![]() | 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 |
Hey everyone, I'm new here but I think this page is slightly biased in favor of Barack Obama. I'm not sure how to edit it myself (I tried but my edit was reverted...), but could you guys take a shot? One issue I noticed: next to no information about the "bitter" comments. The only thing there before I added other information was Barack Obama's very positive response ("what I said was the truth") - nothing about the controversy, about how analysts say it cost him some voters, how the Hillary Clinton campaign responded, how other democratic leaders responded, or how Barack Obama has defended himself.
Also, I noticed that on the Hillary Clinton campaign page each controversy is individually highlighted ("Ferraro comments and resignation", "The Limbaugh effect", "Comments about 1996 Bosnia trip", "Health insurance story problems"), while comments about "bittergate" are hidden within the Pennsylvania heading. There's also not much information about how Hillary Clinton is arguing that she is winning "big states" that she is better equipped to win against a Republican candidate or about how Barack Obama has responded to this.
Any thoughts? ~~Michael —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.13.66.215 ( talk) 11:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
(I'm the person who made that comment, I wasn't signed in) Mgmg ( talk) 12:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I think s/he's right. A mention that Hillary actually won in Pennsylvania and that there was actually a negative reaction to the "bitter" comments was removed without much justification other than they liked it better the way it was before Bachcell ( talk) 22:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
That's because they had to be put back in. Also noticed that while there were lots of details about the size of Obama's rallies and whistle stop tours, there was no mention of the critical ABC TV debate which was credited for stopping Obama's momentum, and Obama's performance was judged as weak. There appears to be a fairly consistent pattern of leaving out events and reactions critical of Obama when there was a passage mentioning the bitter comments, and his defence, but no mention of the critical comments Obama was responding to when he said the words were poorly chosen. Is there any explanation for writing the number of votes without mentioning that it was a win for Clinton? This article should be at least as balanced as the mainstream press accounts. Bachcell ( talk) 04:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of biases, the delegate/popular vote maps clearly exhibit a bias in favor of Clinton. MI and FL totals are included, and while the caption acknowledges that they don't as of now count for anything, it still frames them as Clinton victories that do not count - which is of course the Clinton campaign position. Obama was not on the ballot in MI and didn't campaign in FL, as his campaign would tell you. Tjm402 ( talk) 06:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of material on the rumors that Obama might have attended a Muslim school as a child. I wonder if some of the details might be removed since this didn't end up being such a big issue in the campaign. I never hear it mentioned in the media anymore. 67.101.47.212 ( talk) 21:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I took this sentence out because it seems to have a couple of problems:
How can we know that this press release, which received little media attention, started the process? 67.101.47.212 ( talk) 21:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't have time to sort out the conflicting data, but if the regular editors of this page want to update the polling section, a plethora of new polls came out yesterday. Specifically: CBS/ New York Times; NBC/ Wall Street Journal; Fox News (which also has a related poll on Obama and Wright); and CNN's poll of polls. I tried and failed to make sense of the data over at Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy — since I clearly can't synthesize this into anything coherent, I hand the data over to you good folks. Good luck. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 08:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
In the section "Impact of Rev. Jeremiah Wright" this clause starts the second sentence:
English is my first language, and I don't understand this. Could someone kindly explain what it means? Thanks.
(I changed it yesterday to the following:
but it was reverted back with the comment that it does make sense.)
-- RenniePet ( talk) 16:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
"ABC News found and excerpted videos of racially and politically charged sermons..." Johnpseudo must have read it too quickly. Tvoz/ talk 16:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been moving stuff from Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 that is specifically about the general election as it appears; that article is overlong and there is some consensus for putting the general election material in this separate article. Any help would be appreciated, as well as any comments on how to do this fairly and effectively. Gilbertine goldmark ( talk) 22:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
A POV mention of Obama's financing opt out was recently removed. An NPOV mention would be great here... Gilbertine goldmark ( talk) 22:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Now that the primaries are past, the general election campaign will be more historically important. With that in mind, I suggest the following:
Given the potential impact of these moves I will not proceed without consensus. Thoughts? -- Clubjuggle T/ C 23:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
There is already some edit warring and borderline incivility going on here, e.g. this edit [1]. I urge everyone to avoid revert wars, not accuse other editors of making POV edits, not reflexively revert people, etc. Otherwise we may end up with the same kind of mess as at the Barack Obama article, and similar restrictions may apply here. Thanks, Wikidemo ( talk) 03:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
The way the criticism is being covered here violates various policies and guidelines. We cannot add a refrain after every issue mentioned in the nature of "The candidate did it despite (the truth, the ethically correct move), and was heavily criticized by (his opponent, pundits, etc.)". The main issues are WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, relevance, WP:ANALYSIS, and WP:OR, some of which are covered in the essy Wikipedia:Criticism. Defending the controversial information as sourced misses the point. The main policy violation is not WP:V.
The material was first added in the past day by two editors. [2] [3] I trimmed it per WP:WEIGHT [4] ("we don't repeat every criticism"), eliciting an uncivil reversion / AGF violation by one of the editors [5] ("rv blanking please do not seek to push your pov by removing paragraphs you don't like"). A second editor removed the material again, [6] citing a statement [7] the editor claimed to show it had been made for POV purposes ("I have concentrated on gaining a sense of balance and removing NPOV language in the articles"). Another editor reverted the material into the article a third time for a stated purpose that sounds POV [8]("...well-deserved criticism..."), and added on various new criticisms of the candidate [9].
Now we have two over-the-top paragraphs devoted to partisan criticisms (I count five different criticisms shoehorned in here) of a candidate's tactical election finance decision, with such statements as:
I think this kind of stuff ought to get reverted on sight, and edit warring to insert disputed content in important election-related articles should not be tolerated. I would do so but I've already removed it once and I do not wish to revert anything more than once per day, if at all. I hope others will take up the opportunity to be civil and follow the WP:BRD process or some other semblance of consensus. If not, I will warn the offending editors and seek to have them and/or this article placed under some form of administrative oversight. Please, we are grown-ups here (one assumes). If you're going to edit a highly visible article on a controversial subject, play nice. Wikidemo ( talk) 12:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Right now, this section and the article as a whole looks balanced to me. Given the point someone made that this article is likely to be five times this size in no time, the lean sections and brief descriptions that we have here seem wise. Gilbertine goldmark ( talk) 15:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
It's kind of a random string of paragraphs right now and we should probably move towards the structure used on the previous campaign articles. For instance, political positions or news events are getting added as new sections without any eye towards their context within the larger campaign (and an encyclopedic description of such).
