Talk:PolitiFact: Difference between revisions

THIS IS NOT A CHAT PAGE!

Hello editors! Please remember that this is a discussion page over how to best edit this particular entry, not an online forum for debating the merits of the entity the entry describes. There's plenty of political infotainment sites for that. This is an encyclopedia. We're here to record and maintain the facts. Nothing more, nothing less. Thanks, and happy editing! Sidatio (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Is PolitiFact.com Biased?

PolitiFact.com is owned by the St. Petersburg Times, which some say has a liberal bias. How do these two organizations ensure an arms-length relationship? I think a section to clear-up this question would be worthwhile.  kgrr ^talk 17:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It's quite simple. The group merely takes random, accurate, statements by liberal groups, and pretends they're lies, finally awarding them "Lie of the year" to make sure everyone knows how "independent" they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.137.120 (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Absent of an incontrovertible statement from the principals of PolitiFact.com that the site and its works are bias or incontrovertible evidence of such, then PF has to be taken at face value in that regard. Anything else is speculation, which needs to be kept on the blogosphere and out of an encyclopedia.

I don't care how anyone feels about PF. Let's just make this another neutral, fact-based Wikipedia article. Sidatio (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Same writers?

PolitiFact.com is a project that is operated by the St. Petersburg Times, a project in which its reporters and editors "fact-check statements by members of Congress, the White House, lobbyists and interest groups...."[1] This sentence through subject-verb agreements makes it sound as if the reporters and editors of the St. Petersburg Times are doing the fact-checking and also writing the PolitiFact.com pieces. Is this true?  kgrr ^talk 17:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• Depends on the edition in question, as PF now has a number of locales. For example, the Tennessee branch uses reporters from the Memphis Commercial Appeal and the Knoxville News Sentinel. In the specific case of the Tampa Bay Times, yes, at least one reporter - Louis Jacobson - writes for both the Tampa Bay Times and PolitiFact. Sidatio (talk) 12:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Aaron Sharockman also writes for both. The paper's Youtube channel, wwwtampabaycom, also posts "Politifact" pieces.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

"Reception"

The "reception" section of this article is a mess. It is overly-lengthy and filled with nothing but the highly-specific complaints of extremely opinionated pundits. A good reception section should not be a mouthpiece for every conservative (or liberal, technically, but six of the eight paragraphs are devoted to conservative) pundit who has a beef with the organization's rulings on their pet talking points. If there were any unbiased, authoritative appraisals and critiques of the organization (such as the Pulitzer Prize Committee's opinion, perhaps?), they would be appropriate to add to the section. The current section however, as it stands, should just be removed. Thoughts? —Berserk798 (talk) 04:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It appears to be unenclyclopedic muckracking that takes the form of person X said Y whereas an encyclopedia should say things like reliable source X said Y. Jesanj (talk) 12:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I just restored this section, after it was deleted in June. It may have been overly-long, but deleting it completely is not the solution - it contained relevant opinions, in notable sources, from notable commentators. Feel free to whittle it down, but the fact that PolitiFact's assessments have been subject to debate is both relevant and, yes, encyclopedic. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Here's an example of what I consider to be encyclopedic writing: Death_panel#Examples_with_similarities. As you see, reliable sources such as ProPublica, Foriegn Policy, and USA Today gave their opinions on what was a death panel. There could be a nearly infinite supply of "notable commentators", but notable commentators are not reliable sources. We're an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, we collect what reliable secondary sources say. Jesanj (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This article's "Reception" section cited the Wall Street Journal and Reason magazine, among others - major publications. How are those not reliable sources? Korny O'Near (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It's possible they could be reliable sources for a reception section, depending upon how they used. PolitFact issues opinions all the time, why select analysis on a handful of specific ones for an overview section? That's odd. What a section should do is to relfect what reliable sources have said about PolitiFact as a whole. Jesanj (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, now you're getting closer to making a coherent argument. Still, even if that's now the criteria, there were quotes in the section that still seem to fit - like a writer in The American Spectator calling PolitiFact "political opinion masquerading as high-minded investigative journalism" (based on a few different analyses of theirs), a writer for the Wall Street Journal saying that the St. Petersburg Times (PolitiFact's owners) seem to be "in the tank for Obama", and a WSJ editorial that stated that "PolitiFact's decree is part of a larger journalistic trend that seeks to recast all political debates as matters of lies, misinformation and 'facts,' rather than differences of world view or principles." All of those sound like statements about PolitiFact "as a whole" to me. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Funny how all those receptions are selected from a distinct slice of political spectrum hunh? ;-) Can you try finding a variety of sources for a reception section? Jesanj (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything particularly "funny" about it, or surprising - PolitiFact has been attacked more from the right than from the left since it started. There's nothing wrong with having the Wikipedia article reflect that - just like you wouldn't expect the Fox News Channel controversies article to include equal amounts of criticism from the left and the right. For the record, though, the "Reception" section did include criticism from both sides. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who has criticized it more, but I know a reception section isn't a criticism section. Jesanj (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, the "Reception" section contained a positive appraisal - from a White House spokeswoman, no less - and that got deleted, too. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. A positive appraisal on one of their many decisions, granted, it was their lie of the year. But White House spokespeople aren't high on the list. Jesanj (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

