Talk:Fitzmas

message: I have requested this page be protected until we can settle the dispute on this article.
205.250.146.89 01:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit war

message: Since the term "Fitzmas" is a liberal term the article should include a conservative point of view, for fairness, but the sentence "Many political scientists agree that since the Democrats can't win at the ballot box etc" seems to be an opinion, not a fact.  "Many political scientists," which political scientists specifically, and where and when did they say this?  "Voters distrust their policies and leadership..."  All voters feel this way?  Where and how did the author gain this information? "Democrats are now trying to seize power by other means etc," needs further proof.  More concrete examples of Republican feelings toward the Plame investigation, and possible displeasure at terms such as "Fitzmas" might be provided instead.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.144.163.122 (talk • contribs) October 23, 2005.
:I assume the conservative POV about the Plame affair is covered in our article on the Plame affair (which I haven't read).  This article isn't about the whole scandal, but only about this particular term.  I added the link to the National Review columnist's view.  JamesMLane 15:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fairness does not dictate that because 'Fitzmas' is a term used mostly by liberals (as opposed to 'a liberal term'), it must be 'balanced' by some sort of equal time provision allowing those of a conservative bent the opportunity to slander and defame liberals. Were that the case, then an entry for 'supply-side economics' should include verbiage to the effect that it is "a thoroughly discredited economic theory, the implementation of which caused massive federal deficits and the financial evisceration of the less fortunate in American society." Likewise, since 'Social Security Privatization' is a 'conservative term', language should be included in its entry indicating that it is 'a sinister plan to destroy Social Security while enriching the cronies of President Bush on Wall Street." 71.97.29.222 19:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New comment

message: Wikipedia is no place for partisan bickering.  This is temporal information of a very specific nature and should only be included if this whole thing blows up further and the term makes it into popular culture.  If we include this, then we have to include every other piece of garbage catch-phrase that anyone with a blog comes up with...if anything the term does not deserve its own article
--IRelayer 20:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking up coming up with "FetsaBubble" which is when Democrats get excited, but it turns out to be a bust. Or what about "NutsABusta" when a Democrat says to his friend "you were NutsABusta, for thinking Wilson was more important than he was", or maybe "PlameGameski" referring to the schemes that the anti-Cheney vipers used to cook up this problem by using partisan Wilson on purpose.... Rex071404  216.153.214.94   00:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page should be deleted 

message: Mr. Tibbs, when I wrote “explain 'Fizzlemas'" in my ES, I didn’t mean that I was calling on you to explain it.  I meant it as a description of my edit.  My edit explained the term by adding the point that there hadn’t been even more indictments. JamesMLane 00:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, present tense threw me off. Sidenote: Does anyone know the original source of the "Merry Fitzmas Video" that I just put up under links? - Mr. Tibbs 08:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fizzlemas 

message: It is now referenced in an article by Gary Younge in The Guardian.    Please keep. – Kaihsu 14:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referenced in The Guardian 

message: :Fitzmas is the name given by some liberal American bloggers to the atmosphere of excitement and anticipation primarily among Democrats and some others preceding the announcement of results of Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation of the Plame affair.
This seems to have it backwards. During the lead-up to October 28, nearly every use of "Fitzmas" I saw assumed that Fitzmas was coming, and that it would arrive the day Fitzgerald presented his first indictments. The "atmosphere of excitement and anticipation" itself would therefore be, at most, the "Fitzmas season." To relate it back to the holiday from whence the term came: No one would argue that, say, December 14th is Christmas, although it is certainly during the Christmas season.
I'd like to clarify this, but I don't want to mess with the lead sentence without at least opening the floor for discussion for a time. --PHenry 16:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, agreed.  I'm not sure how to word it properly, but I'd agree with an attempt at doing so. — ceejayoz talk  03:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Fitzmas is a word coined by some liberal American bloggers in the atmosphere of excitement and anticipation, primarily among Democrats and some others, preceding the announcement of results of Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation into the Plame affair." Good? Wanted to change the least amount of words while still incorporating Henry's suggestion. - Mr. Tibbs 05:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that wording because it doesn't flat-out assert that Fitzmas was the day of the announcement, as opposed to the run-up period.  The term appeared and spread so rapidly that it would be too presumptuous for us to declare definitively that its meaning was one thing rather than the other.  There was at least one version of "The Twelve Days of Fitzmas", which more readily suggests a period of time as opposed to a single day.  JamesMLane 07:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A minor issue

message: So, what IS the deal with the transcript? If there is some relevant point maybe we can include it in something a bit more compact... but so far as I could see the text did nothing to further explain 'Fitzmas'. --CBDunkerson 08:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Fitzmas" is one aspect of the Plame affair.  Available information on whether there will be further indictments belongs in that article and Rex has in fact inserted the same quotation there, where the point is relevant (athough it doesn't deserve to take up half the lead section, the way he's done it there).  The "Fitzmas" article should be about the specific term and its usage.  Neither the transcript nor a detailed summary of the Fitzmas Day indictment would belong here. JamesMLane
I have yielded here, but think that at Plame affair, my edit is valid.  Rex071404  216.153.214.94   11:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Transcript

message: It looks like someone is adding articles that are critical of the Democratic response, but don't directly relate to Fitzmas.  They just use the word and go on insult Democrats. See the links to the Gaurdian, Human Events Online and Townhall. --waffle iron 23:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like Rex is editing back in the PoV links. --waffle iron 06:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Just a few days ago, I editted the section on web hits to reflect the current (at that time) totals.   Google hits were under 300k.  With the recent news about Fitz having to make a major correction, I checked the hits again and found that the Google hits had suddenly dropped to below 32k!  Is this permanent (more or less) or some temporary quirk with Google?
:Nevermind.  It's back to normal. Jinxmchue 14:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google hits took a major drop - permanently? 

message: According to Washington Post, 06.13.2006:
:Senior White House political adviser Karl Rove's successful avoidance of criminal charges in the CIA leak investigation is a huge win for the White House.
:It's also a massive blow to those who had hoped that special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald's investigation would end Rove's career as a cunning and outlandishly successful Republican strategist.
Should we work this into the article somehow?
:I think this article might be re-written or deleted/merged.  It's completely dropped from the radar, as Google Trends shows .  --Hamiltonian 22:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Disagree. It's a notable bit of history, and Wikipedia is not paper.  rewinn 20:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rove not charged. Fitzmas is a bust? 

message: Fitzmas was a real disappointment to me again this year.  I asked Santa Kos for a GI Joe and instead got three packages of underwear.
198.232.63.43 23:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Happy Fitzmas? 

message: I propose that this be directed to Patrick Fitzgerald, rather than to the Plame Affair. bd2412 T 04:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-redirect?