Opinion polling, if it needs to be mentioned (although I usually hate such sections for WP:NOTNEWS reasons) should be integrated into a chronological Campaign developments section (not it's own section which is altered day by day to reflect the latest polls). There is already a Political positions of Barack Obama article, so we should briefly summarize the major positions of his campaign (Irag, Economy, Energy, Healthcare...) and then point to the daughter article. The thing we want to avoid is adding new sections based on the latest speech or news item and letting this article become a long list. -- Loonymonkey ( talk) 15:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it's clear that this is emerging as a campaign issue of great importance. I think one challenge here is to give a taste of the debate around this issue in this campaign without going too much into McCain's positions in an Obama article, and maintaining an NPOV. The other challenge, as mentioned by another editor, is that this isn't an a policy position article, it's a campaign article, so the information should presented in terms of what's been happening around the issue in the campaign. This shouldn't be too hard given how much the two campaigns have been talking about energy. Gilbertine goldmark ( talk) 19:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
This section seemed to be added as a POV excuse to repeat attacks, attacks which are already covered in the original primary campaign article. Gilbertine goldmark ( talk) 19:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I say we include a section in which all gaffes and scandals that occur during the General Election be recorded. Bigvinu ( talk) 20:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Logo debuted by Obama campaign at Chicago HQ following the end of the Democratic primary. New logo for general election article, previous logo and info box were lifted directly from the Obama primary campaign article. Multitude of logos used through out the primary season beginning in 2007. Older primary logo was previously used in info box because it was copied from primary campaign article and while waiting for fair use approval on new logo. — KgKris ( talk • contribs) 09:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
If we create a Scandals and Gaffes section for the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 article, we should do the same for the John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obamamaniac ( talk • contribs) 21:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
:Who's talking about creating a "Scandals and Gaffes" section?--
JayJasper (
talk) 22:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Oh, now I see it. The above comments were obviously placed in the wrong section by mistake.--
JayJasper (
talk)
22:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I think this section could be streamlined and rewritten so as not to be WP:CRYSTAL or read like a program schedule announcement. We could simply report that as of early July, 2008 the planned debate schedule is as follows. These will no doubt be filled out in detail as each debate takes place. The history of negotiations and arrangements isn't very important or different than in any election cycle so I suggest we leave that out. It also makes some sense to take a look at the McCain article for how they are presented (do we usually just link to a child article for that)? Wikidemo ( talk) 18:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The entire section has become a content fork of Political positions of Barack Obama. We need to do what was done previously on (what is now called) the primary campaign article. Add a paragraph briefly mentioning his major platforms and link to the other article. This article is starting to seem as if it is structured somewhat like a mere list of facts about the campaign. We really should be mirroring the structure of the previous article which was put together through no small effort by hundreds of editors. -- Loonymonkey ( talk) 22:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, seriously. In the couple hours since I posted the above, a whole extra paragraph has been added. This is not sustainable. There is already an article for Obama's political positions and this article is supposed to be written in summary style, pointing to that article. Please read the guidelines on content forking, especially the section on article spinouts. What we have here is kind of a reverse spinout. The entire Issues section needs to be boldly trimmed to a single paragraph or two with links to the daughter article. My guess is that if I do that right now, it will set off an edit-war and possibly even accusations of vandalism. But it must be done, nonetheless. As these two articles fork further apart, the situation will just get worse. Are there objections? Should we go straight to the RfC process? -- Loonymonkey ( talk) 00:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
There being no opposition we should go ahead and do it, sooner rather than later. One editor in particular keeps adding content that's only semi-encyclopedic and a little biased. The longer this gets the harder it will be to integrate into the political positions article. As an interim step we may want to just comment it out or move it all to a sub-page for safekeeping. Wikidemo ( talk) 22:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
The section should stay. The fact that Obama is changing his position on so many issues right after winning the primary is very relevant to his campaign. Grundle2600 ( talk) 23:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I've returned the section on public financing. I think the thing was misfiled when it was put under "Issue stances" anyways. As a technical description of how the campaign is being financed, it's more appropriate to keep it in this article than to move it to a "Political positions..." article. I'm also following the lead of the Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008 here, where " Fundraising" is kept separate from " Political positions". Hope I'm not stepping on any toes here. Geuiwogbil ( Talk) 04:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Concerns about balance and context (since a section nominally about "Fundraising" focuses entirely on the subsubject of "Public financing") should probably be BOLDly rectified by porting over other content from the "Primaries" article. (Since he can use that cash all the way up to Nov. 7 without having to funnel it through the DNC! Sweet!) Geuiwogbil ( Talk) 04:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Part of covering the media campaign of Obama is covering the reaction and analysis of commercials. Factcheck is a non-profit organization and their analysis of Obama commercials is relevant and warrants inclusion. Trilemma ( talk) 23:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Here are additional cites for criticism of Obama's ads: [11] [12] [13]. Trilemma ( talk) 23:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Currently, an editor is pushing a version that refers to people objecting to Obama's renouncing his campaign finance promise as "critics." This is inaccurate. Allies such as Russ Feingold, and non-partisan pro campaign finance reform groups, hardly Obama "critics", have condemned the decision. I provided links to said statements. The current edit is deceptive. Trilemma ( talk) 23:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I recently added this to the article:
"Although Obama had long been an opponent of welfare reform, on June 30, 2008, he said he now favors it. [1]"
But someone took it out, saying it's not a current issue.
However, the fact that Obama is shifting to the right, right after winning the primary, is a current issue. So I think it should be in the article.
Grundle2600 ( talk) 19:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Because I feel that the current version fails to demonstrate the scope of backlash over Obama's decision on campaign financing, I'm proposing a compromise text:
On June 19, Obama became the first major-party presidential candidate to turn down public financing since the system was created after the Watergate scandal. [2] [3] Obama was expected to raise $265 million between the time of the announcement and election day. [4] By rejecting the funds in favor of private donations, the campaign set itself in a position to outspend John McCain prior to the election. Had he signed on to the plan, he would only have been able to spend $84.1 million over the period between the party convention in August and the general election in November. [5]
Obama explained his decision to opt out of the public financing system, saying, "public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who've become masters at gaming this broken system." [3] The decision was condemned by many high profile newspapers, including the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Boston Globe, USA Today, and the Washington Post, which said, “effort to cloak (Obama's) broken promise in the smug mantle of selfless dedication to the public good is a little hard to take.” [6], as well as campaign finance proponents Russ Feingold and Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer, who said that the move harmed the effort to achieve public financing of campaigns. [7] [8] [4] Critics also said that Obama's campaign was receiving as much support from unregulated 527 groups as McCain's. [9]
A quote from a pertinent defender of Obama could also be included above. But the material above is necessary in order to give readers a better understanding of the scope of condemnation of the decision. Currently, the article is vague and incomplete. Trilemma ( talk) 16:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Going out of one's way to indicate who is fundraising for a candidate is an irrelevant and POV exercise. I note that the fundraising section on the McCain campaign page does not indicate that Carl Icahn and Donald Trump are among those who raised $100,000 apiece in bundled contributions (nor should it). Individual donors/bundlers are not noteworthy for this page, unless there is some kind of scandal or major story. Gilbertine goldmark ( talk) 00:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Obama has shifted to the right on unwarranted wiretapping, Israel, free trade, gun control, the death penalty, faith based programs, welfare reform, the Iraq war, abortion, the Patriot Act, campaign finance, and the Cuban embargo. List of sources Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? Grundle2600 ( talk) 20:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep or Delete?
Using Wikipedia data from a related article Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2008 and Excel, I crunched the numbers in states where the lead in the polls for any one candidate is close or has shown signs of swinging back and forth between Obama and McCain. At this point, I've selected Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Virginia, Indiana and Missouri for additional analysis using charts and trendlines. I believe that these seven states are, as it happens, a good representative example, because three of the states are currently leaning toward Obama (Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania), three are currently leaning toward McCain (Florida, Indiana and Missouri) and Virginia is virtually tied. Incidentally, between these seven states, there are 120 electoral votes at stake, which represents 44% of the total (270) needed to secure the nomination. In most of the states, there are still at least about 10% of the voters with no opinion yet between the two candidates (or are supporting a third candidate). Your thoughts, suggestions and general input are greatly appreciated. If time is available, I will work to create these charts in the more visually friendly PNG format.-- Robapalooza ( talk) 23:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
(editConflict) This is a lot to respond to, and unfortunately I don't have time to go through it point by point today. I do want to quickly say a couple of things, though. First, I was not suggesting any bias or tendentiousness on your part, Robapalooza. I really appreciate your hard work on crunching these numbers and creating these charts. However, it does veer into some very questionable territory, particularly in that these moving averages and such are the result of your own research ( synthesizing the raw data from the other article). There isn't a reliable third-party source that tells us what these trends are. Also, using other Wikipedia pages as references is not allowed (otherwise what would stop editors of that page from pointing back here as a reference?) Please see this article for a more detailed explanation. I'm not going to remove the charts again while we're discussing it, I'm just going to try to get concensus. I am going to put the unreferenced section tag back though, as there aren't any reliable third-party sources cited. -- Loonymonkey ( talk) 23:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
[line break] I have some concerns too: Even if the polls themselves are reliable, they're presented together in a way that may violate WP:SYNTH. The lines on the charts connect data points sourced to different polls that use different methodologies. When the data points from these polls are set directly adjacent to one another and connected by a bold red line, it can give the reader a grossly misleading impression of the data. Did Barack Obama really move from a 5-point advantage in Florida on June 17 (ARG) to an 8-point deficit on the 18th (Rasmussen)? I would feel less concerned about the charts if they simply parotted RCP's methodology or that of some other prominent RS, or if they were simple X-Y scatter plots, or if you separated out the data for each pollster (tracking all Rasmussen results together, all Quinnipiac results together, and all SUSA results together). As is, these charts might be a violation of WP:SYNTH, in that they take multiple reliable sources and compile them to advance a position (the trend lines) that isn't contained any single source. Also: (1) I can't see the three-point moving average line; and (2) If these charts stay in any form, then their source data needs to be immediately accessible from this article. I can't think of any interpretation of WP:V that allows for sources to be cordoned off in other articles. "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." (It's no real problem; just put the polls in really big footnotes.) Geuiwogbil ( Talk) 22:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, in my opinion these charts would be acceptable if the lines on the charts were removed and direct citations were added. I agree that separating out the pollsters into different charts would be too cumbersome, so different shaped and colored points would be helpful, following the lead of the site you've linked to. Also: The methodology of the 50-state map should be explained in a footnote. (Viz., "Data is averaged from at least last three poll results according to en:Statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008, with Washington DC presumed heavy Democrat. If there are more than 3 polls in the past 45 days of the latest poll, then these are averaged.") I raised my eyebrow skeptically at the map initially, but became satisfied once I read how the map was constructed. I'm sure other readers feel the same way. Also: These charts are getting to be real screen-hogs, hence the WP:WEIGHT braggadocio. You'll need to convey this information in less space. A few suggestions: (1) Remove the titles (the reader already knows he's looking at Florida polling; you've just told him in the subheading); and (2) Since the legend is the same for all the charts (BHO blue, JSM red, etc.), you could place it in a single, separate box, so that one legend can serve all seven charts. It might be worthwhile to ditch the charts altogether, and simply give the data in tables (With a somewhat more sensible construction than that used in the source. Instead of listing Democrat: Barack Obama/Barack Obama/Barack Obama/Barack Obama, wouldn't it be simpler to put a small blue "D" and a small red "R" at the head of the columns listing their respective percentages? And why give "2008" in the "Administered" box, when all the "Administered" dates are in 2008?) Geuiwogbil ( Talk) 03:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
One more observation: Some of the concerns raised here are addressed in an intelligent manner (my opinion) at this website: [18]. In other words, at the end of the day, these are merely opinion polls, and a certain amount of caution is prudent. Obviously, in the present context (an encyclopedia), the nature of the present article (an event in progress) may run counter to the "usual" rules of Wikipedia. In other words, this article will be a work in progress until November and thereafter, when this entire article will be rewritten with the benefit of hindsight. Until then, I think it's appropriate to be focused on content such as it is between now and November 2008. I'm not saying we should abandon all Wikipedia standards, and I'm definitely open to ideas for improvement of the charts and content, but I think we should allow for a bit of "boldness" and experimentation given the type of article that this is.-- Robapalooza ( talk) 02:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Projecting into the long term, I think it may be a good idea to have separate articles for Obama(and McCain)'s media campaigns. It would provide an opportunity to have a more fully encyclopedic collection of advertisements, radio, television, internet, etc. that would provide a great reference for years to come. Trilemma ( talk) 16:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
There's no information about any contenders for his running mate.
