This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
For some reason, the image under the "First half 2007" section isn't displaying correctly for me. I tried to fiddle with the formatting, and every time it worked in "Show preview" but didn't display in the actual article. I'm seeing the wikicode instead of the image: do other folks have this problem?
I'm wondering whether the problem is that the image's name contains a double .jpg suffix: it's named Image:Obama at UNLV Health care forum.jpg.jpg. I don't know enough about the workings behind image syntax to know whether the ".jpg.jpg" in the image's name could cause problems. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 06:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Does the phrase "winning Texas" in the introductory paragraph need further explication? As we know (and as the article says later), Obama won the Texas caucuses but lost the primary. He ended up with more Texas delegates (in part because of the complex way the state apportions delegates), so in that sense it's accurate to say that he won Texas. But I can imagine a Clinton supporter arguing the point of who "really" won Texas. Should the Texas line in the intro be worded differently, to avoid the appearance of POV-pushing? — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 06:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
so I am getting a little nervous here. myself and two other regular editors had reached a consensus on that text, adding new cites and tightening, etc. Then when I log on again, all this consensus had been reverted, whole cloth, to an earlier version which has several errors, error which the adding editor was well-aware of before his edit. For example, I don't think changing a cite from a free NYT news article, to a blog website, is acceptable editing. I also question the removal of a quote from the NYT article. And finally re-adding inflammatory text. I have (at last) received a good explanation for why WTA does not apply to the martin quote, but surely WTA still applies to the rest of the paragraph? 72.0.180.2 ( talk) 21:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I am cross posting this to Obama, and Obama Campaign 08.
Now that Obama has polled ahead of clinton for two days in a row, after being behind her during the time of the wright issue, I would like to advocate that new progress on it has ceased, new first-tier reporting on it has ceased, and it is receding into historical background. So it is time for editors to stop adding material on it, until such time as something new happens in the issue. 72.0.180.2 ( talk) 22:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Someone had written that Wright had quoted Peck and this had been taken out of context. As if the problem with Wright in this instance were an innocent quote of Peck, not his blame-America-first approving elaboration on the text he apparently took from Peck. So I gave him a best-case treatment before mentioning the opposing POV. [1] It's called NPOV. Try it sometimes. Anyway, the Wright business totally undermines Obama's pose as the Democratic Party's equivalent of Colin Powell, and the voters lost are not primarily those waffling between Obama and Clinton. We'll find out if it's worn off if and when he and McCain go head to head. Obama used to have a lead in that contest. Andyvphil ( talk) 23:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this article has to be failed as a GA nomination as a clear violation of quick fail criterion #5: "The article specifically addresses a currently unfolding event with a definite endpoint." This is an ongoing presidential campaign which will have a definite endpoint, Election Day 2008. As such this can't be a Good Article at this time. Otto4711 ( talk) 22:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
People with expertise on sources and references on the people associated with this campaign are welcome to look at the above article. It's currently in sorry shape. I'll work on it myself, but I'm more an expert on the military side than the political side. Nesodak ( talk) 02:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
129.116.12.33 seems to think that the sections currently titled "Coverage" should be renamed "Controversy", and claims these are how sections like this are titled in other related articles. Not only is that false, but the McCain and Clinton articles don't have similar sections, whatsoever. Please don't make this edit again. Grsz 11 05:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
This article is getting quite long, as well as the Barack Obama page, probably because of the amount of material on this topic. It might make sense to start summarizing this article and moving the content to new articles. Yahel Guhan 04:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I have tagged this article with "refimprove" because I see far too many blogs being cited as references. Blogs are acceptable references when the blog is owned by an article's subject. It's okay to use blogs as a source of quotations for the blog author's opinions, but in this article blogs are used to cite various quantitative facts such as polling popularity, and that's wrong.
I'd like to see the blog citations go away. These citations will eventually start getting replaced by "fact" tags, after which the tagged sentences will be deleted. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 21:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we should follow WP:SUMMARY, and create 3 new articles based on the content presented within this article, and summarize this article.
