Talk:Third rail (politics)

Various[edit]

It's a good article so far. People say Social Security's the "third rail" in American politics, but is that true? Has contemplating Social Security changes really been political suicide for certain officials, or has it just exposed them to a certain amount of backlash? Greenspan proposed changes in the early '80's and Reagan signed them into law and neither of them suffered too much for it, so did anyone else take the fall? Maybe there could be an example of a name of someone who did? Uyanga 14:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is overpopulation really a 3rd rail? in what country? Rban 20:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unconditional support for Israel as a third rail, only really exist in the United States. If the government of Britain or France finishes its relationship with Israel, it sees a diplomatic rift. 159753 09:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that anyone could offer a single external link/reference to cite? 1337wesm (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Israel[edit]

Since 2006, editors have repeatedly removed Criticism of Israel from the list of third rail issues. I'd like to seek community input on this issue, and I have requested comment from Plot Spoiler. Mhults7791 (talk) 08:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant policies are WP:BIASED and WP:RSOPINION within WP:RS. From WP:BIASED: "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject… While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context"

The issue: Is the opinion of Helen Thomas a reliable source, when given in-text attribution, as an example of the use of this political metaphor? This page is about a metaphor commonly used in political rhetoric. A metaphor is a comparison, an opinion, and in politics, an expression of a viewpoint. No issue is "factually" a third rail issue. The article itself says that "disagreement may occur over whether a specific issue is a "third rail" issue." When the metaphor is used, it is always either assertion or an expression of an opinion. Further, the section heading is "Examples of usage in American politics," rather than "Examples in American politics," suggesting that the list consists of examples of opinions that have been given within American political discourse.

All 6 current sources are statements of opinion. #1 is an opinion piece by the Chicago Tribune. #2 is objectively written, but still an opinion on which political commentators disagree (for example, Matt Purple of The American Spectator). One of the list items has no citation, though I wouldn't disagree with its inclusion. #3 is an opinion piece from a blog. #4 is an opinion piece from an "unapologetically partisan" source. #5 is also an opinion piece, though from a pair of experts. And #6 is an opinion piece from Christine Flowers. All appear to be reliable sources, with the possible exception of the blog, because they are sources of opinions, not facts. It should go without saying that the same standards should apply to all sources in the list. It may be the case that all the list items require an in-text attribution.

Sources in dispute: [1], a transcript from a CNN interview in which Helen Thomas states that she was fired because she touched "the third rail, which is Israel… You touch one thing about Israel and you're finished." This is her opinion; it is also her experience. She is an example of a political commentator who touched the third rail issue of criticizing Israel. [2], a non-opinion article that claims that "Criticizing Israel has long been the equivalent of touching a third rail in many Jewish families and friendships." While it doesn't provide any examples of political figures being taken down, it gives several examples from within the political discourse of the Jewish community. The most persuasive support given is a sociology study that found that "younger and liberal-leaning [Jews] are frustrated at being labeled “anti-Israel” or even anti-Semitic for expressing opposition to Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories". And [3] is an opinion piece from a partisan source, just like source #4. The author claims Rand Paul "may have crossed a third rail" by proposing to end all foreign aid, including to Israel. He supports the claim by detailing criticism Paul received following his proposal. While Paul's presidential hopes are still alive after flirting with the third rail, Zionist billionaire Sheldon Adelson and other wealthy political donors plan to take him down. All three, but especially the first, are reliable sources of examples of the use of the term "third rail" in American politics. Mhults7791 (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing on this article is by and large unsuitable and needs to be revamped. It should be viewed as a model for inclusion of other material. Regarding the sources you have brought to bear regarding criticism of Israel, I don't believe they are directly on topic or fail RS.