87.194.131.188 (
talk)
Jooler (
talk)
07:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The chart on the left-hand side is currently being used. It includes solid lines that link each poll, a straight dashed line that is a simple linear trendline (half the results fall above the linear trendline, half the results fall below the trendline, and the trendline itself is an average at any given point in time), and the moving light colored line is a three period moving average (a simple average of the three most recent polls). Some have suggested that the chart on the left contains original research and may be violation of various Wikipedia policies. I disagree. The chart on the right is a simple summary of the polling data presented at
Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2008#Florida without any of the trendlines noted above.--
Robapalooza (
talk)
21:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Here's a compromise position, which might be easier to read than the chart above, at left.--
Robapalooza (
talk)
21:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I've created a new type of chart based on your suggestions. Your feedback, as always, is welcome. Here's a sample of the new chart in 500px, 400px, 300px formats:
This size is used in this and other articles.
A compromise size?
Hmmm, small but still legible by my eyes.
--
Robapalooza (
talk)
23:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
If I remember right there was a discussion about your charts before in which was mentioned that they're using to much space, needed to be updated constantly [guess I said that] and a suggestion to make a sub-page for them (what I'm in favor for). Furthermore there is the question of which states to include. --
Floridianed (
talk)
02:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
shouldnt there be a page on his visits? Tehw1k1 ( talk) 21:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think a longish direct quote of a political speech is out of place here. The speech may have been notable but the quotation is not. It's more of a data dump. It's not a original research question but more of a primary source question. A video is allowable as a source (though not as useful as a transcript - there seem to be 22,000 citations available if you want that [22]). But we use summary style here instead of repeating politicians' speeches. Just what about this speech is notable and why should we have it here? Say that, cite it to a source, make sure it's appropriate weight, and now you're talking. Wikidemo ( talk) 01:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
If information about the Counter-campaign is going to be in this article, then information that is relevant about the activities of the campain belong here as well. A reliable source noted that the first post on the "fight the smears" site was, in fact, guilty of falsely smearing Limbaugh. This was not an attempt to Soapbox or Tenditious editing. If its a wording issue, fix it, dont delete it. CENSEI ( talk) 21:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The battleground states polling charts are in both this article,
Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 and
John McCain presidential campaign, 2008.
What a surprise.
It's time to take these enormous graphics out of the article, and put them in a suitable location which both of these campaign articles would link to. I propose something like
U.S. presidential election 2008 polling charts in battleground states.
Comments, amendments, suggestions, complaints, counter-proposals below. I propose the same at the McCain campaign article talk pages.
--
Yellowdesk (
talk)
02:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I sincerly suggest that the "Controversies" section be placed under his career rather than campaign as they have NO direct relevance other than distant relation 1 donor of 8 million from a 200 million surplus. Why is this even relevant? Furthermore, the earmark section comes from 1 article of "conservative" origin, of which they state themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.181.248.152 ( talk) 01:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I propose inclusion of this campaign poster with the article. What do others think?
I added this to the article, but someone erased it:
Gwen Ifill, the scheduled moderator of the October 2, 2008 vice presidential debate, wrote a pro-Obama book called "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," which is being released on January 20, 2009. [10] [11] [12]
Grundle2600 ( talk) 15:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe this campaign has developed a racist tone with the new association with Bill Ayers. In many McCain/Palin rallies, there supporters that are calling Obama a terrorist and saying that because of his African roots that he is somehow a terrorist. I think when all is said and done, the racist tone that this campaign has taken will be remembered and should be included when writing about this campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.60.23 ( talk) 01:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
This campaign will probably be known for its general bigotry rather than just the racism. There is racism, ageism, misogyny, class warfare, the list goes on... and it's mostly bullshit. This article should stick to the campaign, and not original research of Wikipedia contributors and politically biased analysts. Just the facts, ma'am. -- Amwestover ( talk) 15:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Somebody ought to include some of the information from today's front-page New York Times article about him, such as the recent Fox News special about (that is, against) Obama--and yes, I have posted this same comment in the Talk page of the article about his campaign, so that you can collectively decide if the information about Andy Martin should be in which article, and where. Here's the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/us/politics/13martin.html?scp=1&sq=andy%20martin&st=cse
68.174.101.64 (
talk)
10:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Here is the disambiguated link to Andy Martin's page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Martin_(U.S._politician)
so of course, his name should be scripted as
Andy Martin
68.174.101.64 (
talk)
10:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}}
Please add: On 19 October 2008, Obama's campaign announced a record fundraising total of $150 million for September 2008. This exceeded the campaign's single-month record ($66 million) for August 2008.
Citation: Wall Street Journal, 19 October 2008, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122441294251948009.html?mod=googlenews_wsj—Preceding unsigned comment added by Adsypads ( talk • contribs) 00:46, 22 October 2008
{{ editsemiprotected}} PLEASE ADD THE FULL STORY INSTEAD: On 19 October 2008, Obama's campaign announced a record fundraising total of $150 million for September 2008. This exceeded the campaign's single-month record ($66 million) for August 2008. This money was collected in violation of Federal campaign laws regarding the security and verification of people doing the donating. The Republican party has filed an official complaint agains Obama's campaign for its failure to collect funds within legal means. The Obama campaign has disabled the default AVS credit card verification systems and CVV/CVS security code checks, as well as allowing donations from outside the US with no verification that the donators are legal US Citizens. Obama has already had to return large amounts of suspect donations in earlier portions of the campaign. Direct analysis of the Obama campaign's FEC filings has shown that many fraudulent names and filings have given the Obama campaign donations far above the legal limits, and multiple names have been used to donate from single credit cards.
Citations:
http://www.gop.com/News/NewsRead.aspx?Guid=9a39321d-4842-446f-ac9a-25fa32eb5911
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDljNTdjMTgxNDFjNWRiZTNlMzIzMTMzMGM5NDJlMTA=
http://www.thenextright.com/patrick-ruffini/exclusive-barackobamacoms-lax-security-opens-door-to-online-donor-fraud
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/23/john-galt-donating-to-obama-this-year-too-apparently/
http://www.newsweek.com/id/162403—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
129.7.75.203 (
talk •
contribs)
16:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Obama Accepting Untraceable Donations
- Contributions Reviewed After Deposits
- By Matthew Mosk
- Washington Post Staff Writer
- Wednesday, October 29, 2008; A02
- Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor's identity, campaign officials confirmed.
Seems important ... now how do we get it into the article? What especially notable, as the article goes onto to mention is that the campaign’s excuse that they screen the donors afterwards is pure poppy cock because its several orders of magnitude more difficult to do this rather than to turn on the verification software. Dodad Pro ( talk) 17:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I found this interesting as well, good anecdotal point:
Mr A Hitler of Berlin, Germany is only the most obvious fake donor to make a contribution and receive shortly afterwards a Wilkommen, Bienvenue, Welcome email thanking him for joining the active community of community activists.