I propose we create the following articles:
I have proposed a similar proposal for the Hillary Clinton campaign article as well. Any thoughts? Yahel Guhan 06:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think merging into Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries is a good idea. That article is a statistically-focused one that just describes, as its name suggests, results. And does a good job of it, from what I've seen. The "Caucuses and primaries 2008" sections of this article and Hillary's campaign article have a little overlap with that, but not much. Instead, these sections are about campaign developments, polls, trends, speeches, charges back and forth between the campaigns, staff shakeups, and so forth — the narrative of the campaign. This would totally mess up the Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries article if we moved it all there. Wasted Time R ( talk) 11:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I feel that unless we find some compromise between the previous large size and the current one-paragraph version by Grsz11, we'll be violating WP:POVFORK. Any thoughts? johnpseudo 22:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I removed this section simply because it reflects something that happens in campaigns on a regular basis: candidates attacking other candidates in hopes that some media will pick it up and make it stick. You know, the "throw enough mud and some will stick" philosophy. The "elitism" tag by McCain is just that; a little more mud. If it is important enough, the reporting will continue; if not it is just a blip on the screen and should not be in the article. We have had this discussion before:
Marylandstater ( talk) 14:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I have included information on the 2004 interview he made where he said similiar stuff to provide more context.
Mpondopondo ( talk) 17:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Just came across this page and was embarrassed to see that the controversy over Obama's "bitter" remarks were barely mentioned. I appreciate the fact that Obama supporters want to close the door on the issue, but this is an encyclopedia, not CBS News. Covering up such a massive story is as bad as fabricating one. I suggest the editors of this page do some serious rethinking of the message such a cover-up sends. It's a bit shamefully biased when Wikipedia won't even call his remarks what they are. Don't label them disrespectful, or arrogant, or elitist... but at the very least call them controversial. 138.23.2.34 ( talk) 19:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Concerning User:Scjessey's edit summary comment "rv back to agreed-upon consensus wording": I've checked the talk page and the archive, and not only is there no consensus shown regarding the term "soundbite" or the phrase "which placed Wright's anger in a larger historical context", both of which I removed in my edit, but there was never even any discussion of this wording. If you have a good reason to revert my changes, that's fine, but don't claim that consensus has been achieved when it hasn't.
In terms of the specifics here, my problem with these phrases are that (1) "soundbite" is a loaded term which can signify unprofessionalism on the part of the reporter or unfairness to the person being excerpted, while the term "excerpt" serves the same basic purpose without being pejorative; and (2) claiming that Obama's speech "placed Wright's anger in a larger historical context" constitutes interpretation beyond that of the cited sources, and is therefore original research. I would like to reinstate my changes, but I am willing to solicit opinions from other editors first to determine if there's a better way to resolve tehse issues. -- Dachannien Talk Contrib 00:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Many overseas politicians are copying Obama's campaign slogans eg Italian general election, 2008, Republic of China presidential election, 2008. Should this be mentioned in the article? F ( talk) 09:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I changed the title of "April Devolpemts" to "comments about small towns", as that more accurately describes the section. If you have a problem, you can change it, but please try to keep it more descriptive than "April developments", as that really doesn't say anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlebum2002 ( talk • contribs) 22:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Since April had only one primary, I though the title "Pennsylvania" would be the most consistent. Marylandstater ( talk) 14:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The "opinion polling" section is starting to turn into a day-by-day play-by-play on the Gallup tracking polls. The result will quickly be a section that isn't particularly encyclopedic in style, and there may even be issues with cherry-picking POV, as certain changes in polling data are mentioned while others are left out. One way to fix this problem is to have a graph (or at least a table) of this data, leaving the text to highlight significant changes in polling data that occurred in conjunction with other notable campaign events. My concern, though, is that a graph or table of the data may be a copyright violation. Is anybody familiar enough with this sort of issue, or does anybody have any ideas for how to present this data effectively (and "safely")? -- Dachannien Talk Contrib 16:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
This is not appropriate as a "see also" in this article's summary of the Wright controversy; it belongs, and already is, in the Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy article as a wikilink to "rhetorical tradition" which is precisely what is being talked about. It is too far afield from this Obama presidential campaign article which is just a summary. Tvoz | talk 06:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind if the link is just at the controversy article. it's just that the same people have removed it from there too! Ewenss ( talk) 20:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
For some reason, the image under the "First half 2007" section isn't displaying correctly for me. I tried to fiddle with the formatting, and every time it worked in "Show preview" but didn't display in the actual article. I'm seeing the wikicode instead of the image: do other folks have this problem?
