Jump to content

Talk:Barack Obama 2008 presidential primary campaign

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeBarack Obama 2008 presidential primary campaign was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 26, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
February 17, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You KnowA fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 26, 2007.
Current status: Former good article nominee

campaign staff

[edit]

I think there should be a mention of field staff in the staff section -- pehaps Paul Tewes and Mitch Stewart. I didn't want to add much to an already long article, but a sentence might do it. What do others think? Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

86.46.205.174 (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Actually that brings up a much better point: this article is way too long, a summary article needs to be written and the other parts federated out into child articles. Campaign Staff certainly ought be an article of its own. Desmond Brennan.[reply]

Picture of Obama shaking hands uploaded

[edit]

I have uploaded a picture I took of Obama shaking hands with an impromptu crowd in Portland, Oregon as he was leaving his hotel last Saturday afternoon and going to an event. It's at Image:Barack Obama shaking hands, Portland, Oregon.jpg --Jason McHuff (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional controversies

[edit]

Both Meeks and Pfleger have received broad attention and warrant coverage in the article. The article is incomplete without them. Trilemma (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus KKK endorsement

[edit]

I've added information to the article that shoots down the idea that is going around that the KKK is actually supporting Barack for president. One of the sources comes from Obama's own website. Someone keeps deleting the info as "non-notable", "poorly referenced", etc. 5 references for 4 sentences of text is poor referencing? I give up guys, if you all would prefer that people believe the incorrect info of the Klan endorsement like so many folks do right now then so be it. Sf46 (talk) 22:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snopes and Urbanlegends are in the business of shooting down nonsense. The Daily Squib is a tabloid. The Obama site you linked to is a community blog, not an official publication by the Obama campaign. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for tabloid material or nonsense. johnpseudo 22:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting article

[edit]

As it now appears that Obama is fairly certain to be the Democratic Party candidate for president, what is everyone's thoughts on splitting this article into smaller sub-articles? This article is already rather large with 76kb of readable prose and there is bound to be additional developments that will come in the general election portion of the campaign. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely, and I think that we'll have to drastically cut this article to prepare it for another 5 months of developments. The primary/caucus section could definitely use the most summarization work. johnpseudo 00:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I've started splitting the article into two. I've started off with the low hanging fruit, but I have some concerns. I'm thinking the Pre-Primary Campaign developments section should be moved into the primaries sub-article, but I'm starting to get concerned that if I pile too much of this article into the primary article, we'll end up with a 4-5 paragraph section for all of the primary/caucus portion of the campaigning, a 4-5 paragraph section for the general election, and 30 paragraphs for the media coverage, the "issues" section, and the internet section. The media coverage and "issues" section certainly contains things that will end up crossing both the primary and general elections, but it just feels off to ignore them in the primary article and to give them so much weight in this article. Does anyone have any ideas on how we should handle this? --Bobblehead (rants) 00:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't go with a three-level structure. Have the main Barack Obama article serve as the summary for both the primary article and the general election article. Have media coverage, etc. sections in both as appropriate. Creating a three-level structure will be a ton of redundancy, extra work, citation maintenance, out-of-synch contents, etc. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oooo. Excellent idea. ;) Time to start undoing what I did. Hee.;) --Bobblehead (rants) 01:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. You didn't see that splitting I did.;) Call me speedy. --Bobblehead (rants) 01:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea and thanks for the effort. Is that the way it's done for other major party Presidential candidates? We should be consistent, but that seems like the right thing to do. Just a little caution - don't jump the gun. Wait until Hillary concedes.... Wikidemo (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that the obvious place to move all of the primary material would be 'Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008'. I agree that creating sub-articles from here would create too much link depth from the Barack Obama article. I'm afraid it's going to take a lot more summarization work and less wholesale cut-and-pasting. johnpseudo 01:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur - there should be two articles - one for the primary race and one for the general election. --Mr Beale (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I went and started this page: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign%2C_2008%2C_General_Election

Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Sinclair

[edit]

Larry Sinclair is a man that claims he did crack and performed oral sex with Barack Obama in the back of a limo in 1999. Oh yeah, and Obama may have murdered a choir boy close to Christmas. Here's his blog. Though his accusations have been circulating the internet and tabloid magazines for months, they're just now making a few minor news sources. Someone referenced it in the article, but I removed it because right now I think it's just gossip. Any opinions? - Kip the Dip (talk) 05:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is all just the word of one man who has a long and well-documented history of convictions for fraud. He also has a outstanding warrant out for his arrest in Colorado, and has been accused of writing a bad check just last year in Laredo, Texas. This story isn't making the news anywhere except on fringe websites and blogs, and if you check back, there is *less* coverage now that there was back when he first came forward. There is absolutely no reason to include this story in the article. There is not a shred of corroborating evidence to back up his claims.24.28.2.19 (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes. Believe me, you're preaching to the choir. I just want to hear others' opinions. - Kip the Dip (talk) 02:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone wrote an independent article on Larry, it went to afd and was deleted as BLP violation. It is in deletion review now. It seems he has gotten enough press that maybe it should be mentioned in the viral video section. GtstrickyTalk or C 02:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama's great uncle and the Nazi labor camp

[edit]