Dodad Pro ( talk) 17:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Is the infomercial that aired on multiple TV channels on October 29 notable enough for inclusion? — MicahBrwn ( talk) 03:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Uh yeah... It seems like we've completely removed them from this article. Which isn't that great. For example, over on the Fox News controversies article we link to this page for a further debunking of the whole madrassa allegation but then we don't have it here. JoshuaZ ( talk) 20:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
When is it appropriate to remove the "Future Candidates" category? Quite soon, I would think. KConWiki ( talk) 05:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Whare to put transition news and items? In
Presidential transition of Barack Obama
--
Yellowdesk (
talk)
21:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on at Talk:John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 [25] that would affect this page too. You might want to take a look over there and maybe comment on the discussion to prevent another thread about the same topic here (which could emerge at some point).-- The Magnificent Clean-keeper ( talk) 23:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
References numbers 63, 61, lower half of 60 don't go anywhere. Reference 68 is a "for purchase" article!! Reference 70 has the wrong URL (close but no cigar) 76.110.165.21 ( talk) 01:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
To form a foreign policy reputation, Obama held a speech in Berlin and gathered more than 200,000 people. After the speech Obama said he was rather a symbol than the actual reason for the people who came. This produced some controversy and could be mentioned as well. Here are some references [26] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.99.87 ( talk) 03:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert "The truth about Barack's birth certificate," Obama for America. Retrieved 2008-06-14.
The link below works for me:
" The truth about Barack's birth certificate", Obama for America. Retrieved 2008-06-14.
-- Phenylalanine ( talk) 23:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
This article uses many POV phrases that editors will edit war to keep in the article per here.
I am setting up this talkpage sub heading to discuss the merits of how "allegation" is a more NPOV term than "disparaging rumor", and how asserting that a website is "counter smear" is less POV than just labbelling it as a "website". Glen Twenty ( talk) 20:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I still contend that since the most widely known "allegation" documented on this website is that he is supposedly a Muslim, that labelling this a "disparaging rumor" is in fact incredibly offensive to the 2 billion Muslims on this planet. It is important that wikipedia follows its own manual of style and does not engage in offensive Point of view pushing. Glen Twenty ( talk) 20:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
So I take you accept that "allegation" is a more neutral phrase than "disparaging rumour"? Glen Twenty ( talk) 20:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
How about "fallacious claims"? That would accurately describe the claims in question without suggesting that any of them were objectively disparaging (though clearly a number of those making them intended them to be disparaging). -- The Bruce ( talk) 20:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Efforts to de emphasize the fact that the birth certificate shown in the article is in fact the "short form" birth certificate continue as per here. There is no valid reason to reduce the accuracy of the wikipedia by withholding valid referenced information.
It is important to note that this short form birth certificate extract is different from the "long form" birth certificate which is the subject of a supreme court challenge. Glen Twenty ( talk) 20:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
There is no need to include the terminology "short form". It is not a relevant detail, and we no more need to note it in the article than the fact that the document is printed on paper. It bears no relevance to the document itself, to Obama's presidential campaign, or anything else. It is not, as suggested above, related to any court case. Berg is apparently asking to see the original document from Hawaii's archive, not a copy of any sort (long- or short-form). His assertion appears to be that there is some sort of conspiracy and that the state government of Hawaii produced a fraudulent copy, and I can't imagine the form of that copy would have made a difference. -- The Bruce ( talk) 20:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I inserted the following today, but it has been removed:
In November 2008, Alan Keyes sued Obama, seeking more information about this birth issue. See “Alan Keyes, AIP leaders sue in CA court to obtain Obama citizenship proof”, The Sacramento Union ( 2008-11-15).
It should go without saying that mentioning a lawsuit by a very high-profile figure is not undue weight. I'm 98% sure Obama is a natural-born citizen. However, this is definitely worth a mention, especially given that this article already addresses the citizenship issue (including an image). Ferrylodge ( talk) 20:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
(undent)Plenty of reliable sources have covered the many lawsuits on this issue. See, for example:
Gonzales, Veronica. “Hampstead man's suit contests President-elect Obama's citizenship”, Wilmington Star-News ( 2008-11-14).
“Conn. court upholds Obama's place on ballot”, Associated Press via Hartford Courant ( 2008-11-03).
McLaughlin, Sheila. “Lawsuit tossed on Obama's birth site”, Cincinnati Enquirer ( 2008-11-01).
“Judge tosses suit over Obama's birth”, Washington Times ( 2008-10-26).
Holmes, Jamie. “Obama citizenship questions continue”, WPTV ( 2008-10-23).
You seem bound and determined to prevent this article from giving any hint or pointer that such lawsuits (including that of Keyes) exist. In the complaint that Keyes filed, he pointed out that states require more proof of citizenship to obtain a valid driver's license than to become president of the United States. When the Department of Motor Vehicles asks you for proof of citizenship, it's not because they have a fringe theory that you are an illegal alien; rather, they seek proof of citizenship merely as a precaution.
Anyway, I intend to at least insert a "see also" into this article. And Wikidemon, although others may comment about this in the future, you appear to be in the minority right now. Ferrylodge ( talk) 21:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
It is relevant to the campaign (and this article) because the lawsuit contends that the result of the campaign is null and void. The lawsuit is supported by WP:V sources and the lawsuit applicant satisfies WP:N. Glen Twenty ( talk) 22:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that other than just adding a refer to..., some information should be taken from that article and placed in the main article. It makes the article more complete. 220.255.7.182 ( talk) 00:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Today referenced information about Obama's intial pledge to follow the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act was deleted here citing the policy of WP:COATRACK. Does this episode satisfiy WP:N? Glen Twenty ( talk) 22:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I see no controversy section here. 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 primary campaign, 2008? What about Rev. Wright?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 23:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
A controversy section will only arise from details which we decide should be included in the article but cannot be contextualised into it. We have not yet found such details. Conversely, I don't think the "Israel for Obama" campaign is nearly as relevant to Obama's biography as the Reverend Wright controversy. I don't know much about it though, nor do I live in the US, so could somebody assess whether or not it should be included at all? Bigbluefish ( talk) 12:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
Support New subsection "Controversy" and inclusion of protest ban in Berlin. See also Talk:Public image of Barack Obama and Talk:Barack Obama EagleScout18 ( talk) 03:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Your opposition is confused, then. The ban occurred during the election. EagleScout18 ( talk) 07:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Question no more. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Public_image_of_Barack_Obama: "First source is in a foreign language, and therefore unusable. Second source is okay, but your proposed addition still has nothing to do with Barack Obama's public image. Consider the election article instead (although you will have to find consensus there too). -- Scjessey (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)" EagleScout18 ( talk) 19:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Exclusion of sarcastic, trivial commentary. 19:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
As well as banal, wasteful commentary. (Shazam? Isn't that for six year olds?) EagleScout18 ( talk) 19:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The notability is self-explanatory. Bild, the German newspaper that ran the story, is the fourth largest newspaper, in terms of circulation, in the world. The LA Times mentioned it as well. Various TV media broadcasted the protest footage. And, on top of all that, I hear rumors of bumper stickers. EagleScout18 ( talk) 20:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
But has such a ban occurred prior during a U.S. presidential campaign abroad? That is significant. And isn't the protest itself notable, i.e., Germany and others opposing Sen. Obama's proposed attacks on Afghanistan and Pakistan? EagleScout18 ( talk) 20:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
See message, Talk:Public image of Barack Obama. As for asking opinions, isn't that what RfC is about? Wait, before you answer that, check the reliable sources first. EagleScout18 ( talk) 00:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I noticed in the opening blurb it states he will become the 3rd sitting senator to become president. I know this is a very trivial, and likely a very stupid question to ask. Given the fact that he has stepped down from his senate seat, doesn't that mean he's no longer a sitting senator?
Having asked that. I would also point out that I could be wrong on the fact he won the presidency as a sitting senator. I don't know, just wondering. I'm pretty sure I'm incorrect. -- DemocraplypseNow ( talk) 23:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed the "Ascend" from the blurb, I added in "be elected." Would that sound right? I personally think the word "Ascend" adds a bit of glorification to it. -- DemocraplypseNow ( talk) 23:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
(od) The purpose of the whole "sitting Senator" point is that it's been very infrequent, with the theory as to why being that senators (a) are forced to cast lots of difficult votes that will make them unpopular to numerous segments of the electorate, and (b) are hindered by the reputation of the Senate as a deliberate, talkative, ponderous, filibustering institution, unlike say governors who can take dynamic executive action. Since that's the purpose of this statistic, the pedantic point about not being 'sitting' at inauguration is irrelevant, and Garfield shouldn't count since he wasn't hindered by either of these factors. Wasted Time R ( talk) 00:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, My questions answered, all the rest of you are to smart for me. I'm outta here before I prove my severe lack of Garfieldian knowledge. -- DemocraplypseNow ( talk) 01:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthor=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) Cite error: The named reference "GOB" was defined multiple times with different content (see the
help page).