How about this, then: we restore the section, and rename it "Criticism" (which was actually its original name) to more accurately reflect its contents, and whittle down some of its contents to keep only the more notable criticisms. I don't think striving for ideological balance in the section is desirable or even possible, given that it's been criticized much more from the right. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I made this test version. How about put the PolitiFact criticisms, of it as a whole, under criticism there. With that expand template underneath reception, I think that will indicate more work needs to be done. Jesanj (talk) 00:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't make myself clearer, but I don't think any analysis of a specific PolitiFact decision deserves analysis at this point in the article's development. Please only include criticism of PolitiFact as a whole. FYI, after some reading lasdt night I saw Modern Healthcare completely agreed with their 2010 lie of the year. Jesanj (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I think analysis is too generous of a word. I can't remember a specific example that included any reasoning, whether on the part of PolitiFact, a neutral party, or a critic. Jesanj (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I understood what you were saying - I just think it's easier to start with the full criticism section, and whittle it down from there. Also, thanks for admitting your biases - I hope you're extra-careful, when editing this article, not to let them guide your editing decisions. I didn't understand the part about "remembering", though - no remembering needed, since you can check the citations in the article. Korny O'Near (talk) 12:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

So you restored information you know needed trimming after you know I said it didn't belong because you think that's easier? And my biases? Jesanj (talk) 12:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course it was easier - it's easier for me to just do a single restore, and let you delete what you want to, than to go through and delete things based on what I would guess you would want deleted. That goes without saying... Korny O'Near (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

No guessing was required. You already gave me examples of what were criticisms of PolitiFact as a whole. Jesanj (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I gave you examples, but you didn't seem entirely happy with them. And even if no guessing were required, it would still be less work to let you do the deletions. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Settle down, editors. I think we should just do criticisms that have incontrovertible viability. In other words, just because Blogger Joe from Omaha doesn't like the slant of a PF entry doesn't make it valid. Something like the Tax Foundation's recent issues with the Tennessee branch of PF, however, would be (in this case PF took the group to task for a statement it never made). But the first thing that needs to be done is everybody needs to relax and remember we're here for the facts - whatever they may be. Happy editing! Sidatio (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The argument you're responding to took place seven months ago. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Paul Ryan's Medicare Privatization

Americans agree that Paul Ryan's plan ends Medicare by privatization. Somehow the spin by PolitiFact is that the Democrats are liars, for telling the truth. Republicans have been wanting to kill Social Security (1935), Medicare (1965), and Medicaid (1965) since those programs have begun. --JLAmidei (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Politifact's latest mendacity: two true statements by Obama add up to "half true"

Wow. [1] 24.214.230.66 (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

An editor continues to attempt to insert content that is not conveyed by cited sources, shown here. The addition was previously removed with the edit summary stating (rem sentence not supported by source; (only says "runs the risk of..." and "sometimes do...") -- concerns that have not been addressed by reverting editor. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It would really be appreciated if you would explain the reasoning behind the revert you keep making. In addition to reinserting content that is not supported by the cited source, your repeated revert also undoes numerous edits and improvements that have been made by several editors over the past months -- without explanation. Your revert-warring isn't helpful. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Republicans more frequently found to be misleading