This article under "media coverage" discusses the Republican National Committee criticism of Obama's claim that his uncle helped liberate Auschwitz. The Wikipedia article Ohrdruf forced labor camp about the camp (part of the Buchenwald system) had a recent posting stating that Obama's claim was a complete lie, based on material which has been on certain right wing blogs claiming that he had no great uncle in the army in WW2, based on original research into records from various sources. The claim was that his great uncle was Charles W. Payne, and that Charles W. Payne from Kansas was in the Navy. An obituary of that Charles W. Payne shows he was no great uncle of Obama. Politifact.com, [1] from the St. Petersburg Times investigated and it seems that Charles Thomas Payne, a living person (age 83) is the great uncle in question, and served in the 89th Infantry which liberated the Ohrdruf camp. How much, if any, of this should be in this article? It could be of encyclopedic importance if claims that "Obama is a liar" are based on people's interpretation of inaccurate and incomplete genealogical and military records. Edison (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A better online source for that St. Petersburg Times story is at www.pulitzer.org. Mike Serfas (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One hint could be that blogs are not reliable sources and the fact that they got the wrong Thomas Payne is a pretty good vindication of this. Once Obama admitted he misspoke about which camp his great uncle was part of liberating the story pretty much became a non-issue. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Republican National Committee and/or conservative bloggers seem to be pushing the meme that "Obama exaggerates and lies all the time" and the Auschwitz/uncle item seems to be a major focus of this effort [2], much like the campaign talking point against Kerry was that he "flip-flopped." Googling Obama uncle lie gets 163,000 hits, many about the Auschwitz/Ohrfruf uncle/great-uncle incident. If exaggeration/lies is the meme of choice then this episode needs coverage in the article. Edison (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a paragraph in the Media coverage section that covers the misstatement and then the correction. The blogs getting the wrong person isn't a particularly important part of the issue. --Bobblehead (rants) 18:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The important part is the massive spinning of the meme that Obama lied and exaggerated, with ridicule of his having a secret uncle no one ever heard of who liberated Auschwitz with the Red Army, or a great uncle who liberated Nazi concentration camps in Europe from a ship in the Pacific. Recent presidential campaigns have been based largely on attack ads and talking points based on memes such as the supposed Kerry "flip-flops." Edison (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

separate General election sub-article

[edit]

Maybe we should split the primary and general election parts of the campaign into two articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.11.170 (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I agree with the point made that this is an overlong article, and needs to be broken down into smaller pieces. As the campaign goes on, the article will get even more out of hand. I think a good place to start is to divide the article into the primary campaign and a general election campaign. I agree with the suggestion being made above. I may start on this soon if I don't hear any major objections. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I got bored and started this page: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign%2C_2008%2C_General_Election

Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page should be a the main article and it will lead into something like how Presidency of George W. Bush leads into George W. Bush's first term as President of the United States and George W. Bush's second term as President of the United States, or even History of the New York Giants leads into articles like History of the New York Giants (1994-present). It will be the main article, but split it into Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008, primary elections and Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008, general election. Of couse, we'll maybe do the same thing with McCain even though his primary season was much shorter than Obama's, just to be unbiased, ya know. conman33 (. . .talk) 20:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a fan of the names, but there really needs to be some way to split this article into smaller parts. One of the suggestions above was to actually do the splitting on Barack Obama, so you wouldn't end up with a third tier of articles for the details about the primary and general election. It could be as simple as making this article the primary article (may I suggest Barack Obama Democratic Party primary presidential campaign, 2008) and then creating a new article for Barack Obama general election presidential campaign, 2008 for whatever happens from this point on. --Bobblehead (rants) 01:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article I created was Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008, General Election. I encourage people to go edit on it. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion, in the case of both this and the Clinton article, if we need to split stuff that much, it means it's too comprehensive. We're an encyclopedia, not a book. We can probably trim a few things. Wizardman 04:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. These articles are plagued with recentism and there is a constant push to add paragraphs about whatever happens to be in the news that day. We really should be editing these articles from a historical perspective (writing it as it might be written ten years from now) now as a breathless account of the latest developments. As we all know, Wikipedia is not news. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article splitting

[edit]

There seems to be some consensus for splitting the article along primary/general election lines. Given this, I think we should achieve some consensus for how this will be organized. Conflicting content forks are being created and there is no organized method to it. Also, as has been stated above, part of the reason this article is becoming too long is because it needs to be edited down. There is a lot of recentism that would never be mentioned in an encyclopedia article a couple of years after the fact.

The options that have been discussed are:

* Option 1 Leave this article as the sole campaign article but trim it.

* Option 2 Create a separate article that deals with the general election (this has already been done) and keep this article for the primary and caucuses.

* Option 3 Create two separate articles, one for the primaries and one for the general election which are both daughters of this article.