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
![]() | 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 |
Hey everyone, I'm new here but I think this page is slightly biased in favor of Barack Obama. I'm not sure how to edit it myself (I tried but my edit was reverted...), but could you guys take a shot? One issue I noticed: next to no information about the "bitter" comments. The only thing there before I added other information was Barack Obama's very positive response ("what I said was the truth") - nothing about the controversy, about how analysts say it cost him some voters, how the Hillary Clinton campaign responded, how other democratic leaders responded, or how Barack Obama has defended himself.
Also, I noticed that on the Hillary Clinton campaign page each controversy is individually highlighted ("Ferraro comments and resignation", "The Limbaugh effect", "Comments about 1996 Bosnia trip", "Health insurance story problems"), while comments about "bittergate" are hidden within the Pennsylvania heading. There's also not much information about how Hillary Clinton is arguing that she is winning "big states" that she is better equipped to win against a Republican candidate or about how Barack Obama has responded to this.
Any thoughts? ~~Michael —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.13.66.215 ( talk) 11:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
(I'm the person who made that comment, I wasn't signed in) Mgmg ( talk) 12:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I think s/he's right. A mention that Hillary actually won in Pennsylvania and that there was actually a negative reaction to the "bitter" comments was removed without much justification other than they liked it better the way it was before Bachcell ( talk) 22:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
That's because they had to be put back in. Also noticed that while there were lots of details about the size of Obama's rallies and whistle stop tours, there was no mention of the critical ABC TV debate which was credited for stopping Obama's momentum, and Obama's performance was judged as weak. There appears to be a fairly consistent pattern of leaving out events and reactions critical of Obama when there was a passage mentioning the bitter comments, and his defence, but no mention of the critical comments Obama was responding to when he said the words were poorly chosen. Is there any explanation for writing the number of votes without mentioning that it was a win for Clinton? This article should be at least as balanced as the mainstream press accounts. Bachcell ( talk) 04:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of biases, the delegate/popular vote maps clearly exhibit a bias in favor of Clinton. MI and FL totals are included, and while the caption acknowledges that they don't as of now count for anything, it still frames them as Clinton victories that do not count - which is of course the Clinton campaign position. Obama was not on the ballot in MI and didn't campaign in FL, as his campaign would tell you. Tjm402 ( talk) 06:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of material on the rumors that Obama might have attended a Muslim school as a child. I wonder if some of the details might be removed since this didn't end up being such a big issue in the campaign. I never hear it mentioned in the media anymore. 67.101.47.212 ( talk) 21:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I took this sentence out because it seems to have a couple of problems:
How can we know that this press release, which received little media attention, started the process? 67.101.47.212 ( talk) 21:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't have time to sort out the conflicting data, but if the regular editors of this page want to update the polling section, a plethora of new polls came out yesterday. Specifically: CBS/ New York Times; NBC/ Wall Street Journal; Fox News (which also has a related poll on Obama and Wright); and CNN's poll of polls. I tried and failed to make sense of the data over at Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy — since I clearly can't synthesize this into anything coherent, I hand the data over to you good folks. Good luck. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 08:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
In the section "Impact of Rev. Jeremiah Wright" this clause starts the second sentence:
English is my first language, and I don't understand this. Could someone kindly explain what it means? Thanks.
(I changed it yesterday to the following:
but it was reverted back with the comment that it does make sense.)
-- RenniePet ( talk) 16:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
"ABC News found and excerpted videos of racially and politically charged sermons..." Johnpseudo must have read it too quickly. Tvoz/ talk 16:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been moving stuff from Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 that is specifically about the general election as it appears; that article is overlong and there is some consensus for putting the general election material in this separate article. Any help would be appreciated, as well as any comments on how to do this fairly and effectively. Gilbertine goldmark ( talk) 22:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
A POV mention of Obama's financing opt out was recently removed. An NPOV mention would be great here... Gilbertine goldmark ( talk) 22:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Now that the primaries are past, the general election campaign will be more historically important. With that in mind, I suggest the following:
Given the potential impact of these moves I will not proceed without consensus. Thoughts? -- Clubjuggle T/ C 23:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
There is already some edit warring and borderline incivility going on here, e.g. this edit [1]. I urge everyone to avoid revert wars, not accuse other editors of making POV edits, not reflexively revert people, etc. Otherwise we may end up with the same kind of mess as at the Barack Obama article, and similar restrictions may apply here. Thanks, Wikidemo ( talk) 03:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
The way the criticism is being covered here violates various policies and guidelines. We cannot add a refrain after every issue mentioned in the nature of "The candidate did it despite (the truth, the ethically correct move), and was heavily criticized by (his opponent, pundits, etc.)". The main issues are WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, relevance, WP:ANALYSIS, and WP:OR, some of which are covered in the essy Wikipedia:Criticism. Defending the controversial information as sourced misses the point. The main policy violation is not WP:V.
The material was first added in the past day by two editors. [2] [3] I trimmed it per WP:WEIGHT [4] ("we don't repeat every criticism"), eliciting an uncivil reversion / AGF violation by one of the editors [5] ("rv blanking please do not seek to push your pov by removing paragraphs you don't like"). A second editor removed the material again, [6] citing a statement [7] the editor claimed to show it had been made for POV purposes ("I have concentrated on gaining a sense of balance and removing NPOV language in the articles"). Another editor reverted the material into the article a third time for a stated purpose that sounds POV [8]("...well-deserved criticism..."), and added on various new criticisms of the candidate [9].
Now we have two over-the-top paragraphs devoted to partisan criticisms (I count five different criticisms shoehorned in here) of a candidate's tactical election finance decision, with such statements as:
I think this kind of stuff ought to get reverted on sight, and edit warring to insert disputed content in important election-related articles should not be tolerated. I would do so but I've already removed it once and I do not wish to revert anything more than once per day, if at all. I hope others will take up the opportunity to be civil and follow the WP:BRD process or some other semblance of consensus. If not, I will warn the offending editors and seek to have them and/or this article placed under some form of administrative oversight. Please, we are grown-ups here (one assumes). If you're going to edit a highly visible article on a controversial subject, play nice. Wikidemo ( talk) 12:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Right now, this section and the article as a whole looks balanced to me. Given the point someone made that this article is likely to be five times this size in no time, the lean sections and brief descriptions that we have here seem wise. Gilbertine goldmark ( talk) 15:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
It's kind of a random string of paragraphs right now and we should probably move towards the structure used on the previous campaign articles. For instance, political positions or news events are getting added as new sections without any eye towards their context within the larger campaign (and an encyclopedic description of such).