This section of the PolitiFact page carries a misleading title. The use of "found" indicates an implicit trust in PolitiFact as a source and in particular with its supposed finding that Republicans more often mislead. The cited study that leads off the section (by Dr. Ostermeier) was specifically about selection bias. I tried to edit the page to reflect that, adding that Ostermeier concluded that selection bias was a likely reason for PolitiFact rating Republican statements as more misleading. Another editor removed my revision, saying "'this potential selection bias - if there is one at PolitiFact' = no conclusion." But that doesn't follow. Ostermeier did not come to a firm conclusion that PolitiFact's results occurred because of selection bias. He admitted that he did not specifically know the selection process. But Ostermeier did conclude that selection bias was a likely reason. That's clear from the title "Selection Bias? PolitiFact Rates Republican Statements as False at 3 Times the Rate of Democrats" and its concluding sentence. The study's point is looking for selection bias. Ostermeier literally concludes with "By levying 23 Pants on Fire ratings to Republicans over the past year compared to just 4 to Democrats, it appears the sport of choice is game hunting - and the game is elephants." It is well within reason to paraphrase Ostermeier as concluding that selection bias is a likely explanation for the disparity in the ratings. Bottom line, the existing title doesn't belong over a section based on a study that questions the idea in the title. It's flatly misleading to use Ostermeier's study to give an appearance of support to the idea in the section title without mentioning the gist of the study (encapsulated in his conclusion). One could use studies by Chris Mooney of the findings at PolitiFact and the Washington Post Fact Checker that claim to show that Republicans more often mislead. But even then some mention of the problem of selection bias belongs in the section. Let's not allow it to be swept under the rug, please. Zebrafactcheck (talk) 07:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zebrafactcheck (talk • contribs) 07:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I would think it's rather obvious that Republicans are more frequently found to be misleading by Politifact as opposed to Republicans more frequently found to be misleading by all factcheckers. The context is enormously different if that title is occurring in this article or in an article about Republicans. One could argue that selecting a title of "Analysis of PolitiFact's ratings" actually serves to hide Polifact's bias against Republicans, in other words.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

"Lie of the year 2012" vis-a-vis Jeep.

Undid a previous revision as it had obfuscating and superfluous minutiae about Chrysler's motivations for producing Jeep vehicles in China. This page is about PolitiFact and the veracity thereof, not about the underlying competitive dynamics and motivations of the automotive industry.YosemiteFudd (talk) 03:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I have a couple of comments about this. First, if you look at my edit and at the edit where Xenophrenic attempted to remove it and replace it with something else (a change which YosemiteFudd reverted), you will see that what I added was a neutrally worded addition with a citation backing it up. Which is what you would expect if you knew me, because I am completely apolitical.

Second, there was an edit comment that said "'announcement; was actually back in October 2012". That's not what the source I cited said. It is dated "Jan 17, 2013" and says "Chrysler, in which Fiat has a 58.5 percent stake, said on Tuesday". If someone has evidence that Reuters made an error, I will be happy to put in the correct date, but please don't make claims that are not backed up by the source cited. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The PolitiFact source notes that the announcement about Jeeps in China was made in October of 2012. The Jan 17 source cited by Guy Macon is only a statement that they will be doing it with with Guangzhou Automobile Group ... one of several partners, in fact. The sentence you added might appear, to someone of lesser good faith about your completely apolitical edits, to be an attempt to mislead the reader into thinking the Romney-camp assertions were actually truthful. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. I was afraid that this would happen if I ventured into a political article. Firstly, Xenophrenic, you are edit warring. Stop it. See Wikipedia:Edit warring, Wikipedia:Consensus, and Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Secondly, do not remove material that is supported by a citation to a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Content removal. Again, if you believe that Reuters made an error, explain why you think that on the article talk page and seek consensus that an error was made. Thirdly, do not make thinly-veiled accusations about other editors, as you did above. See Wikipedia:Civility. Fourthly, I don't care whether Romney was truthful and neither does Wikipedia. I don't care whether PolitiFact.com was truthful and neither does Wikipedia. All that I and Wikipedia care about is whether the article accurately reports what is in reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, save the links to general policy. It's not needed here. Secondly, I haven't removed any material supported by reliable sources. Also, I never said "Reuters made an error", perhaps you are confusing me with another editor? Thirdly, please do not do massive page blanking of article content. Fourthly, reliable sources report that in October 2012, Chrysler said it would be building autos in China. In January, 2013, they named who they would be partnering with in that effort. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 08:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I find it difficult to reconcile your claim to be familiar with Wikipedia policy with your edit warring and your apparent belief that WP:BRD is WP:BRDR. You made a Bold change (B)[2]. YosemiteFudd reverted (BR)[3] and started discussing (BRD).[4] You reverted[5] (BRDR) and when reverted, reverted again[6] (BRDRRR). You are at 3RR. I and YosemiteFudd are each at 1RR. Please undo your last revert, come back here, discuss your edit, and try to arrive at a consensus rather than engaging in further edit warring and incivility. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

