Talk:Commission on Presidential Debates

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

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

Section break

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misleading

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

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

POV

The entire article is written from a perspective obviously biased against the Commission on Presidential Debates, but the following is the most troubling excerpt: "It has been known that the CPD was created to silence debates outside the two major parties, furthering to cement the two corporate party system firmly into American democracy." Besides the weasel wording "it has been known," this sentence also presents as an undisputed fact that American democracy is ruled by "corporate parties," an assertion which I think some might find controversial. 69.248.123.28 (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I haven't met many people who think the American democracy is not ruled by two corporate parties. Is there some poll data to show that you aren't just making this up? In any case, it is objectively true. Some might find it controversial that Hitler killed 6 million Jews, but that doesn't make it wrong to say that he did so in Wikipedia.--189.202.8.129 (talk) 02:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

First, the hyperbole involved in comparing a two party political system to genocide is pretty incredible. Second, the burden is not on those who dispute unsourced or opinionated material to show that it is somehow in dispute or unsourced. The burden is on those who want to include it to show that it is factual. Describing the parties as "corporate" is clearly opinionated. It can't be stated as fact within the article. Croctotheface (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversy of Gwen Ifill's Selection as Moderator

Why haven't we seen any information on the story about the 2008 VP debate moderator, Gwen Ifill, having a book scheduled to be published on inauguration day about the "Age of Obama"??

This is an outrage that Ifill was chosen as the moderator for this event. Who did the background check in the selection process for VP Moderator?!?! This event should be rescheduled or a backup moderator should step in since this has come to light.

Ifill has a LOT to gain (both in notoriety and financially) if Obama wins, and it is NOT a coincidence that her book is being released on inauguration day. What can the public do to assure the VP debate is moderated by someone who is truly UNBIASED?

I thought it was the non-partisan Commission on Presidential Debates, this just isn't right. I cannot believe this happened when the Republican Party holds just as much sway over the content and format of these debates as the Democrats. I am so upset with my party for letting this happen. Although now it's nice because it makes it look like the Dems are trying to fix the debate, or cheat in some way, and we get to accuse them of doing so. When I think about it - well played!

174.145.180.252 (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)A. Grey

I did put information on about this with a public reference to the facts, but the moderators (some guy named "HiDrNick") are heavily censoring the truth. It appears there might be a heavy democratic bias here. This is what I tried to add. In 2008, the CPD set aside its bipartisan montra for an underlying bias towards the democratic candidates. Gwen Ifill, who is moderating Thursday's vice-presidential debate, is releasing a book on Barack Obama and other young black politicians who are "forging a bold new path to political power." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spares (talk • contribs) 03:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

ummm...CPD was created, and is run by, leaders of the Dem. and Repub. parties. That makes it as bi-partisan as anything could be. And if anyone believes CPD has taken any action which is anti-GOP, they should take that complaint to the GOP leaders who make up one-half of the CPD!!! Pacitizen (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, the McCain campaign AGREED to have Ifill moderate the debate, and they agreed long after the book came out. It's not like the CPD forces anything on the candidates; if the candidates don't like it, they don't have to debate. The McCain-Palin campaign agreed to have Ifill moderate the VP debate. Croctotheface (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

What makes the CPD any more worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia than any other business?

From every thing that I have researched and read, this site does not live up to the so called "criteria" of inclusion. This is yet another reason this wiki site is littered with falsehoods. Liberal moderators like "HiDrNick" and others who slant the facts to a position they prefer. Like rewriting history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spares (talk • contribs) 03:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If you're genuinely interested in Wikipedia's policies, I invite you to read about them. We don't have "moderators" for one, and criteria for what to write about is governed by guidelines, including WP:N, the notability guideline. Croctotheface (talk) 04:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)