Opinion polling, if it needs to be mentioned (although I usually hate such sections for WP:NOTNEWS reasons) should be integrated into a chronological Campaign developments section (not it's own section which is altered day by day to reflect the latest polls). There is already a Political positions of Barack Obama article, so we should briefly summarize the major positions of his campaign (Irag, Economy, Energy, Healthcare...) and then point to the daughter article. The thing we want to avoid is adding new sections based on the latest speech or news item and letting this article become a long list. -- Loonymonkey ( talk) 15:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it's clear that this is emerging as a campaign issue of great importance. I think one challenge here is to give a taste of the debate around this issue in this campaign without going too much into McCain's positions in an Obama article, and maintaining an NPOV. The other challenge, as mentioned by another editor, is that this isn't an a policy position article, it's a campaign article, so the information should presented in terms of what's been happening around the issue in the campaign. This shouldn't be too hard given how much the two campaigns have been talking about energy. Gilbertine goldmark ( talk) 19:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
This section seemed to be added as a POV excuse to repeat attacks, attacks which are already covered in the original primary campaign article. Gilbertine goldmark ( talk) 19:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I say we include a section in which all gaffes and scandals that occur during the General Election be recorded. Bigvinu ( talk) 20:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Logo debuted by Obama campaign at Chicago HQ following the end of the Democratic primary. New logo for general election article, previous logo and info box were lifted directly from the Obama primary campaign article. Multitude of logos used through out the primary season beginning in 2007. Older primary logo was previously used in info box because it was copied from primary campaign article and while waiting for fair use approval on new logo. — KgKris ( talk • contribs) 09:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
If we create a Scandals and Gaffes section for the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 article, we should do the same for the John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obamamaniac ( talk • contribs) 21:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
:Who's talking about creating a "Scandals and Gaffes" section?--
JayJasper (
talk) 22:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Oh, now I see it. The above comments were obviously placed in the wrong section by mistake.--
JayJasper (
talk)
22:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I think this section could be streamlined and rewritten so as not to be WP:CRYSTAL or read like a program schedule announcement. We could simply report that as of early July, 2008 the planned debate schedule is as follows. These will no doubt be filled out in detail as each debate takes place. The history of negotiations and arrangements isn't very important or different than in any election cycle so I suggest we leave that out. It also makes some sense to take a look at the McCain article for how they are presented (do we usually just link to a child article for that)? Wikidemo ( talk) 18:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The entire section has become a content fork of Political positions of Barack Obama. We need to do what was done previously on (what is now called) the primary campaign article. Add a paragraph briefly mentioning his major platforms and link to the other article. This article is starting to seem as if it is structured somewhat like a mere list of facts about the campaign. We really should be mirroring the structure of the previous article which was put together through no small effort by hundreds of editors. -- Loonymonkey ( talk) 22:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, seriously. In the couple hours since I posted the above, a whole extra paragraph has been added. This is not sustainable. There is already an article for Obama's political positions and this article is supposed to be written in summary style, pointing to that article. Please read the guidelines on content forking, especially the section on article spinouts. What we have here is kind of a reverse spinout. The entire Issues section needs to be boldly trimmed to a single paragraph or two with links to the daughter article. My guess is that if I do that right now, it will set off an edit-war and possibly even accusations of vandalism. But it must be done, nonetheless. As these two articles fork further apart, the situation will just get worse. Are there objections? Should we go straight to the RfC process? -- Loonymonkey ( talk) 00:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
There being no opposition we should go ahead and do it, sooner rather than later. One editor in particular keeps adding content that's only semi-encyclopedic and a little biased. The longer this gets the harder it will be to integrate into the political positions article. As an interim step we may want to just comment it out or move it all to a sub-page for safekeeping. Wikidemo ( talk) 22:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
The section should stay. The fact that Obama is changing his position on so many issues right after winning the primary is very relevant to his campaign. Grundle2600 ( talk) 23:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I've returned the section on public financing. I think the thing was misfiled when it was put under "Issue stances" anyways. As a technical description of how the campaign is being financed, it's more appropriate to keep it in this article than to move it to a "Political positions..." article. I'm also following the lead of the Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008 here, where " Fundraising" is kept separate from " Political positions". Hope I'm not stepping on any toes here. Geuiwogbil ( Talk) 04:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Concerns about balance and context (since a section nominally about "Fundraising" focuses entirely on the subsubject of "Public financing") should probably be BOLDly rectified by porting over other content from the "Primaries" article. (Since he can use that cash all the way up to Nov. 7 without having to funnel it through the DNC! Sweet!) Geuiwogbil ( Talk) 04:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Part of covering the media campaign of Obama is covering the reaction and analysis of commercials. Factcheck is a non-profit organization and their analysis of Obama commercials is relevant and warrants inclusion. Trilemma ( talk) 23:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Here are additional cites for criticism of Obama's ads: [11] [12] [13]. Trilemma ( talk) 23:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Currently, an editor is pushing a version that refers to people objecting to Obama's renouncing his campaign finance promise as "critics." This is inaccurate. Allies such as Russ Feingold, and non-partisan pro campaign finance reform groups, hardly Obama "critics", have condemned the decision. I provided links to said statements. The current edit is deceptive. Trilemma ( talk) 23:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I recently added this to the article:
"Although Obama had long been an opponent of welfare reform, on June 30, 2008, he said he now favors it. [1]"
But someone took it out, saying it's not a current issue.
However, the fact that Obama is shifting to the right, right after winning the primary, is a current issue. So I think it should be in the article.
Grundle2600 ( talk) 19:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Because I feel that the current version fails to demonstrate the scope of backlash over Obama's decision on campaign financing, I'm proposing a compromise text:
On June 19, Obama became the first major-party presidential candidate to turn down public financing since the system was created after the Watergate scandal. [2] [3] Obama was expected to raise $265 million between the time of the announcement and election day. [4] By rejecting the funds in favor of private donations, the campaign set itself in a position to outspend John McCain prior to the election. Had he signed on to the plan, he would only have been able to spend $84.1 million over the period between the party convention in August and the general election in November. [5]
Obama explained his decision to opt out of the public financing system, saying, "public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who've become masters at gaming this broken system." [3] The decision was condemned by many high profile newspapers, including the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Boston Globe, USA Today, and the Washington Post, which said, “effort to cloak (Obama's) broken promise in the smug mantle of selfless dedication to the public good is a little hard to take.” [6], as well as campaign finance proponents Russ Feingold and Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer, who said that the move harmed the effort to achieve public financing of campaigns. [7] [8] [4] Critics also said that Obama's campaign was receiving as much support from unregulated 527 groups as McCain's. [9]
A quote from a pertinent defender of Obama could also be included above. But the material above is necessary in order to give readers a better understanding of the scope of condemnation of the decision. Currently, the article is vague and incomplete. Trilemma ( talk) 16:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Going out of one's way to indicate who is fundraising for a candidate is an irrelevant and POV exercise. I note that the fundraising section on the McCain campaign page does not indicate that Carl Icahn and Donald Trump are among those who raised $100,000 apiece in bundled contributions (nor should it). Individual donors/bundlers are not noteworthy for this page, unless there is some kind of scandal or major story. Gilbertine goldmark ( talk) 00:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Obama has shifted to the right on unwarranted wiretapping, Israel, free trade, gun control, the death penalty, faith based programs, welfare reform, the Iraq war, abortion, the Patriot Act, campaign finance, and the Cuban embargo. List of sources Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? Grundle2600 ( talk) 20:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep or Delete?
Using Wikipedia data from a related article Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2008 and Excel, I crunched the numbers in states where the lead in the polls for any one candidate is close or has shown signs of swinging back and forth between Obama and McCain. At this point, I've selected Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Virginia, Indiana and Missouri for additional analysis using charts and trendlines. I believe that these seven states are, as it happens, a good representative example, because three of the states are currently leaning toward Obama (Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania), three are currently leaning toward McCain (Florida, Indiana and Missouri) and Virginia is virtually tied. Incidentally, between these seven states, there are 120 electoral votes at stake, which represents 44% of the total (270) needed to secure the nomination. In most of the states, there are still at least about 10% of the voters with no opinion yet between the two candidates (or are supporting a third candidate). Your thoughts, suggestions and general input are greatly appreciated. If time is available, I will work to create these charts in the more visually friendly PNG format.-- Robapalooza ( talk) 23:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
(editConflict) This is a lot to respond to, and unfortunately I don't have time to go through it point by point today. I do want to quickly say a couple of things, though. First, I was not suggesting any bias or tendentiousness on your part, Robapalooza. I really appreciate your hard work on crunching these numbers and creating these charts. However, it does veer into some very questionable territory, particularly in that these moving averages and such are the result of your own research ( synthesizing the raw data from the other article). There isn't a reliable third-party source that tells us what these trends are. Also, using other Wikipedia pages as references is not allowed (otherwise what would stop editors of that page from pointing back here as a reference?) Please see this article for a more detailed explanation. I'm not going to remove the charts again while we're discussing it, I'm just going to try to get concensus. I am going to put the unreferenced section tag back though, as there aren't any reliable third-party sources cited. -- Loonymonkey ( talk) 23:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
[line break] I have some concerns too: Even if the polls themselves are reliable, they're presented together in a way that may violate WP:SYNTH. The lines on the charts connect data points sourced to different polls that use different methodologies. When the data points from these polls are set directly adjacent to one another and connected by a bold red line, it can give the reader a grossly misleading impression of the data. Did Barack Obama really move from a 5-point advantage in Florida on June 17 (ARG) to an 8-point deficit on the 18th (Rasmussen)? I would feel less concerned about the charts if they simply parotted RCP's methodology or that of some other prominent RS, or if they were simple X-Y scatter plots, or if you separated out the data for each pollster (tracking all Rasmussen results together, all Quinnipiac results together, and all SUSA results together). As is, these charts might be a violation of WP:SYNTH, in that they take multiple reliable sources and compile them to advance a position (the trend lines) that isn't contained any single source. Also: (1) I can't see the three-point moving average line; and (2) If these charts stay in any form, then their source data needs to be immediately accessible from this article. I can't think of any interpretation of WP:V that allows for sources to be cordoned off in other articles. "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." (It's no real problem; just put the polls in really big footnotes.) Geuiwogbil ( Talk) 22:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, in my opinion these charts would be acceptable if the lines on the charts were removed and direct citations were added. I agree that separating out the pollsters into different charts would be too cumbersome, so different shaped and colored points would be helpful, following the lead of the site you've linked to. Also: The methodology of the 50-state map should be explained in a footnote. (Viz., "Data is averaged from at least last three poll results according to en:Statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008, with Washington DC presumed heavy Democrat. If there are more than 3 polls in the past 45 days of the latest poll, then these are averaged.") I raised my eyebrow skeptically at the map initially, but became satisfied once I read how the map was constructed. I'm sure other readers feel the same way. Also: These charts are getting to be real screen-hogs, hence the WP:WEIGHT braggadocio. You'll need to convey this information in less space. A few suggestions: (1) Remove the titles (the reader already knows he's looking at Florida polling; you've just told him in the subheading); and (2) Since the legend is the same for all the charts (BHO blue, JSM red, etc.), you could place it in a single, separate box, so that one legend can serve all seven charts. It might be worthwhile to ditch the charts altogether, and simply give the data in tables (With a somewhat more sensible construction than that used in the source. Instead of listing Democrat: Barack Obama/Barack Obama/Barack Obama/Barack Obama, wouldn't it be simpler to put a small blue "D" and a small red "R" at the head of the columns listing their respective percentages? And why give "2008" in the "Administered" box, when all the "Administered" dates are in 2008?) Geuiwogbil ( Talk) 03:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
One more observation: Some of the concerns raised here are addressed in an intelligent manner (my opinion) at this website: [18]. In other words, at the end of the day, these are merely opinion polls, and a certain amount of caution is prudent. Obviously, in the present context (an encyclopedia), the nature of the present article (an event in progress) may run counter to the "usual" rules of Wikipedia. In other words, this article will be a work in progress until November and thereafter, when this entire article will be rewritten with the benefit of hindsight. Until then, I think it's appropriate to be focused on content such as it is between now and November 2008. I'm not saying we should abandon all Wikipedia standards, and I'm definitely open to ideas for improvement of the charts and content, but I think we should allow for a bit of "boldness" and experimentation given the type of article that this is.-- Robapalooza ( talk) 02:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Projecting into the long term, I think it may be a good idea to have separate articles for Obama(and McCain)'s media campaigns. It would provide an opportunity to have a more fully encyclopedic collection of advertisements, radio, television, internet, etc. that would provide a great reference for years to come. Trilemma ( talk) 16:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
There's no information about any contenders for his running mate.
