Talk:Flip-flop (politics)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Hi, I'm reviewing this article. Here are my comments so far. -- Philcha (talk) 10:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Review checklist

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Coverage
This is my greatest single concern at present, and should be addressed first, so that we only need one pass through referencing and style issues.
 * Too US-centred at present. See comments below on Heath & Thatcher.
 * Well-sourced material on flip-flops / U-turns outside USA and UK would be a significant improvement. A preliminary Google for "flip-flop u-turn" looked promising, e.g. Petrol (1): The U-turn gostan government is a blog and therefore probably not WP:RS, but shows the applicability of "U-turn" outside USA & UK, and gives several newspaper links plus enough keywords for additional Googling.
 * Your Fed example is nice because it shows the use of the term for government-related bodies as well as politicians. A few more would be a major advantage, and I think central banks / economic management agencies would be a good hunting ground, e.g. I expect there must be something recent on the Bank of England as it was concerned about rising inflation earleir this year but now the "credit crunch" dominates the stage. Policy on drugs, policing, the environment and other areas where there are semi-autonomous government agencies may also be fruitful.

General

 * Refs are required to use Citation templates. Please format all refs in this way, and make sure that the "accessdate" param is correctly completed (yyyy-mm-dd) for all refs that contain URLs.

Examples

 * These all hypothetical and unsourced, IMO they violoate WP:NOR.
 * I don't think this section is necessary as there are plenty of examples lower down, mostly well-sourced. See comments on "History" section.

History

 * I'd make the the first two paras (Safire's explanation and the NY Times 1890 report) a separate section "Etymology" to explain the origins and meaning of the term.
 * It would be useful to include the earliest recorded use of the synonym "U-turn" (not just in UK) in an "Etymology" section too.
 * I don't see that "which go back to 1851" (NY Times archives) is relevant.
 * The date October 23, 1890 should not be wiki-linked as it's not significant in a relevant way - see WP:OVERLINK. The policy changed in spring 2008, as I discovered in a GA review of an article to which I'd contributed.
 * Wikilink Randolph Quirk.
 * Safire gives a huge example in Nixon's 1971 policy changes to meet the inflation-driven depreciation of the US $. This establishes some interesting chronology, as Heath in the UK did his U-turn from laissez faire to interventionist around the same time and under similar economic pressures (WP:RS needed!).
 * I know Safire is not specific on this, but it would be very helpful to explain, with WP:RS, on what issue(s) Dukakis accused Gephardt of flip-flopping, and if possible how Gephardt responded.
 * Can you dig up a good ref for the year in which Dukakis called Gephardt a flip-flopper? Safire notes that shortly afterwards New York Times colleague Tom Wicker wrote, "What's wrong with a Presidential candidate changing his position? ..." which suggests that by this time flip-flopping was a serious political charge rather than just routine campaign invective. Saying this outright would be blatant WP:OR, but adding a summmary of Wicker's comment would give a little spice.
 * Re the alleged Kerry flip-flop, I'm not sure whether FactCheck.org's Bush Ad Twists Kerry's Words on Iraq is regarded as WP:RS and have requested advice on this at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. In the meantime you should look for alternative WP:RS in case the answer is negative - additional sources might provide some juicy details which would be useful in their own right.
 * So far the response at [] suggests another source is needed. -- Philcha (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The ref for "President Gerald Ford used the phrase against his opponent Jimmy Carter" links to the NY Times search page, should link to the actual article. This para should also explain the alleged flip-flop(s).
 * However the NY times search page gives other examples that may be usfeul for filling chronological gaps, as the article currently jumps from 1890 to 1967 to 1988 to post-2000.
 * Ref(s) needed for Heath's U-turn. Selsdon Man is just a stub, but Googling for "Selsdon Man" may help. Edward_Heath lacks refs but will also provide topics to Google for.
 * Ref needed for "you turn [U-turn] if you want to; the Lady's not for turning".
 * It would be useful to look at Margaret Thatcher for additional sources on Heath's U-turn and how it helpd Thatcher to power, and on how her inflexibility led to her fall (potential material for the section on impact of flip-flops - avoidance of flip-flps can also be damaging).
 * A contemporary example (early spring 2019) is President Trump all for releasing the Mueller report until he was against it within a little over a week. The news media has yet to call this a flip-flop. Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Exculpatory, ameliorating and aggravating circumstances affecting public reaction

 * This section title is far too long. How about "Impact on political reputations"?
 * "George [H. W.] Bush" is tricky. I'd be inclined to use "George Herbert Bush" to distinguish him from "Dubbya".
 * From my experience, most people distinguish between the two Bushes with George H.W. Bush/George Herbert Walker Bush versus George W. Bush. You rarely see "Herbert" without the "Walker" when referring to Bush 41. --HoboJones (talk) 01:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * To a non-American or even an American under the age of 35 "George [H. W.] Bush faced a crippling 1992 primary challenge after abandoning his 'no new taxes' campaign pledge in the White House" needs some explanation, with WP:RS of course:
 * "read my lips, no new taxes" was GHB's 1988 campaign pledge.
 * How did he go back on it and why?
 * Who challenged GHB in primaries and how far was this motivated by the tax flip-flop?
 * Why was the challenge "crippling"? My impression as a Brit was that GHB lost because: (a) he'd sorted out the economic problems but the benefits didn't show up in time to help him; (b) his campaign lacked pizzazz and charisma, which Clinton had in spades.
 * I agree, with a modification: the Republican base never really trusted Bush 41 in the first place, and his No New Taxes statement was meant to mollify their concerns. When he flipped, it was seen as confirmation of their preexisting mistrust. That helps explain why that flip flop was a huge deal. Also, this lesson (don't antagonize the GOP base) has been taken to heart by every Republican since then.--HoboJones (talk) 01:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * First mention of [George W.] Bush should be wikilinked.
 * "Progressives loved it because it was taking responsibility ..." needs an explanation of "Progressives", for the benefit of non-US readers - the US political axis (axes?) does not run in the same direction as that of most other countries.
 * The ref for James Broder's 2007 IHT article ("In past, clues to way Fed chief met mortgage crisis") uses a URL that does not point to that article -   is good at present.

Lead
Will review when all issues in main content are resolved.
 * "... non-elected public officials can also be accused of flip-flopping ..." is not in the main content, and contains a ref.

Images / illustrations
It's hard to think of what kinds of images / illustrations would contribute more than just eye-candy. The only kinds I can think of right now are graphs of approval ratings, public opinion, tax rates and other economic stats. Can you think of any? PS If informative images can't be found, that will not be a reason for making this review a "fail".
 * I have no idea where to find these, but in 2004 people would dress up as a flip flop (meaning the shoe) for political rallies--especially against Kerry. Also, some people used real flip flops as political props in 2004. There might be pictures of this somewhere. --HoboJones (talk) 02:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Did not pass GA review
It's over 2 weeks since I posted comments. In that time the article has not been edited and the only responses have been HoboJones's additional suggestions about how the article could be improved.

Unfortunately I have to fail this article. That's a pity, because it has the potential to be a very interesting article. --Philcha (talk) 11:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

- - - - - - - - Please add comments / responses above this line - - - - - - - -