Helen Thomas is not a politician that suffered for touching a third rail and her comments on the subject were largely considered fringe at the time.
The New York Times article is about discussions within American Jewish families, not in American politics writ-large.
New American is not a reliable media source. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Issue posted to WP:RS/N Mhults7791 (talk) 03:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Polticians are not the only public figures who can be zapped by the third rail. This should be reflected in the article. Thomas is an example of a political commentator, and Steven Salaita is an example of a professor who was zapped by this third rail. While Thomas's views may be fringe in America, globally they are significantly less fringe, and this is a global issue. Also, third rail views are often fringe or near-fringe, for example Todd Akin in source #6. Mhults7791 (talk) 04:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

New American doesn't have to BE a reliable source, as this is an opinion piece. However, this column is talking about stopping ALL foreign aid, not just Israel. I mostly concur with Plot Spoiler. I haven't read this talk page yet, but if this is another Israel/Palestine or Jew/Muslim boxing ring for editors, please knock it off now.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to add we don't just take anybody's opinion and use it in articles like these. We take opinions from people with experience who know politics, and what constitutes a "third rail". Reporters, professors, politicians, etc. Yes Thomas was in this category, but because she was using the metaphor about herself, it carries far less (if any) weight. In other words, look to other's to make this statement.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a valid point. I posted this source on the other page, but this source, written by a PhD, may be better. What do you think? Mhults7791 (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those links are opinions of partisans, and their usage of the third rail is a partisan opinion. The best type of source to look for is someone who is using this phrase as matter of fact, not as a tool to advocate a position. A Mideast studies expert, that has a proven rack record of accurate exporting would be the best possible source. But if you expand the definition to "third rail" to include partisan uses, the ones you submitted might work. But that's not how the article currently reads. I also wouldn't support such a change, because the way it is written and the way the phrase is used requires a preponderance of sources. Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the opinion source should be an expert in American politics, rather than Mideast studies, since the metaphor is used to describe a condition of the American political environment. How about this Huffington Post source? The author, M.J. Rosenberg is pro-Israel and has worked on Capitol Hill for 15 years, as well as for AIPAC. Mhults7791 (talk) 04:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the list need to be shortened. The "dumping" usage has the same problems as does the Israel usage. Rape? I don't think so. Who ever thinks about advocating for rape? Historically, it's SS, gun control and maybe abortion. The overwhelming usage is centered on these. But if the consensus is to expand the list, I'll not stand in the way.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The third rail issue is about politicians who would deny abortions to rape victims who are impregnated by their rapists. Fortunately, they don't advocate for rape. That could be made clearer. Even if the list was shortened, criticizing Israel is as third rail as it gets, behind social security and maybe gun control. The recent vote on gun control was actually for background checks, but was filibustered. When it's Israel, it's 100-0. Mhults7791 (talk) 05:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, we don't get to determine what is "third rail" and what isn't. The sources do. My opinion is the preponderance of sources merits inclusion, but others might disagree.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So the preponderance of sources merits inclusion of "criticism of Israel" on the list, and the Rosenberg source should be attributed? Mhults7791 (talk) 05:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to emphasize that we aren't, and the sources aren't, deciding what is third rail and what isn't. That cannot be objectively determined. We are only putting together a list of examples of the use of the metaphor by credible political experts. Even the experts disagree on what is and isn't third rail, as shown by the Matt Purple source above. Mhults7791 (talk) 06:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the Israeli position is scantly supported, but that's my opinion. What other people think, I'll wait and see.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mhults, on the Israel matter you keep bringing in some of the most partisan voices, which are not suitable RS in this case. MJ Rosenberg is not "pro-Israel" and he essentially got fired from Media Matters for his over the top harangues against Israel. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rosenberg self-identifies as pro-Israel in the article. He worked for AIPAC, which is as pro-Israel as it gets. And if someone who self-identifies as pro-Israel was fired for criticizing Israel then that's yet another example, and the strongest example yet, that criticizing Israel quite obviously merits inclusion on the list. Mhults7791 (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New opinions have come in on the RS/N. Consensus is that these are indeed RS, and that this now becomes an NPOV - DUE WEIGHT issue. Is there a compromise possibility we could work out, such as a new section that discusses differing viewpoints? We could make a separate section for each line of the list and elaborate on them all. Mhults7791 (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I motion as an editor to add Israel as a certain third rail issue in American politics. Not saying it is good or bad for America, but the fact is support for Israel in American foreign policy is ubiquitously bipartisan in American politics. It is political suicide for ANY American senator to go up against AIPAC. CHECK YOUR CITATIONS! (talk) 11:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the sources don't support this notion. Isn't that correct Plot Spoiler? We don't count fringe opinions as discussed above. There are msny RS saying SS is a third rail. Gun control has also received coverage, but IMO not to the level of SS. Those that have made the claim of US/Israel relations being a third rail are fringe opinions. Your username suggests you might have a COI with articles related to Israel. Please try and not let any personal leanings cloud your editorial judgment.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 20:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even look at Plot Spoiler history? He has had a history of disruptive editing in regards to topics concerning Israel and pro-Israeli foreign policy. Plot Spoiler has a reputation for having a very pro-Israel slant so it is ironic my username is considered a "conflict of interest" on whether or not claiming the American relationship with Israel is a "third rail" issue. My username itself was inspired by someone accusing me of being "pro-Israeli" in a heated e-mail exchange. I'm trying to be objective and there isn't much debate that Israel has a powerful lobby and bipartisan support. CHECK YOUR CITATIONS! (talk) 05:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Spolier's edit history has no bearing on whether or not Israel constitutes being a third rail. The sources do, and so far I don't see any credible sources making this claim. Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 07:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so then what sources would be considered "credible" to you to officially declare Israel a "third rail" issue? By the way, do you not see the irony about how you're going about this? You don't think Israel's relationship with the US is not a third rail issue yet you have gone above and beyond just reverting my edits and attempted to get admin involved to block me. You're proving my point how Israel can't be discussed as an "untouchable issue" by removing from the entry. Fine, go ahead and leave gun control up there which I can easily prove is no "third rail" issue, but stop resorting to Orwellian (and Machiavellian) tactics by removing Israel as a "third rail" issue. And believer it or not, yes, it is pertinent Plot Spoiler has had a history of disruptive editing in regards to Israel. It goes to prove he does not want the Israel lobby to be seen as influential and pervasive in elite American politics. CHECK YOUR CITATIONS! (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So Two kinds of pork, what is so unconvincing to you about Israel having bipartisan support? Just look at pro-Israel lobby donations: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=Q05 CHECK YOUR CITATIONS! (talk) 23:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever watched Cool Hand Luke? Because what we have here, is a failure to communicate. This article is about the phrase "third rail of politics". We need reliable sources stating that the subject of touching or messing with this lobby is indeed a "third rail". Not fringe sources mind you, but reliable sources. Thankfully sinces she's well dead I won't be violating BLP in saying that the opinion of nut job leather face Helen Thomas is not applicable.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 20:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considering your unflattering characterization of Helen Thomas, is it okay to speculate this is because of her statements on Israel? I'm guessing you have pro-Israel sentiments then? CHECK YOUR CITATIONS! (talk) 01:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but mention I thought Helen Thomas was Jewish (or part Jewish) growing up. I didn't know she was Arab until her comments on Israel were scandalized. CHECK YOUR CITATIONS! (talk) 01:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://mondoweiss.net/2008/03/today-i-talked 93.106.127.222 (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://mondoweiss.net/2007/08/the-censorship- 93.106.127.222 (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agricultural Subsidies[edit]