87.194.131.188 (
talk)
Jooler (
talk)
07:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The chart on the left-hand side is currently being used. It includes solid lines that link each poll, a straight dashed line that is a simple linear trendline (half the results fall above the linear trendline, half the results fall below the trendline, and the trendline itself is an average at any given point in time), and the moving light colored line is a three period moving average (a simple average of the three most recent polls). Some have suggested that the chart on the left contains original research and may be violation of various Wikipedia policies. I disagree. The chart on the right is a simple summary of the polling data presented at
Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2008#Florida without any of the trendlines noted above.--
Robapalooza (
talk)
21:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Here's a compromise position, which might be easier to read than the chart above, at left.--
Robapalooza (
talk)
21:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I've created a new type of chart based on your suggestions. Your feedback, as always, is welcome. Here's a sample of the new chart in 500px, 400px, 300px formats:
This size is used in this and other articles.
A compromise size?
Hmmm, small but still legible by my eyes.
--
Robapalooza (
talk)
23:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
If I remember right there was a discussion about your charts before in which was mentioned that they're using to much space, needed to be updated constantly [guess I said that] and a suggestion to make a sub-page for them (what I'm in favor for). Furthermore there is the question of which states to include. --
Floridianed (
talk)
02:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
shouldnt there be a page on his visits? Tehw1k1 ( talk) 21:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think a longish direct quote of a political speech is out of place here. The speech may have been notable but the quotation is not. It's more of a data dump. It's not a original research question but more of a primary source question. A video is allowable as a source (though not as useful as a transcript - there seem to be 22,000 citations available if you want that [22]). But we use summary style here instead of repeating politicians' speeches. Just what about this speech is notable and why should we have it here? Say that, cite it to a source, make sure it's appropriate weight, and now you're talking. Wikidemo ( talk) 01:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
If information about the Counter-campaign is going to be in this article, then information that is relevant about the activities of the campain belong here as well. A reliable source noted that the first post on the "fight the smears" site was, in fact, guilty of falsely smearing Limbaugh. This was not an attempt to Soapbox or Tenditious editing. If its a wording issue, fix it, dont delete it. CENSEI ( talk) 21:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The battleground states polling charts are in both this article,
Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 and
John McCain presidential campaign, 2008.
What a surprise.
It's time to take these enormous graphics out of the article, and put them in a suitable location which both of these campaign articles would link to. I propose something like
U.S. presidential election 2008 polling charts in battleground states.
Comments, amendments, suggestions, complaints, counter-proposals below. I propose the same at the McCain campaign article talk pages.
--
Yellowdesk (
talk)
02:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I sincerly suggest that the "Controversies" section be placed under his career rather than campaign as they have NO direct relevance other than distant relation 1 donor of 8 million from a 200 million surplus. Why is this even relevant? Furthermore, the earmark section comes from 1 article of "conservative" origin, of which they state themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.181.248.152 ( talk) 01:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I propose inclusion of this campaign poster with the article. What do others think?
I added this to the article, but someone erased it:
Gwen Ifill, the scheduled moderator of the October 2, 2008 vice presidential debate, wrote a pro-Obama book called "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," which is being released on January 20, 2009. [10] [11] [12]
Grundle2600 ( talk) 15:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe this campaign has developed a racist tone with the new association with Bill Ayers. In many McCain/Palin rallies, there supporters that are calling Obama a terrorist and saying that because of his African roots that he is somehow a terrorist. I think when all is said and done, the racist tone that this campaign has taken will be remembered and should be included when writing about this campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.60.23 ( talk) 01:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
This campaign will probably be known for its general bigotry rather than just the racism. There is racism, ageism, misogyny, class warfare, the list goes on... and it's mostly bullshit. This article should stick to the campaign, and not original research of Wikipedia contributors and politically biased analysts. Just the facts, ma'am. -- Amwestover ( talk) 15:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Somebody ought to include some of the information from today's front-page New York Times article about him, such as the recent Fox News special about (that is, against) Obama--and yes, I have posted this same comment in the Talk page of the article about his campaign, so that you can collectively decide if the information about Andy Martin should be in which article, and where. Here's the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/us/politics/13martin.html?scp=1&sq=andy%20martin&st=cse
68.174.101.64 (
talk)
10:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Here is the disambiguated link to Andy Martin's page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Martin_(U.S._politician)
so of course, his name should be scripted as
Andy Martin
68.174.101.64 (
talk)
10:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}}
Please add: On 19 October 2008, Obama's campaign announced a record fundraising total of $150 million for September 2008. This exceeded the campaign's single-month record ($66 million) for August 2008.
Citation: Wall Street Journal, 19 October 2008, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122441294251948009.html?mod=googlenews_wsj—Preceding unsigned comment added by Adsypads ( talk • contribs) 00:46, 22 October 2008
{{ editsemiprotected}} PLEASE ADD THE FULL STORY INSTEAD: On 19 October 2008, Obama's campaign announced a record fundraising total of $150 million for September 2008. This exceeded the campaign's single-month record ($66 million) for August 2008. This money was collected in violation of Federal campaign laws regarding the security and verification of people doing the donating. The Republican party has filed an official complaint agains Obama's campaign for its failure to collect funds within legal means. The Obama campaign has disabled the default AVS credit card verification systems and CVV/CVS security code checks, as well as allowing donations from outside the US with no verification that the donators are legal US Citizens. Obama has already had to return large amounts of suspect donations in earlier portions of the campaign. Direct analysis of the Obama campaign's FEC filings has shown that many fraudulent names and filings have given the Obama campaign donations far above the legal limits, and multiple names have been used to donate from single credit cards.
Citations:
http://www.gop.com/News/NewsRead.aspx?Guid=9a39321d-4842-446f-ac9a-25fa32eb5911
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDljNTdjMTgxNDFjNWRiZTNlMzIzMTMzMGM5NDJlMTA=
http://www.thenextright.com/patrick-ruffini/exclusive-barackobamacoms-lax-security-opens-door-to-online-donor-fraud
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/23/john-galt-donating-to-obama-this-year-too-apparently/
http://www.newsweek.com/id/162403—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
129.7.75.203 (
talk •
contribs)
16:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Obama Accepting Untraceable Donations
- Contributions Reviewed After Deposits
- By Matthew Mosk
- Washington Post Staff Writer
- Wednesday, October 29, 2008; A02
- Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor's identity, campaign officials confirmed.
Seems important ... now how do we get it into the article? What especially notable, as the article goes onto to mention is that the campaign’s excuse that they screen the donors afterwards is pure poppy cock because its several orders of magnitude more difficult to do this rather than to turn on the verification software. Dodad Pro ( talk) 17:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I found this interesting as well, good anecdotal point:
Mr A Hitler of Berlin, Germany is only the most obvious fake donor to make a contribution and receive shortly afterwards a Wilkommen, Bienvenue, Welcome email thanking him for joining the active community of community activists.