My feeling is that Option 1 would be best, but will probably lead to unnecessary edit-warring. Given that, I would support trimming what we can but also creating a new article for the general election (option 2). --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A generous amount of trimming is certainly in order, but I don't think enough trimming can be done to eliminate the need for separate primary and general election articles, so I'm for Option 2. Move this article to Barack Obama Democratic Party presidential campaign, 2008 or the like and then a bunch of work on the general election article to expand it beyond its current stub form. As far as linking from the main article, it could be as simple as just putting {{main|<name of primary article>|<name of general election article>}} --Bobblehead (rants) 16:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm personally for Option 1 for my reasons in the above section; we need to be writing from a historical comprehansive standpoint, rather than as this week's news source. Wizardman 18:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Objections to calling false rumors "false"

[edit]

Is there consensus for User:Die4Dixie's and User:Trilemma's assertions [3][4][5][6]that, ostensibly in order to avoid "spoon-feeding the reader", the article should not use the word "false" when referring to smears and demonstrably false rumors? — goethean ॐ 16:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. Those accusations would not belong in the article at all - they are fabrications, manipulations, fringe, POV etc. - but for the fact that we are reporting on the use of misinformation. If you take that out the premise of mentioning them disappears and they become something entirely different. I don't like the word "false", and it does sound biased or awkward, so if there's a better way to say it, fine. But one way or another we should make clear that we're not describing legitimate or plausible accusations. Wikidemo (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that I reverted User:Die4Dixie's original edit and was immediately reverted. Then User: Johnpseudo reverted User:Die4Dixie, and was immediately reverted by User:Trilemma. I didn't want to participate in the edit war, so I let them have their way for the time being. I find the changes to be indefensible. — goethean ॐ 20:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These edits have three sections: what Andy Martin said, flyers in Iowa and South Carolina, and the Pledge allegation. The Pledge claim is directly answered immediately following, so "false" is spoonfeeding and is a style issue. Our article mentions the flyers had "allegations" but Obama only responded to one about being Muslim; we can't state "false allegations" if only one allegation has been shown to be false. For different reasons we can't say what Andy Martin said is false because our article provides no evidence that what he said is false and improperly calling him a liar would violate WP:BLP (and omitting "false" is not the same as improperly calling him a truth revealer... would that be a BLP violation?). -- SEWilco (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've captioned a portion of this material as false allegations. I don't know of a guideline or policy on "spoonfeeding" but if there were it definitely wouldn't cover this. The headlines, and text of the article, are somewhat misleading because they tend to give recognition and credence to the reports. Even if a reader would after reviewing the entire text and citations conclude that they are false, our having reported them makes them at least credible as allegations. The point being made is that they are false allegations. There is no reason to cover a false allegation other than to describe the conditions around its being made. Hence, if we simply report it as an allegation without clarifying that we're reporting it as false, we're giving it the wrong focus. Wikidemo (talk) 05:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This issue is far from settled. Please stop spoon feeding. A consensus has yet to be reached.The article give the reports. It's akin to us ssaying Hitler was bad. That's not our job. Report what he did without the crappy telling people what to think. I'll be out of the country for five more weeks, but will try to participate more fully in this discussion. Cheers.Die4Dixie (talk) 08:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)The editor tried to insert this and some other stuff that unbalanced the neutrality of the article by removing the designation of unarguably false allegations as false[7]. After reviewing I reverted all other than the change of the "semitic" link to "anti-semitism", which doesn't make any sense to me. At this point the editor seems to be in a slow-speed edit war. Their sole contribution to Wikipedia in the past ten days is to make this edit then revert three other editors who removed it.[8][9][10]. They haven't participated in this discussion until now and seem to object only that the material is "spoonfeeding", which is not a valid objection. It's hard to respond to a Godwin's Law hypothetical, but it is our job to point out false things as false. False is a demonstrable and correct statement of fact, whereas "bad" is a value judgment. It is misleading and POV to report that there is a widespread belief that Obama is a Muslim without reporting that the belief is wrong. Wikidemo (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The editor has now reverted for a a fifth time[11] so I have left a caution regarding edit warring[12]. In a normal article this kind of editing might be innocuous but given the volatility of these presidential campaign articles we should do everything possible to avoid contentious edits. Accordingly I will not myself revert again, but we need to resolve this. Wikidemo (talk) 08:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's akin to us ssaying Hitler was bad.
No, it's akin to saying that Hitler's false claims about the Jews --- that they need the blood of Gentile children for religious rituals, for example --- were false. Whether Hitler was good or bad is a matter of opinion. The idea that Obama is a Muslim is factually and verifiably incorrect. — goethean ॐ 16:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pfleger section

[edit]