You are far too generous in crediting me alone with edit warring, when it is your disputed edit at the crux of the matter, and you have been reverting. They say it takes two to Tango. Your (B)old change added the following sentence to the article that was otherwise untouched for the past month:

• In January of 2013 Chrysler, which is owned by Fiat, announced that it will start producing Jeeps in China.

That edit has been (R)everted, as noted above, because it (1) claims there was an "announcement", when Chrysler merely said it had made an agreement with Guangzhou Automobile Group, and (2) misleadingly implies Chrysler "announced" in January that it would be making Jeeps in China, when in fact Bloomberg reported on Oct. 22 that the company was planning to restart production of Jeeps in China. As clarified by the CEO back in October, "Together, we are working to establish a global enterprise and previously announced our intent to return Jeep production to China, the world’s largest auto market, in order to satisfy local market demand, which would not otherwise be accessible." I had (D)iscussed this with you above, but apparently it fell on deaf ears, and you went ahead and reverted again anyway.

I tried to incorporate your new source and what it (really) conveyed into the article, but it appears Mr. Fudd would have none of that. So, what do you propose? Xenophrenic (talk) 07:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

While the Reuters source you cited reported that Chrysler "said" they had an agreement with Guangzhou Automobile Group, this source from the Toledo Blade uses the word "announced", but makes clearer exactly what they announced: Speaking from the North American International Auto Show in Detroit, Mr. Marchionne’s comments reiterated — and strengthened — a statement he made to Chrysler employees in October when he said, “Jeep assembly lines will remain in operation in the United States and constitute the backbone of the brand.” Those comments came after Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney suggested Chrysler Group LLC was looking to move Jeep production to China ... Fiat Group SpA and Chrysler Group LLC on Tuesday announced an agreement with Guangzhou Automobile Group to expand their cooperation on passenger car manufacturing, including having Guangzhou build one Jeep model in China for Chrysler for sale in China. Jeeps were built in China from the mid-1980s until 2009. Perhaps that might better inform the crafting of article additions. In short, Chrysler said back in October that they were going to expand into China (again) -- Romney & Crew twisted that to mean American production was going to be relocated to China (false), and PolitiFact called them on it -- These new 2013 reports merely confirm that the previously planned and announced expansion is moving forward. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I stand by my edit. It was properly sourced, encyclopedic, and had a neutral tone. Your replacement does not report what is in the source, but rather PolitiFact.com's spin on it, and is not neutrally worded. I have no objection if, after you put my edit back into the article and remove your replacement, you change "announced" to "said". --Guy Macon (talk) 11:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You still have not addressed the concern about the date conflict your edit introduces (see above). Could you do that, please? Xenophrenic (talk) 03:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's analyze the edit which Xenophrenic has removed[7] four times and which three different editors have restored. First, please read the citation:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/01/17/uk-fiat-marchionne-china-idUKBRE90G0O620130117

It is our job as Wikipedia editors to report what is in that citation without any bias or spin. The wording I chose does that:

"In January of 2013 Chrysler, which is owned by Fiat, announced that it will start producing Jeeps in China.([ Ref ])"

Xenophrenic's replacement reads

"Chrysler, in which Fiat holds a 58.5% controlling interest after rescuing Chrysler from bankruptcy, announced in October 2012 that as part of its continued expansion it will restart producing Jeeps in China to compete with rivals like General Motors in the worlds largest auto market. ([ Ref ])"

Xenophrenic's replacement adds material not found in the source.

