Difference between revisions of "Talk:Obama inauguration"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Bush: Did you find any good sites?)
(Bush)
Line 33: Line 33:
  
 
:::[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]], do any of the web sites you've read explain their numbers?  (Where they got them and/or what they cover?)  Perhaps by looking at those sites we can find credible sources for the claim that Obama's cost so much more than Bush's, which would be a great service to the Conservative cause.  --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:40, 30 January 2009 (EST)
 
:::[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]], do any of the web sites you've read explain their numbers?  (Where they got them and/or what they cover?)  Perhaps by looking at those sites we can find credible sources for the claim that Obama's cost so much more than Bush's, which would be a great service to the Conservative cause.  --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:40, 30 January 2009 (EST)
 +
 +
::::Jpatt, I have to side with Hsmom on this one and ask that her contribution be restored.  She found a reputable source to back up a sensible finding - the cost of the latest inauguration (Obama's) was comparable to that of the last president (Bush).  What's important is not whether Conservapedia disagrees with with other conservative news sources and blogs as to which event cost more - what's important is that CP presents ''the facts and truth about things'', and backs those contributions up with good references.  When valid, factual content is removed because it "comes from the MSM" or is considered by some to be "liberal claptrap", it diminishes the credibility of this site.  If you don't like the conclusion Hsmom arrived at with her sources, don't remove it - come up with a factual reference to rebut it. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:45, 31 January 2009 (EST)

Revision as of 14:45, January 31, 2009

Inauguration Costs

The cost stays. Everyone knows it wasn't an email rumor. Maybe the exact figures are off, but nonetheless it stays.--Jpatt 15:10, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Then you should use a different source. The source you've selected says it's a false rumour. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JohnKite (talk)
"The $120 million cited for Obama (which is actually a bit on the low side)"

You provide a source that says different. --Jpatt 15:16, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Agreed. This is not the right referece for the claim. "[I]naccurate and misleading", as per the reference. CherylE 15:30, 30 January 2009 (EST)
What part of the claim is inaccurate? False comparisons? the dollar figure? Because About.com says it is mostly false or email rumour? After reading and re-reading, the claims I made were accurate.--Jpatt 15:38, 30 January 2009 (EST)
Honestly, I don't know if we're reading the same article. The About.com article is clear about the figures being "inaccurate and misleading". Did you notice at the top it says:
Description: Email rumor
Circulating since: Jan. 2009
Status: Mostly false
If you want to continue to perpetuate these claims, I suggest using a source not focused on highlighting their nature. How about this?
The headline hypocrisy is real and important, but the source goes on to make a mockery of our article's previous claim about costs. I will try to resource the newspaper headlines and then we can use the Newsmax.com article as a source for costs. How does that sound? CherylE 15:59, 30 January 2009 (EST)
That's fine CherylE, I am happy with that source. But like I said, you still can't name what is false about the article I presented. If you read the article over and over as I did, About.com is making claims that the comparison is false, but it goes on to tell the readers what is true. What I have posted does not contradict, you just have a problem with the article stating falsehood.--Jpatt 16:20, 30 January 2009 (EST)
You are right, nothing is false in that article. The thing is that it completely discredited our article's previous claim about costs. The new source attests to both claims about the headline hypocrisy and inauguration spending comparisons. CherylE 16:26, 30 January 2009 (EST)
  • Hey, CherylE...you still around? --₮K/Admin/Talk 16:33, 30 January 2009 (EST)
Yessir CherylE 16:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)
Would you do me one small favor? --₮K/Admin/Talk 16:45, 30 January 2009 (EST)
It would be my pleasure, how can I help you? CherylE 16:49, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Bush

I feel the additional information about Bush inauguration should not be included on this page. Quotes from MediaMatters (leftwing fake watchdogs) should be deleted. --Jpatt 20:41, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Why? The real question is, are they right? What does the $44 million figure include? What does the $160 million figure include? I have no idea, but their article seems better sourced than the Lakeland Times one, which gives no sources whatsoever. I'm not saying I agree with either side, but since they are so different, I think it makes sense to include both and let the reader decide which is more credible, at least until we can dig up more information to verify one or the other. --Hsmom 20:47, 30 January 2009 (EST)
Thanks to your source, Conservapedia is the only website claiming Bush inauguration cost more than Obama's. I am about to delete all reference to Bush's inauguration costs and leave Obama's cost may be $160 million.--Jpatt 21:02, 30 January 2009 (EST)
Jpatt, do any of the web sites you've read explain their numbers? (Where they got them and/or what they cover?) Perhaps by looking at those sites we can find credible sources for the claim that Obama's cost so much more than Bush's, which would be a great service to the Conservative cause. --Hsmom 21:40, 30 January 2009 (EST)
Jpatt, I have to side with Hsmom on this one and ask that her contribution be restored. She found a reputable source to back up a sensible finding - the cost of the latest inauguration (Obama's) was comparable to that of the last president (Bush). What's important is not whether Conservapedia disagrees with with other conservative news sources and blogs as to which event cost more - what's important is that CP presents the facts and truth about things, and backs those contributions up with good references. When valid, factual content is removed because it "comes from the MSM" or is considered by some to be "liberal claptrap", it diminishes the credibility of this site. If you don't like the conclusion Hsmom arrived at with her sources, don't remove it - come up with a factual reference to rebut it. --DinsdaleP 09:45, 31 January 2009 (EST)