Currently there are two editors insisting on blanking the coverage of Pfleger's remarks, which were a significant national news story. If they feel the article is not written as well it could, then I welcome them to work out a compromise here, but their continued attempts at blanking the section, without discussion, is not appropriate. Trilemma (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trilemma asked me to bring this conflict to the talk page: I don't think it's appropriate to include extended quotations from Pfleger and Meeks here on the presidential campaign article. The relevant information about Pfleger is simply that he, representing Trinity leadership, trashed Hillary and that Obama dropped out from Trinity, not exactly what words he used. Bobblehead's version is adequate. johnpseudo 22:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How could Pfleger, a guest from a different church hierarchy, represent Trinity leadership? His relationship with Obama is relevant, the agreement of those attending the church is relevant, the similarity of what Pfleger said to what others in Trinity said is relevant. Unless Pfleger is part of the Trinity leadership it's hard to see how he officially represents them. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eliminating extended quotations is not "blanking the article". johnpseudo 22:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But you didn't eliminate extended quotations. You eliminated the entire section, and that is blanking. What is your proposal for a compromise text? Trilemma (talk) 22:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I eliminated the extended quotations. Looking closer at the material you suggest adding, it's referenced with 3 sources: A chicago sun times article (reliable source), a chicago tribune webblog(unreliable), and newsbusters (unreliable). And the only material from the reliable source deals exclusively with Pfleger and the repudiation of his comments. Please find more relevant and reliable sources, and then we can talk about whether they are receiving the proper weight for this article. johnpseudo 22:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you read the RS section carefully, you'll find that there is an exception to the guideline on blogs when the person is an established professional in the area in which they are writing. Therefor, all blogs maintained by professional journalists of major publications are acceptable as reliable sources. Now, if you have a problem with newsbusters, I'll gladly find another cite for the Meeks section. Trilemma (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a national review online citation [13] for the Meeks section. This finishes addressing your issues. Trilemma (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that addresses my sourcing issues. It's still undue weight to include more than a couple sentences on the Pfleger issue. johnpseudo 22:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of blanking, it's a matter of giving Pfleger and Meeks the weight that they are due and in the context in which they are notable. The context for Pfleger's remarks is not that he contributed money to Obama's campaigns or that he represent another religion, it is that he was the final nail in the coffin of Obama's membership in TUCC during the Wright controversy. It is also not necessary to include the entirety of his comments about Clinton in this article. A simple summary of his statements is acceptable and there are sources and a link to Pfleger's article where people can see his comments about Clinton. As far as Meeks goes, controversial comments by him have gotten very little play in reliable sources. So little play that inclusion of them could be considered a violation of BLP as an extreme minority view. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obama's relationship with Pfleger has gotten significant attention; the article would be incomplete without detailing the length of the relationship. A summary of his statements about Hillary Clinton would be fine. An extreme minority view would be one that has no RS citation. Meeks does. Note that it's not a very long section. But it has received attention and it deserves mentioning.
I'd appreciate a compromise text suggestion from one of you two, since you are the ones persistently removing the current version. Trilemma (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the article is already full of mentions of criticisms from what could truly, aptly be termed extreme minority views ;) Trilemma (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, extreme minority is a view that gets very little coverage in reliable sources. The fact that something appears in a reliable source does not mean that it can be included in an article. It has to get "significant coverage" to be included. Even flat-earthers make appearances in reliable sources from time to time and yet no mention is made of them on the Earth article past ancient times. ;) Also.. You are aware that Pfleger is still in the article right? Just he's given much less weight than your preferred version gave him. --Bobblehead (rants) 00:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A yahoo news search for "Meeks Obama" turns up 111 results. The same search on google news turns up 376. Are all of them RS? No. But lots of them are. The Meeks controversy is a legitimate issue (WIDELY covered in gay publications) and needs to be mentioned. Also, the financial relationship between Pfleger and Obama needs to be mentioned.Trilemma (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually very news stories in comparison to the overall coverage of Obama. The Wright comments and controversy they stirred is a significant event in the campaign. The Pfleger incident is relevant only in that context. Reporting on random donations isn't relevant to anything - what financial relationship? Wikidemo (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By just using "Meeks" you're getting a lot of false positives. If you go to google news and use ("James Meeks" Obama), you get a whopping 27 hits, check the archives and you get 39 hits. That is a remarkably small hit number for a person of Obama's stature. --Bobblehead (rants) 01:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that constitutes enough to warrant inclusion, per comparison to other pertinent authors. Observe Religion and politics in the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign. Hudson and McCain returns 23 from yahoo, and it is mentioned. Meeks and Obama virtually doubles that. Trilemma (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to chime in on this discussion and note that "number of google hits" for a given search is a terrible reason to include or not include something in an article. I just did a google search for "kangaroo barack obama" and got 174,000 results. Are we going to have a section on Barack Obama and kangaroos? The Pfegler story was newsworthy and thus should be included in the article. It does not appear to be a story of long term significance at this time, and for that reason the brief mention it gets in this article seems about right. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 18:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, Gilbertine. Pfleger is notable in a limited fashion to this article, so should have a brief mention, just not in a section of his own and only in the manner in which he is notable. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pfleger's relationship with Obama is much more significant than that, and it has been covered more significantly than that. It is irresponsible to not give proper detail. Trilemma (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even watching the news when the Pfleger story, there was dispute over whether it was much of a story at all. I remember Chris Matthews saying it wasn't news (this was, of course, before Obama left Trinity). Plus, what Bobblehead above makes 100% sense to me. Wizardman 21:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Editorializing by a liberal pundit really isn't close to authoritative. Of course liberal pundits want to downplay all Obama controversies, the same as conservative pundits will want to downplay McCain controversies. That really has little bearing. Trilemma (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Matthews a liberal pundit.. Now that's funny. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of making partisan jabs, you really ought to concentrate on trying to improve the article. Trilemma (talk) 03:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you have something new to say, you should recognize that consensus is against you and stop edit-warring. johnpseudo 03:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Opposing forces"

