinion than fact. --- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dekker451 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

X's reaction to Y

There's an odd, slow-motion edit war over the line "Bentsen's reaction to Quayle's comment was played and replayed by the Democrats in their subsequent television ads". The article originally talked about "Quayle's reaction to Bentsen's comment". Either version could work, but which is right? Did the adverts focus on Bentsen's reaction to Quayle's claim to have served almost as long as John Kennedy, or did they focus on Quayle's reaction to Bentsen's put-down? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Timing in the Debate

One thing this article sorely lacks is the clock-timing of when the now infamous "Senator, you're no..." takes place in context of the 90-minute debate. Now that C-SPAN is re-broadcasting the debates, it would be great to get that information either from them directly, or from someone who watched the Bentsen-Quayle debate. I actually have it on at the time I'm writing this - and will attempt to get the rough timing - but that will be rough timing only since I don't know the overall context (commercials, etc. etc.) Moucon2 (talk) 02:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Timing in the Debate

One thing this article sorely lacks is the clock-timing of when the now infamous "Senator, you're no..." takes place in context of the 90-minute debate. Now that C-SPAN is re-broadcasting the debates, it would be great to get that information either from them directly, or from someone who watched the Bentsen-Quayle debate. I actually have it on at the time I'm writing this - and will attempt to get the rough timing - but that will be rough timing only since I don't know the overall context (commercials, etc. etc.) Moucon2 (talk) 02:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC) IMPORTANT UPDATE !! : The remarks by Sen. Quayle that preceeded Sen. Bentsen's infamous remarks began around :28 minutes into the debate re-broadcast(on C-SPAN) and Bentsen began his rebuttal response as the clock ticked over to :29 after the start of the re-broadcast (on C-SPAN). The uproar from the crowd and additional rebuttal from Quayle continued for another minute or so. By :31 they were on to the next topic. Moucon2 (talk) 02:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The National Guard is part of the military

Under the heading "Context" in the third paragraph, there is a false assertion that National Guard service is not military service. This is clearly false, as the National Guard augments the Regular Army and Regular Air Force, and members of both organizations graduate from the very same basic training programs, in the same training battalions at the same time, along with members of the Army/Air Force Reserve. This is quite easily verifiable with even a rudimentary consultation of Federal law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.107.80.19 (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Politically motivated description of 2020 presidential elections?

In the edit of 24 November, 2020, the MAD parody is added to the Legacy section (4.1). It describes the Presidential election as "contested". This isn't untrue, but neither gives the full story -- that the election has baselessly been contested by the defeated President for political reasons. Also the use of the word "ousted" might give the impression that president Trump has been wrongfully forced to give up the presidency, rather than thsi happening as part of a peaceful transformation of power, following a fair election. But English isn't my first language and I'm very much aware that other nuances can be valid in this question.

Uncertain of whether this is a problem or not. Wikipedia isn't a soap box -- it's not intended that articles about old political events should be skewed into giving a false impression of current affairs. But deleting a fact that is true isn't neccessarily the right thing to do. Suggestions?

92.254.161.191 (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)