I motion agricultural subsidies as an entry in Third rail of politics. No politician wants to see be blamed for increasing food prices. CHECK YOUR CITATIONS! (talk) 11:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gun control/Gun rights[edit]

I suggest gun politics should be disqualified as a "third rail" issue. It is in no way a bipartisan issue. It is openly debated and gun control legislation exists in all states in the US. CHECK YOUR CITATIONS! (talk) 11:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I motion to delete the entry of "gun control" as a third rail issue by following the exact same standards put forth by certain users that disqualifies American support for Israel as a "third rail issue." CHECK YOUR CITATIONS! (talk) 11:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are these standards of which you speak?Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 15:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every source claiming Israel's "special relationship" with America is a third rail is dismissed as an unreliable source so let us look into the sources how "gun politics" is a third rail issue. I will soon act accordingly with these edits. CHECK YOUR CITATIONS! (talk) 05:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Wikipedia have an article about a metaphor, sourced solely to examples of usage?[edit]

As far as I can see, this article is sourced solely to material providing examples of the metaphor being used, and lacks any sources providing discussion of the metaphor itself. Accordingly, it seems questionable that the subject matter (the metaphor) meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kill it! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, to make matters worse, the UK examples all appear to be US sources using the metaphor to discuss UK issues. Surprise, surprise, Americans use US metaphors when discussing non-American matters! Who would have guessed it? Pincrete (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tidy[edit]

Added a controversial item (back) in. As per my note, the issue is not whether a topic *is* toxic, but that there is usage of it being expressly described as "third rail". Snori (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]