[edit]
What I see is you, a partisan self-declared Obama supporter, and two other editors subverting normal process and order. The McCain article has a section on dissent within his own party and this article should have the same. It is not trivia, it is news. Please do not insist on pushing your POV. Trilemma (talk) 03:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I resent your suggestion that I'm not acting in good faith, and the condition of the John McCain article is irrelevant to this discussion. When 2-3 representatives out of the hundreds of democratic representatives are reluctant to "endorse" Obama, but they still plan on voting for him, that is trivial. It happens in every presidential election, often to a much higher degree. This article does a good job at explaining how this is not a story, and how your roundup of "several" unsupportive Democrats (3) is insignificant compared to the number of Republicans not supporting McCain (14). Incidentally, the Jim Johnson story is a larger story that has gotten much more coverage and still hasn't been reported here. Also- the NPOV flag shouldn't be used for a simple content dispute. Consensus is against you that the article is neutral, but feel free to continue to debate. johnpseudo 04:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I have made my opinion known on the John McCain discussion page that an "Opposing Forces" section does not belong there either. However, it's also worth noting that even that section does NOT mention the aforementioned 14 republicans who won't endorse McCain. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have left an edit warring and civility caution[14] for the editor who is inserting the controversial material repeatedly despite this discussion, without anything I can see as consensus. I think it should be simply reverted again as a non-consensus change, but I do not wish to participate in anybody's edit war, even at 1RR. I find persuasive the article that a list of people of the candidate's party who are not publicly supporting a candidate is trivial and unencyclopedic. Wikidemo (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Trilemma is exactly right here.Die4Dixie (talk) 08:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

[edit]
My case for including a section on Democrats who are not supporting Obama is that there is a fairly extensive section in the John McCain section for 'opposing forces' which includes Ron Paul and 'conservatives.' I cited three different sources in my edit, showing that his has received significant enough media coverage to warrant inclusion. Trilemma (talk) 03:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Link to your edit so we know what in the world you're talking about. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is the edit Trilemma is talking about: [15] --Bobblehead (rants) 17:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a weight and relevancy issue, it is simply not a significant issue when someone of a given party publicly refuses to support a candidate of that party. It happens all the time and it does not say anything significant about the candidacy. Several articles, out of hundreds of thousands of articles about the campaign overall, does not establish importance. Incidentally, an editor has just removed the corresponding section from the John McCain article, a bolder edit given the length of that section[16] but I think the right thing to do there as well. Wikidemo (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to weight, the edit has WP:OR problems (as well as sourcing issues, which could probably be addressed if the edit were otherwise fine). There are three different links (two from blogs) that mention each of the "opposition Democrats" individually, but there isn't any source that indicates that all three of them together are a problem for the campaign. Trilemma has found these three different facts and put them together to create what seems like an issue. But that's original research. At the very least we would need some reliable mainstream sources telling us that these three are a real problem for the Obama campaign, but even then the previously mentioned WP:WEIGHT issues would arise. Would this really warrant a new section? Doubtful. And finally, I'm really not sure why Trilemma went straight to an RfC without first simply attempting to discuss the issue here first. It seems unwarranted at this point. --Loonymonkey (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vote to includeDie4Dixie (talk) 08:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, we don't decide things by voting, we achieve consensus through discussion. That's official wiki policy. --Loonymonkey (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to include which prominent Democrats aren't supporting him, not only because it's a huge concern that we (democrats) haven't really had to worry about before, but because the specific reasons why they aren't supporting him could be interesting. There are of course a lot of other reasons why it is important to include this information which I really don't haev time to mention as I have editing on other pages to do. Cheers! Carter | Talk to me 15:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General Election Section

[edit]

Today I found a large general election section inserted into the article which I removed with the intention of reinserting it into the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008, General Election article. However, upon closer inspection, it appeared that the newly inserted section was simply a long series of POV attacks designed to simply repeat every criticism of Obama that had been made throughout the campaign. For that reason alone, this section should not be reinserted into the story, and even if it wasn't POV it would belong in the new article, rather than add bulk to an already overlong article. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You neglected to mention also deleting the record of media coverage since October 2007; obviously not part of the General Election. Restored. -- SEWilco (talk) 02:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did mention it--As I said above, I took it out because it's the most POV thing I've ever seen in this article. It's a simple excuse to repeat a number of attacks rather than do an NPOV section. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, above you mentioned a new General Elections section. The media coverage section has been in there for months [17] and is full of sources about the media coverage. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That this section has been around for a long time doesn't make it any less of a travesty. The section is basically a blog argument for why Obama has gotten favorable media coverage, which is then "balanced" by repeating multiple media criticisms of Obama. WP:relevance and WP:NPOV are both violated here. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're deleting stuff sourced from the New York Times and Washington Post, among others. There are tags for you to attach to specific questionable items, rather than deleting a section which many editors created and have kept. How the media handled such a long campaign is relevant, whether they handled it impartially or not. And Clinton's comments about Obama's press somehow seem relevant to their campaigns. Mark what needs improvement. -- SEWilco (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The section in its entirety is problematic and should probably go without regard to its quality level or lack thereof. The objection is primarily not verifiability (which requires sourcing and it is but one threshold for inclusion). It's also relevance, [[[WP:WEIGHT]], WP:POV, and article organization. A long discussion of how the media treats a candidate is not directly relevant to the election process. It seems to be a bit of navel-gazing by the media, something that distracts attention away from the actual election process. The ultimate test for weight is how much the matter actually gets written about in a serious way. I will hazard a guess that the total amount of coverage of media treatment of candidates is small in proportion to the overall election coverage. If so, we should not give it undue weight here but it may be appropriate for a sub-article. If there is significant coverage we have a choice of covering it here or breaking it off into a related article. Wikidemo (talk) 01:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So instead of reverting either way, why not make a new article for it, or put it in the "image" article where it seems to fit better. Even if it is removed here it is encyclopedic and should not simply be dropped from the encyclopedia. Then we can discuss how much if any summary would make sense here. Is there a parallel body of material for McCain or for past candidates? Where does this type of material usually sit?
To make a new article out of it sounds good to me. This way it can be expanded thru out the running election we'll have a comprehensive coverage. --Floridianed (talk) 03:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed rename and split