I'm wondering whether the problem is that the image's name contains a double .jpg suffix: it's named Image:Obama at UNLV Health care forum.jpg.jpg. I don't know enough about the workings behind image syntax to know whether the ".jpg.jpg" in the image's name could cause problems. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 06:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Does the phrase "winning Texas" in the introductory paragraph need further explication? As we know (and as the article says later), Obama won the Texas caucuses but lost the primary. He ended up with more Texas delegates (in part because of the complex way the state apportions delegates), so in that sense it's accurate to say that he won Texas. But I can imagine a Clinton supporter arguing the point of who "really" won Texas. Should the Texas line in the intro be worded differently, to avoid the appearance of POV-pushing? — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 06:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
so I am getting a little nervous here. myself and two other regular editors had reached a consensus on that text, adding new cites and tightening, etc. Then when I log on again, all this consensus had been reverted, whole cloth, to an earlier version which has several errors, error which the adding editor was well-aware of before his edit. For example, I don't think changing a cite from a free NYT news article, to a blog website, is acceptable editing. I also question the removal of a quote from the NYT article. And finally re-adding inflammatory text. I have (at last) received a good explanation for why WTA does not apply to the martin quote, but surely WTA still applies to the rest of the paragraph? 72.0.180.2 ( talk) 21:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I am cross posting this to Obama, and Obama Campaign 08.
Now that Obama has polled ahead of clinton for two days in a row, after being behind her during the time of the wright issue, I would like to advocate that new progress on it has ceased, new first-tier reporting on it has ceased, and it is receding into historical background. So it is time for editors to stop adding material on it, until such time as something new happens in the issue. 72.0.180.2 ( talk) 22:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Someone had written that Wright had quoted Peck and this had been taken out of context. As if the problem with Wright in this instance were an innocent quote of Peck, not his blame-America-first approving elaboration on the text he apparently took from Peck. So I gave him a best-case treatment before mentioning the opposing POV. [1] It's called NPOV. Try it sometimes. Anyway, the Wright business totally undermines Obama's pose as the Democratic Party's equivalent of Colin Powell, and the voters lost are not primarily those waffling between Obama and Clinton. We'll find out if it's worn off if and when he and McCain go head to head. Obama used to have a lead in that contest. Andyvphil ( talk) 23:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this article has to be failed as a GA nomination as a clear violation of quick fail criterion #5: "The article specifically addresses a currently unfolding event with a definite endpoint." This is an ongoing presidential campaign which will have a definite endpoint, Election Day 2008. As such this can't be a Good Article at this time. Otto4711 ( talk) 22:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
People with expertise on sources and references on the people associated with this campaign are welcome to look at the above article. It's currently in sorry shape. I'll work on it myself, but I'm more an expert on the military side than the political side. Nesodak ( talk) 02:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
129.116.12.33 seems to think that the sections currently titled "Coverage" should be renamed "Controversy", and claims these are how sections like this are titled in other related articles. Not only is that false, but the McCain and Clinton articles don't have similar sections, whatsoever. Please don't make this edit again. Grsz 11 05:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
This article is getting quite long, as well as the Barack Obama page, probably because of the amount of material on this topic. It might make sense to start summarizing this article and moving the content to new articles. Yahel Guhan 04:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I have tagged this article with "refimprove" because I see far too many blogs being cited as references. Blogs are acceptable references when the blog is owned by an article's subject. It's okay to use blogs as a source of quotations for the blog author's opinions, but in this article blogs are used to cite various quantitative facts such as polling popularity, and that's wrong.
I'd like to see the blog citations go away. These citations will eventually start getting replaced by "fact" tags, after which the tagged sentences will be deleted. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 21:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we should follow WP:SUMMARY, and create 3 new articles based on the content presented within this article, and summarize this article.