The source says "Chrysler, in which Fiat has a 58.5 percent stake..." and later "Since Fiat helped rescue Chrysler from bankruptcy in 2009," but Xenophrenic's replacement says "Chrysler, in which Fiat holds a 58.5% controlling interest after rescuing Chrysler from bankruptcy" - changing the meaning by removing the "helped" - this in a section directly relating to the governments actions during that bankruptcy.

The source (which is dated Thu Jan 17, 2013) says "Chrysler ... said on Tuesday".

Xenophrenic's replacement reads "announced in October 2012". He keeps the same citation, but changes the date. In various comments he claims that other sources give the October date, a clear case of WP:SYNTH.

The source says "Chrysler expect to roll out at least 100,000 Jeeps in China when production starts in 2014 as they seek to catch up with rivals in the world's biggest car market."

Xenophrenic's replacement reads "[Chrysler] will restart producing Jeeps in China to compete with rivals like General Motors in the worlds largest auto market." The word "restart" is not in the source (More {WP:SYNTH]]) and mentioning GM -- the other US automaker that accepted bailout money -- and not mentioning companies that didn't like Ford, Volkswagen, Toyota, etc. introduces a subtle bias, by, once again, straying from simply reporting what is in the source.

So, if these additions did not come from the source cited, where did they come from? "restart", "like other American automakers" (with a link to GM) and the October date, all came from the following page:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/blog/2013/jan/18/lie-year-still/

If Xenophrenic wants to add -- properly attributed and cited -- politifact.com's next-day response to the Reuters report, that's fine. Attempting to insert the politifact.com's talking points while deleting a factual and neutrally worded sentence that describes what is in the source is not. And certainly edit warring and going against consensus in order to do so is not.

Edit warring reported here. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You still have not addressed the concern about the date conflict your edit introduces (see above). Could you do that, please? Also, I see you quote (in boldface) my edit to the article, with a link to just one of the two references I cited, and then you claim, "Xenophrenic's replacement adds material not found in the source." That is very dishonest of you, Guy Macon. Perhaps you can't find the material because you only included one of my two sources. You ask, "if these additions did not come from the source cited, where did they come from?" The additions did indeed come from the cited sources, so that's a very dishonest question for you to ask, Guy Macon. You state they all came from http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/blog/2013/jan/18/lie-year-still/ , an article I haven't seen until you brought it to my attention. That's very dishonest of you, Guy Macon. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: "You still have not addressed the concern about the date conflict your edit introduces (see above). Could you do that, please?", the October date is not in the source. I don't know how I can be any more clear than that. I even went to http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/01/17/uk-fiat-marchionne-china-idUKBRE90G0O620130117 and searched for the strings "oct" and "10" just to make sure. Not there. This has been explained to you before. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Why are you looking for it in the Reuters source? This has been asked of you before. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe try a search on the string "The PolitiFact source notes that the announcement about Jeeps in China was made in October of 2012." on this Talk page, and see what that nets you. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Alternatively, you might try doing your word search for "October" on the source cited immediately after the "October" text. That's usually where I find the sources. You know, right after the content being cited. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

If you'd like more information about the October 2012 announcement about making Jeeps in China, that you wrongly claim was made in January 2013, you could check Source1, Source2, Source3, Source4, Source5, Source6, Source7, Source8.

The sentence you introduced to our article is not supported by the source you cited. "In January of 2013 Chrysler, which is owned by Fiat, announced that it will start producing Jeeps in China."? Your source never stated that Chrysler said "it will start producing Jeeps in China" as you claim, it said Chrysler "had agreed to make Jeeps in China with Guangzhou Automobile Group." See that little word "agree", as in agreement, that you selectively omitted? That's what they were announcing: that they had struck an agreement to make cars together. Cars they announced back in October (not January) that they would be making in China. They also are not going to "start producing Jeeps in China" - your source didn't say that either. They are going to start producing cars together, hopefully as soon as 18 months, but they won't be "starting to build cars in China" since Chrysler has been making Jeeps in China for a long time, and only suspended production in 2009. Finally, you haven't said why you decided to add that sentence to an article about PolitiFact. Politifact isn't mentioned anywhere in your source article. The election is over, Guy Macon. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

What part of "when production starts in 2014" are you having trouble understanding? That's what the source says. I just reported what is in the source I cited. The source does not mention any 2009 production. If you have something to add to the article about production in 2009, write it up and follow it with a citation to a reliable source. You kept the same citation, removed text that describes what is in the citation, and replaced it with text that is not in the citation. I can save you some time here. To anything you argue for that does not have the basic attribute of the assertion on the Wikipedia page matching the source cited, the answer is No. If you repeat the argument, the answer is Hell No.