[edit]

At Talk:Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008, General Election I've suggested a rename of that article to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 and of this one to Barack Obama presidential primary election campaign, 2008]]. My rationale and full details of my suggestion are at Talk:Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008, General Election. Given the potential impact of these changes I will not proceed without consensus, so please provide your opinion at Talk:Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008, General Election. Thanks, --Clubjuggle T/C 23:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agree. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why was a separate article created? Every split discussion thus far has failed to achieve consensus for a split, and for good reason. Wizardman 02:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno, probably length. It was already split when I got here. --Clubjuggle T/C 02:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV editing

[edit]

low level edit war with editor who does not seem to understand difference between concept of "some" and "all"; this is resulting in unacceptable divergences from prudent summary style and immediate reverts from offending party. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 07:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a hot edit war to me (three reverts by the above editor in 12 hours against two editors[18][19][20] after an earlier deletion of sourced content with a misleading edit summary indicating it was merely a deletion of redundancy.[21] Comments accusing me of "POV editing" and being the "offending party" and demands that I "need to prove" something are unhelpful. I see no cogent attempt at supporting the editor's change, and no real method here. Regarding the three changes:
  • "that indirectly triggered a viral email" changed to "first triggering many of the charges". First of all, this section is about a specific series of viral emails alleging that Obama was a closet Muslim. As I indicated in my edit summary the source[22] mentions that a specific Andy Martin piece lead to the emails - and from the piece it was clearly an indirect series of events that lead from the piece to the emails. The word "first" in "first triggering" is simply incoherent. Does it mean that the first thing the piece did was to triger? Or that it was the first trigger of something? It just makes no sense. Moreover, the sources do not support that this piece triggered "many of the charges". There is no survey of the charges in the source, or attempt to show that some proportion derived from the piece. It simply traced what happened.
  • "a viral email that spread false rumors " changed to "viral emails which later spread false rumors". I have no idea why they would want to add the notion of "later". The viral emails contained the false rumors. There was no delay between the email and the false rumors. The email was the false rumors.
  • "that Obama was a member of the Muslim faith" changed to "that about Obama's faith". Even getting past the typo, why make it deliberately murky? As per the source the rumor was specifically that Obama was muslim. "about Obama's faith" is unnecessarily obscure.
Given the above I'm reverting, but I won't do it again - if the editor persists in this we may need some dispute resolution. I have no reason to assume bad faith, the user simply seems to misunderstand and/or not explain something so I can't understand. It's not clear to me what the point is but the edits degrade things. Wikidemo (talk) 09:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There we go[23] - that one works! See, it was all a syntactic misunderstanding to begin with. Thanks for sticking with it, fancy cats. Wikidemo (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Ayers

[edit]

Regarding my latest edit here,[24] anyone unfamiliar with the background about this material may want to review the discussion at Talk:Barack Obama, where a mention of the Obama-Ayers controversy has been proposed several times. The proposal does not seem to have gained consensus there, but there does seem to be consensus there that a mention would be appropriate here. Therefore, rather than allowing this material to go down a black hole of being neither here nor there, or the controversy being orphaned from the parties about which it was a controversy I'm adding information about it here, which I think is the most obvious place to mention it. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 01:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... wording is good. But the debate happened in 2008, not 2007. Maybe the placement should be somewhere a bit different :-). LotLE×talk 04:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I had planned to add the same thing myself. However, a quick look didn't show a really obvious place to put it. The 2008 events are basically organized by state of primary, which is funny, not quite straight chronology. The Ayers thing would fit, in term of date, in "Pennsylvania", but that seems weird since there's nothing Pennsylvania specific about it. So I gave up at my first glance... hoping to come back when I had more time, and figure out how to reorganize a bit. LotLE×talk 04:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then, I just moved it to 2008.[25] Wikidemo (talk) 04:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama's name

[edit]

From the wiki article:

"both "Barack" and "Hussein" are names of Semitic origin that mean, respectively, to bless/blessing and good/handsome) (229)."