Dodad Pro ( talk) 17:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Is the infomercial that aired on multiple TV channels on October 29 notable enough for inclusion? — MicahBrwn ( talk) 03:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Uh yeah... It seems like we've completely removed them from this article. Which isn't that great. For example, over on the Fox News controversies article we link to this page for a further debunking of the whole madrassa allegation but then we don't have it here. JoshuaZ ( talk) 20:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
When is it appropriate to remove the "Future Candidates" category? Quite soon, I would think. KConWiki ( talk) 05:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Whare to put transition news and items? In
Presidential transition of Barack Obama
--
Yellowdesk (
talk)
21:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on at Talk:John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 [25] that would affect this page too. You might want to take a look over there and maybe comment on the discussion to prevent another thread about the same topic here (which could emerge at some point).-- The Magnificent Clean-keeper ( talk) 23:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
References numbers 63, 61, lower half of 60 don't go anywhere. Reference 68 is a "for purchase" article!! Reference 70 has the wrong URL (close but no cigar) 76.110.165.21 ( talk) 01:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
To form a foreign policy reputation, Obama held a speech in Berlin and gathered more than 200,000 people. After the speech Obama said he was rather a symbol than the actual reason for the people who came. This produced some controversy and could be mentioned as well. Here are some references [26] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.99.87 ( talk) 03:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert "The truth about Barack's birth certificate," Obama for America. Retrieved 2008-06-14.
The link below works for me:
" The truth about Barack's birth certificate", Obama for America. Retrieved 2008-06-14.
-- Phenylalanine ( talk) 23:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
This article uses many POV phrases that editors will edit war to keep in the article per here.
I am setting up this talkpage sub heading to discuss the merits of how "allegation" is a more NPOV term than "disparaging rumor", and how asserting that a website is "counter smear" is less POV than just labbelling it as a "website". Glen Twenty ( talk) 20:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I still contend that since the most widely known "allegation" documented on this website is that he is supposedly a Muslim, that labelling this a "disparaging rumor" is in fact incredibly offensive to the 2 billion Muslims on this planet. It is important that wikipedia follows its own manual of style and does not engage in offensive Point of view pushing. Glen Twenty ( talk) 20:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
So I take you accept that "allegation" is a more neutral phrase than "disparaging rumour"? Glen Twenty ( talk) 20:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
How about "fallacious claims"? That would accurately describe the claims in question without suggesting that any of them were objectively disparaging (though clearly a number of those making them intended them to be disparaging). -- The Bruce ( talk) 20:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Efforts to de emphasize the fact that the birth certificate shown in the article is in fact the "short form" birth certificate continue as per here. There is no valid reason to reduce the accuracy of the wikipedia by withholding valid referenced information.
It is important to note that this short form birth certificate extract is different from the "long form" birth certificate which is the subject of a supreme court challenge. Glen Twenty ( talk) 20:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
There is no need to include the terminology "short form". It is not a relevant detail, and we no more need to note it in the article than the fact that the document is printed on paper. It bears no relevance to the document itself, to Obama's presidential campaign, or anything else. It is not, as suggested above, related to any court case. Berg is apparently asking to see the original document from Hawaii's archive, not a copy of any sort (long- or short-form). His assertion appears to be that there is some sort of conspiracy and that the state government of Hawaii produced a fraudulent copy, and I can't imagine the form of that copy would have made a difference. -- The Bruce ( talk) 20:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I inserted the following today, but it has been removed:
In November 2008, Alan Keyes sued Obama, seeking more information about this birth issue. See “Alan Keyes, AIP leaders sue in CA court to obtain Obama citizenship proof”, The Sacramento Union ( 2008-11-15).
It should go without saying that mentioning a lawsuit by a very high-profile figure is not undue weight. I'm 98% sure Obama is a natural-born citizen. However, this is definitely worth a mention, especially given that this article already addresses the citizenship issue (including an image). Ferrylodge ( talk) 20:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
(undent)Plenty of reliable sources have covered the many lawsuits on this issue. See, for example:
Gonzales, Veronica. “Hampstead man's suit contests President-elect Obama's citizenship”, Wilmington Star-News ( 2008-11-14).
“Conn. court upholds Obama's place on ballot”, Associated Press via Hartford Courant ( 2008-11-03).
McLaughlin, Sheila. “Lawsuit tossed on Obama's birth site”, Cincinnati Enquirer ( 2008-11-01).
“Judge tosses suit over Obama's birth”, Washington Times ( 2008-10-26).
Holmes, Jamie. “Obama citizenship questions continue”, WPTV ( 2008-10-23).
You seem bound and determined to prevent this article from giving any hint or pointer that such lawsuits (including that of Keyes) exist. In the complaint that Keyes filed, he pointed out that states require more proof of citizenship to obtain a valid driver's license than to become president of the United States. When the Department of Motor Vehicles asks you for proof of citizenship, it's not because they have a fringe theory that you are an illegal alien; rather, they seek proof of citizenship merely as a precaution.
Anyway, I intend to at least insert a "see also" into this article. And Wikidemon, although others may comment about this in the future, you appear to be in the minority right now. Ferrylodge ( talk) 21:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
It is relevant to the campaign (and this article) because the lawsuit contends that the result of the campaign is null and void. The lawsuit is supported by WP:V sources and the lawsuit applicant satisfies WP:N. Glen Twenty ( talk) 22:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that other than just adding a refer to..., some information should be taken from that article and placed in the main article. It makes the article more complete. 220.255.7.182 ( talk) 00:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Today referenced information about Obama's intial pledge to follow the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act was deleted here citing the policy of WP:COATRACK. Does this episode satisfiy WP:N? Glen Twenty ( talk) 22:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I see no controversy section here. 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 primary campaign, 2008? What about Rev. Wright?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 23:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
A controversy section will only arise from details which we decide should be included in the article but cannot be contextualised into it. We have not yet found such details. Conversely, I don't think the "Israel for Obama" campaign is nearly as relevant to Obama's biography as the Reverend Wright controversy. I don't know much about it though, nor do I live in the US, so could somebody assess whether or not it should be included at all? Bigbluefish ( talk) 12:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
Support New subsection "Controversy" and inclusion of protest ban in Berlin. See also Talk:Public image of Barack Obama and Talk:Barack Obama EagleScout18 ( talk) 03:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Your opposition is confused, then. The ban occurred during the election. EagleScout18 ( talk) 07:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Question no more. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Public_image_of_Barack_Obama: "First source is in a foreign language, and therefore unusable. Second source is okay, but your proposed addition still has nothing to do with Barack Obama's public image. Consider the election article instead (although you will have to find consensus there too). -- Scjessey (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)" EagleScout18 ( talk) 19:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Exclusion of sarcastic, trivial commentary. 19:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
As well as banal, wasteful commentary. (Shazam? Isn't that for six year olds?) EagleScout18 ( talk) 19:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The notability is self-explanatory. Bild, the German newspaper that ran the story, is the fourth largest newspaper, in terms of circulation, in the world. The LA Times mentioned it as well. Various TV media broadcasted the protest footage. And, on top of all that, I hear rumors of bumper stickers. EagleScout18 ( talk) 20:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
But has such a ban occurred prior during a U.S. presidential campaign abroad? That is significant. And isn't the protest itself notable, i.e., Germany and others opposing Sen. Obama's proposed attacks on Afghanistan and Pakistan? EagleScout18 ( talk) 20:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
See message, Talk:Public image of Barack Obama. As for asking opinions, isn't that what RfC is about? Wait, before you answer that, check the reliable sources first. EagleScout18 ( talk) 00:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I noticed in the opening blurb it states he will become the 3rd sitting senator to become president. I know this is a very trivial, and likely a very stupid question to ask. Given the fact that he has stepped down from his senate seat, doesn't that mean he's no longer a sitting senator?
Having asked that. I would also point out that I could be wrong on the fact he won the presidency as a sitting senator. I don't know, just wondering. I'm pretty sure I'm incorrect. -- DemocraplypseNow ( talk) 23:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed the "Ascend" from the blurb, I added in "be elected." Would that sound right? I personally think the word "Ascend" adds a bit of glorification to it. -- DemocraplypseNow ( talk) 23:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
(od) The purpose of the whole "sitting Senator" point is that it's been very infrequent, with the theory as to why being that senators (a) are forced to cast lots of difficult votes that will make them unpopular to numerous segments of the electorate, and (b) are hindered by the reputation of the Senate as a deliberate, talkative, ponderous, filibustering institution, unlike say governors who can take dynamic executive action. Since that's the purpose of this statistic, the pedantic point about not being 'sitting' at inauguration is irrelevant, and Garfield shouldn't count since he wasn't hindered by either of these factors. Wasted Time R ( talk) 00:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, My questions answered, all the rest of you are to smart for me. I'm outta here before I prove my severe lack of Garfieldian knowledge. -- DemocraplypseNow ( talk) 01:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthor=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) Cite error: The named reference "GOB" was defined multiple times with different content (see the
help page).
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)