As for whether it belongs, three editors have already re-added it after your multiple attempts to delete it. That's a clear consensus. Feel free to post an RfC if you think that bringing in outside opinions will change the consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You appear to have a misunderstanding of WP:Consensus. It's not a vote, and 3 or 300 editors making a problematic edit without addressing the legitimate concerns raised about that edit is not consensus. Please try to set aside whatever emotional or ideological investment you have in this article, and work toward building consensus; a "the answer is No" or "the answer is Hell No" attitude won't help in that effort. I'll attempt to again respond to each of your questions and assertions here:

• What part of "when production starts in 2014" are you having trouble understanding? That's what the source says.

No, that's not what the source says. As I tried to explain above, there are actually words before and after that incomplete snippet -- a whole article, in fact. (And now several articles about the same announcement.) You ask what part I do not understand? The part you left out, the context. What production, exactly, is to start in 2014? The "start" of something marks a beginning, the advent of something new -- so what is new beginning in 2014? Is it that Chrysler "will start producing Jeeps in China", something Chrysler has already been doing for years, or is it that Chrysler "had agreed to make Jeeps in China with Guangzhou Automobile Group"? The latter is the production that will start in 2014, not the generic production of Jeeps in China.

• I just reported what is in the source I cited.

No, you did not. We're not allowed to selectively cherry-pick words from an article to convey one thing, when the article conveys something else. Even moreso when the cherry-picked assertion is contradicted by other reliable sources.

• The source does not mention any 2009 production.

Correction: Your new source does not mention any 2009 production. Other sources already in the article do, like the one I cited. See this edit of mine.

• If you have something to add to the article about production in 2009, write it up and follow it with a citation to a reliable source.

That is exactly what I did. See this edit of mine.

• You kept the same citation, removed text that describes what is in the citation, and replaced it with text that is not in the citation.

Incorrect: I kept your new citation, removed text that was contradicted by already existing reliable sources (date of the announcement about building Jeeps in China, for instance) and replaced it with uncontradicted text that is in your new source and an existing source.

• As for whether it belongs...

That wasn't the question. I wanted your input as to why you decided to add that sentence to an article about PolitiFact; what additional information are you attempting to convey to the reader? "Because two other editors reverted" doesn't tell me what information you are trying to convey to the reader. I ask because I'd like to come up with wording that conveys that information without contradicting itself. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: "Your new source does not mention any 2009 production. Other sources already in the article do": Again, the statement on the Wikipedia page must match the citation attached to it. Again, if you want to put something on a Wikipedia page that is found in another citation, either edit the text that precedes that other citation or write some new text and add your preferred citation to it. Again, the answer to your latest repeat of the argument that the text doesn't need to match the citation is NO. Go ahead. Ask again. The answer will always be NO. See WP:V.

Re: "I kept your new citation, removed text that was contradicted by already existing reliable sources". NO. The text must match the source that is cited to support it. Are you seeing a pattern here?

If you think that you can come up with a better wording, go ahead. I have no objection as long as your wording agrees with the source that is attached to it. That is Wikipedia policy and is non-negotiable. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

In case you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy on this, Wikipedia:Verifiability says "All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." In addition, Wikipedia:No original research says "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources." (Emphasis in original.) --Guy Macon (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to involve myself in this edit war b/c it seems intractable, but for the record, if someone come to take a look to identify consensus, it seems to me like Xenophrenic is being a bit tendentious, and a couple minor word changes (rather than reverts) seem like they should accommodate his concerns, e.g., 'start' --> 'restart' and 'announced' --> 'said.' That said, the article as written now seems okay to me.PStrait (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)