I dont know Arabic but I know Hebrew and I can tell you that BARACK in Hebrew means "lightning" -(like Ehud Barack). "Blessed" in Hebrew is BARUCH (like Baruch Spinoza,latinized as Benedict). There's a big difference in spelling and pronunciation between Barack and Baruch (this last CH represents a strong H). (Footnote 229 mentions Hussein, but not Barack.) Maybe Barack means blessed in Arabic? Certainly not in Hebrew. 22:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC) BlueSkies999 —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueSkies999 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson controversy

[edit]

The whole Jesse Jackson gaffe seems to have been erased from the WP record in all Obama related articles. I have got it well-sourced in both Jesse Jackson and Jesse Jackson, Jr.. Should it be in this article? Should it be in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008 and Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008

[edit]

Just asking, why do these articles exist as 2 when they could be merged as one? Aren't they on the same topic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.216.155 (talk) 09:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they are separate, because if they were merged it would form an article that was too long. Terrakyte (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

separate article for primary and caucus results and analysis

[edit]

This article is so freaking long, I think giving a whole article to that would be justice.--Levineps (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I think we could trim and condense a lot of material. Much of it is stale, and in hindsight does not matter. Things are written in the present tense, or talk about future events that may or may not have occurred. Wikidemon (talk) 04:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesized "Missed votes in Senate" scandal

[edit]

How to WP:SYNthesize a "scandal":

  1. 19:15, 21 June 2007 Gloriamarie (talk | contribs) John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 (added votes he's missed in Senate for campaign)
  2. 02:15, 20 August 2008 Ferrylodge (talk | contribs) John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 (→Missed votes in Senate: Add info about scheduling votes.)
  3. 19:26, 16 December 2008 Newguy34 (talk | contribs) Obama-Biden campaign (→Middle Eastern and European tour: Added section nearly identical to one in McCain's campaign article.)
  4. 17:41, 14 March 2009 Newross (talk | contribs) Obama-Biden campaign (→Missed votes in Senate: remove subsection added 16 December 2008 by Newguy34 (talk) that is not about the Obama-Biden campaign)
  5. 06:34, 15 March 2009 ListenerX (talk | contribs) Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008 (→Controversies, allegations, and scandals during the primary campaign: Adding section removed from general-election campaign article.)

  1. In June 2007, Gloriamarie added a contemporaneous (May 2007) McCain presidential primary campaign story about Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) missing far more votes in the U.S. Senate than Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), or Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), as part of the larger McCain presidential primary campaign story in 2007, where according to the third paragraph in the lead section of the John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 article: "McCain began the campaign as the apparent frontrunner among Republicans, with a strategy of appearing as the establishment, inevitable candidate; ... However, he soon fell behind in polls and fundraising; by July 2007 his campaign was forced to restructure its size and operations."
  2. In August 2008, Ferrylodge added an out-of-context cherry-picked sentence from a four-month-old (April 2008) McCain presidential general election campaign story in an attempt to rationalize why McCain missed far more Senate votes at every stage of the presidential primary and general election campaign than his Republican Senate colleague and his four Democratic Senate colleagues who ran for president.
  3. In December 2008, Newguy34, apparently troubled that the McCain-Palin campaign article had a subsection about McCain missing far more votes than his Republican Senate colleague and his four Democratic Senate colleagues who ran for president, while the Obama-Biden campaign had no corresponding subsection, WP:SYNthesized a corresponding "Missed votes in Senate" subsection by cherry-picking a November 2007 story about Obama missing somewhat more votes than his three Democratic Senate colleagues during an arbitrarily chosen two-month period from September–October 2007, and added the WP:SYNthesized "Missed votes in Senate" subsection to the Chronicle section of the Obama-Biden campaign article.
  4. On March 14, 2008, I removed Newguy34's WP:SYNthesized "Missed votes in Senate" subsection, which was not about the Obama-Biden presidential general election campaign, from the Obama-Biden campaign article.
  5. Thirteen hours later, ListenerX added Newguy34's WP:SYNthesized subsection "Missed votes in Senate" to the Controversies, allegations, and scandals during the primary campaign section of the Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008

There is no evidence that Barack Obama’s missed votes in the Senate were a significant controversy, allegation, or scandal during his presidential primary campaign. Obama missed fewer votes in the Senate in 2007 than four (McCain, Brownback, Dodd, Biden) of his five Senate colleagues who were running for president; only Clinton missed fewer votes—which contemporaneous news stories attributed to then-front-runner Clinton’s then-better-financed campaign being able to afford chartered private jets to whisk her back to Washington, D.C. for votes. Newross (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

False claims

[edit]

Every once in a while people have removed the assertion from the text or heading that the extreme claims about Obama being a closet Muslim, non-citizen, communist, etc., were false. This latest edit, which seems to be turning into an edit war, characterizes them as "allegations". That is erroneous and mischaracterizes the sources in at least two ways. First of all, the noteworthiness of the claims is that they were false, not that they were made. They are notable as fringe theories and viral propaganda, not as bona fide assertions about Obama. Second, they are not legitimate allegations. If a fringe theory holds something it is not an allegation, it is a fringe theory. It is a POV violation to cover these as if there is any legitimate question of their being true. As a side note, there has been a long term consensus to include them in the article, and to point out prominently that they are false per the sources. People who want to propose a change should take it to the talk page rather than edit war, when something is disputed. As a temporary compromise, and so as not to leave an incorrect description up there, I have taken out the word "allegations", but ideally the status quo heading is best. Wikidemon (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, I would say that we should restore the consensus version until such time as consensus changes. The fact that one editor decided to edit war over it doesn't mean we should use less clear language. Having said that, the entire point of that section is that the allegations were false. It is about political smears, within the context of the campaign. Obama was not a "secret muslim" nor was he born in Kenya. To suggest that these are simply a matter of opinion (and that calling the allegations false is somehow a non-neutral POV) is to give undue weight to a fringe theory. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wkidemon made an excellent edit. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008 GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am nominating "Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008" because the article has significantly improved since March 2008, with 332 links, 181,161 bytes, stable article and the article has been expanded greatly. Secret Saturdays (talk) 03:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Ihave permission from johnpseudo.