I propose we create the following articles:
I have proposed a similar proposal for the Hillary Clinton campaign article as well. Any thoughts? Yahel Guhan 06:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think merging into Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries is a good idea. That article is a statistically-focused one that just describes, as its name suggests, results. And does a good job of it, from what I've seen. The "Caucuses and primaries 2008" sections of this article and Hillary's campaign article have a little overlap with that, but not much. Instead, these sections are about campaign developments, polls, trends, speeches, charges back and forth between the campaigns, staff shakeups, and so forth — the narrative of the campaign. This would totally mess up the Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries article if we moved it all there. Wasted Time R ( talk) 11:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I feel that unless we find some compromise between the previous large size and the current one-paragraph version by Grsz11, we'll be violating WP:POVFORK. Any thoughts? johnpseudo 22:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I removed this section simply because it reflects something that happens in campaigns on a regular basis: candidates attacking other candidates in hopes that some media will pick it up and make it stick. You know, the "throw enough mud and some will stick" philosophy. The "elitism" tag by McCain is just that; a little more mud. If it is important enough, the reporting will continue; if not it is just a blip on the screen and should not be in the article. We have had this discussion before:
Marylandstater ( talk) 14:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I have included information on the 2004 interview he made where he said similiar stuff to provide more context.
Mpondopondo ( talk) 17:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Just came across this page and was embarrassed to see that the controversy over Obama's "bitter" remarks were barely mentioned. I appreciate the fact that Obama supporters want to close the door on the issue, but this is an encyclopedia, not CBS News. Covering up such a massive story is as bad as fabricating one. I suggest the editors of this page do some serious rethinking of the message such a cover-up sends. It's a bit shamefully biased when Wikipedia won't even call his remarks what they are. Don't label them disrespectful, or arrogant, or elitist... but at the very least call them controversial. 138.23.2.34 ( talk) 19:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Concerning User:Scjessey's edit summary comment "rv back to agreed-upon consensus wording": I've checked the talk page and the archive, and not only is there no consensus shown regarding the term "soundbite" or the phrase "which placed Wright's anger in a larger historical context", both of which I removed in my edit, but there was never even any discussion of this wording. If you have a good reason to revert my changes, that's fine, but don't claim that consensus has been achieved when it hasn't.
In terms of the specifics here, my problem with these phrases are that (1) "soundbite" is a loaded term which can signify unprofessionalism on the part of the reporter or unfairness to the person being excerpted, while the term "excerpt" serves the same basic purpose without being pejorative; and (2) claiming that Obama's speech "placed Wright's anger in a larger historical context" constitutes interpretation beyond that of the cited sources, and is therefore original research. I would like to reinstate my changes, but I am willing to solicit opinions from other editors first to determine if there's a better way to resolve tehse issues. -- Dachannien Talk Contrib 00:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Many overseas politicians are copying Obama's campaign slogans eg Italian general election, 2008, Republic of China presidential election, 2008. Should this be mentioned in the article? F ( talk) 09:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I changed the title of "April Devolpemts" to "comments about small towns", as that more accurately describes the section. If you have a problem, you can change it, but please try to keep it more descriptive than "April developments", as that really doesn't say anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlebum2002 ( talk • contribs) 22:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Since April had only one primary, I though the title "Pennsylvania" would be the most consistent. Marylandstater ( talk) 14:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The "opinion polling" section is starting to turn into a day-by-day play-by-play on the Gallup tracking polls. The result will quickly be a section that isn't particularly encyclopedic in style, and there may even be issues with cherry-picking POV, as certain changes in polling data are mentioned while others are left out. One way to fix this problem is to have a graph (or at least a table) of this data, leaving the text to highlight significant changes in polling data that occurred in conjunction with other notable campaign events. My concern, though, is that a graph or table of the data may be a copyright violation. Is anybody familiar enough with this sort of issue, or does anybody have any ideas for how to present this data effectively (and "safely")? -- Dachannien Talk Contrib 16:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
This is not appropriate as a "see also" in this article's summary of the Wright controversy; it belongs, and already is, in the Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy article as a wikilink to "rhetorical tradition" which is precisely what is being talked about. It is too far afield from this Obama presidential campaign article which is just a summary. Tvoz | talk 06:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind if the link is just at the controversy article. it's just that the same people have removed it from there too! Ewenss ( talk) 20:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)