I am taking a break from reviewing Good Article Nominations, but a few things you could work on while waiting for a review are:

  1. Address the "citation needed" tag in the "Pre-announcement" section.
  2. Give a reference for the "still fired up and ready to go" quotation in the "New Hampshire" section.
  3. Source the final paragraph in the "New Hampshire" section (especially any quotations and statistics).
  4. Source the second paragraph in the "Florida and Michigan" section.
  5. Give a reference for the quotation starting with "We need sensible gun laws" in the "Pennsylvania" section.
  6. Split up the "Endorsements" section so that it isn't just one long paragraph.
  7. Format the references with all the necessary information. Each should have at least a title, publisher, url, and accessdate. An author and date should be given if possible.
  8. Type the article's name (Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008) into the box at the top of this page: tools:~dispenser/view/Checklinks. Any dead links (if any) need to be replaced.

If these are fixed now, the review will go much quicker once someone agrees to take a look at it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and, check the article dablinks here, there's a few that need fixing. Sasata (talk) 05:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I have fixed the issues now. Secret Saturdays (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Since the above comments were not meant to start an official review, I will review the GA nomination. On a very cursory first pass, there are still a number of dead links that need to be addressed. I will review the full article carefully and comment here over the next few days. Nasty Housecat (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This is a thoroughly researched, well-organized, and well-written article which is clearly a great GA candidate. There are minor stylistic issues that should be addressed, none of which are serious and all of which could be addressed pretty quickly.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    Overall, very well written. The are several stylistic issues to be addressed. Several paragraphs are composed of one-line sentences which amount to WP:Proseline. These should be incorporated into the prose. There is a tense problem in the Campaign staff and policy team section (between they “have” and “had”) which is confusing. Captions that are fragments should not have periods. There are a few issues with incorrect capitalization within quotations (quoted text in the middle of a sentence starts with a cap) and a general issue with and logical quotation (inside if part of the quoted text, outside if not) (see WP: Mos#Quotation_marks).
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    In general, the article complies with the MOS criteria for GA. The See also section, however, contains links which could easily be integrated into the text. It is probably not necessary at all.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    There is one [citation needed] tag in the Potential role of superdelegates section that needs to be addressed. And all quotations require direct references.
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    There are a number of issues with the references. Several of the wikilinks (the ones in red) are broken. A number of reference links are broken: see http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Barack_Obama_presidential_primary_campaign%2C_2008. Several references are missing necessary information. Each should have at least a title, publisher, url, and accessdate. An author and date should be given if possible. The PDF references all need page numbers. The date format should be consistent (month day, year or yyyy-mm-dd). And all titles should be in title case.
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    Extremely comprehensive in its coverage. Great work.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    Pushes the edge of WP:SS, but handles tangential topics well without digression and hands off nicely to other main articles where appropriate. This is a very long article and some would fault it for that fact alone. It is borderline, in my view. It is worth considering if there are logical ways to split the article or trim the coverage somewhat.
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    Fair and neutral treatment of what could be a highly polarizing topic. Good job.
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Images are all appropriately tagged with FUR where needed.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Very well illustrated with appropriate images.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    The abovementioned issues should be fixed but this is otherwise a very strong candidate. I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on.

Nasty Housecat (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No motion on the review in the last seven days. Failing for now. Always free to nominate later after issues are addressed. Nasty Housecat (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected links on Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008 which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.usfreeads.com/2160093-cls.html
    Triggered by \busfreeads\.com\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simon and Schuster

[edit]

When did Simon and Schuster become an unreliable source?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's hardly the question. A reputable publisher alone does not make a source reliable. Who is Deneen Borelli and what are her qualifications as an RS beyond being a conservative polemicist? Especially since the mention in her book is a second-hand repeat (i.e. tertiary source) of a claim in a book published by Regnery Publishing, a self-styled publisher of books "contrary to those of 'mainstream' publishers", the very antithesis of a reliable source. Then there's Breitbart.com; the less said the better. Now I'm not a huge fan of Media Matters either, but if we end up having to include the 2007 Selma anniversary march/rally, we'll probably need to keep it NPOV by also using something like this. 2600:1006:B14D:A3C0:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 04:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both sources were included per WP:BALANCE. Just because both sources have a POV does not make them unreliable, see WP:BIASED. Surely more reliable than Yahoo Answers, which does not meet WP:RS as it is WP:USERGENERATED.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign Funding - Sources?

[edit]

The article states that the "Receipts" were "US$287.4 (May 31, 2008)," which is less than US$300. This amount is insignificant, and thus, probably incorrect. I suggest the person who provided this information revises the amount stated, and provides a credible reference. Alternatively, someone else could provide it instead. Maslesha (talk) 00:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 40 external links on Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama_2008_presidential_primary_campaign&oldid=1205391910"