Jump to content

Talk:Barack Obama 2008 presidential campaign/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Note to editors of this page

All negative aspects of the Obama campaign will be removed as recentism. Please keep this in mind to prevent edit warring.--STX 19:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case, one would hope that all positive things would be removed as well... --Bobblehead (rants) 20:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Argh! You took the bait, Bobblehead. Based on STX's past edits, his post here was intended as an attack. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh.. I'm aware of STX's position on the matter, but I am required to assume good faith, after all. One would hope that STX was not attempting to be WP:POINTy, since if he did not truly believe what he said, then he indeed would be acting in a manner that is disruptive to the community. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
You'll also notice that I started my comment off with "If that is the case". --Bobblehead (rants) 20:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, yes. Then I shall join you in assuming good faith. However, I cannot join STX in keeping out properly sourced, relevant information as long as it is encyclopedic and adheres to Wikipedia guidelines, particulary those regarding WP:NPOV, WP:NOTE, and (within the realm of good advice) WP:Recentism. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

References

There are quite a few references in the article that are improperly formatted. Many of these use only a URI, causing horizontal scrollbar evilness in many instances. I am not particularly familiar with this article so I am requesting that its regular editors work to try to improve the references. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Reverted BLP vio in heritage section

two of them actually. I know I have been saying this a lot lately, but to repeat for this "new" subject: BLP requires us to edit "conservatively, and with regard to privacy." I feel that that the now-reverted text which referred to obama as a possible "current" muslim, when the sources used there did not back up such an interpretation, is not conservative editing, nor does it properly respect the privacy of the person in question, a committed member of a different faith. second edit- removed second ref to "current muslim" status and manchurian candidate ref. for essentially the same reason. The sum total of the words I reverted was to make the page more inflammatory that absolutely necessary, a state which violates the "conservative editing" requirement of BLP. Also because BLP vio's are so dangerous to the ethos and functioning of WP, consensus IS REQUIRED ON TALK before re-adding any possibly BLP violating material (according to regulation). Thanks for your comments!72.0.180.2 (talk) 07:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

referred to BLP noticeboard as of 03-15 here, though there has yet to be any subsequent questionable activity... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
reverted similar text by same editor after two weeks of consensus72.0.180.2 (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
and from WP:Words to Avoid
"It's often a good idea to avoid terms that appear biased or may be perceived so by some notable group, even if technically they aren't. A more neutral wording is preferable and can be found by careful thought. Often an easy way to do this is to describe rather than label"
andy, third parties have edited the text and have kept the consensus version that you disagree with. your version violates an entire clause of "words to avoid" so I really think this discussion is over. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

martin as a source

I was under the impression we can't use (free republic) it because its a blog or something similar. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. Free Republic is not a reliable source. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually 72etc is incorrect. FreeRepublic is not a WP:RS for factual assertions, but we can "use" it (consult it for its content) when it is a primary source referred to by a secondary RS. For the third time, the relevant policy reads:

To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:

  • only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
  • make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.
Andyvphil (talk) 07:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Andy, this is not a primary source. It's a reprint of a secondary source and because of that, FreeRepublic is not a reliable source that can be used. If you absolutely have to use the source, then perhaps you should use [1]. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I also noticed you forgot to include the second sentence of the Primary sources bullet which states, "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." FreeRepublic is only a reliable source when used in regards to FreeRepublic and does not meet the requirements for being used as a reliable source for even primary sources in articles that are not about FreeRepublic.--Bobblehead (rants) 17:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
No, the Nation article is the secondary source, and the FreeRepublic's reprinting of Martin's press release is a primary-source-referred-to-in-a-secondary-source in this context. We could not rely on the accuracy of the FreeRepblic reprint for any controversial assertion about what Martin said, but since there is no such controversy I would be comfortable relying on it for that, if no better cite could be found. But since you have found a better cite, I will use it the next time I un-weasel 72etc's text. Thank you. Andyvphil (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Jeremiah Wright Controversy

Please do not delete this section again without discussing your reasons first. It is a significantly shorter section than the NAFTA leak section, even though it has gotten at least as much coverage, if not more. The statements by Wright are what is controversial, so that is why they are listed here. Obama's response is included as well. Paisan30 (talk) 01:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a major story which resulted in Obama giving a 37-minute speech in Pennsylvania. It is no longer just part of the "media's coverage of Obama's religion". PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THE SECTION AGAIN without discussing. The section is NPOV and covers both the controversial comments and Obama's reaction. Paisan30 (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
If you're going to make bad changes to the article, at least do them right. You are inadvertently duplicating big sections of the article. johnpseudo 23:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I know, I fixed it. I'm not sure what's bad about the changes, as you didn't address my comments. It's a major story in the campaign, and it has become much more about race than about coverage of Obama's religion. That whole section is chiefly about the Muslim rumors. Paisan30 (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Eh, it's not so bad- I sort of assumed it was before I looked at it. johnpseudo 23:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I hate to keep posting in this section, and I have yet to ever lose my WP:COOL on a Talk page... BUT... Please stop deleting the Wright section without discussing it. The section is about Rev. Wright and the controversy his remarks have caused in the campaign. Senator Obama gave a 37-minute speech in response to the issue. It is NOT just a part of the false rumors about Obama being a Muslim - which is covered in the "Coverage of Obama's religion..." section. Paisan30 (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


I have been wondering what Rev. Wright believed, because none of the video clips I saw actually discussed his theology. According to this article, Rev. Wright has identified seminary professor James Cone as the theologian he identifies with. Readers may be interested in understanding "black liberation theology." [http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=59230] RonCram (talk) 02:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Not appropriate for this article. I have not read the link you posted, but it may be suitable for the article on Rev. Wright. Paisan30 (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm the one who keeps moving it (not deleting it fyi). You need to make some sort of argument for why it needs its own section. Generally religious topics should be in the religion section, right? You say it is "more about race than about coverage of Obama's religion"- but I don't know thats true and you need to make an argument around that and not just say it. Again considering we already have a long-standing section on this topic, I think you need to argue why this particular religious topic is more notable than the others, to the point where it gets its own section, and not even in the same part of the page as the rest, but in an entirely new location too. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I did. Obama did not make a long, major speech in response to any of the rumors that he is a Muslim. The Wright controversy is unrelated to the rumors, and it is really unrelated to his religion. Wright is a Christian minister. There is nothing controversial about that. His incendiary statements about race and politics are what has caused the uproar. Paisan30 (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, Wright's military service is irrelevant to the controversy. Obama's relationship with him was as a pastor, not as a Marine or any other occupations Wright has had. Paisan30 (talk) 23:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
you saying things, does not make them true, sorry. Because we are using separate headers, there is no connection to the muslim thing, so stop bringing it up. Your sole argument is that Rev. Wright and his statements, are somehow NOT mainly religious topics- which considering the facts (wright is obama's former pastor) seems WRONG to me. Something tells me you just want it higher on page, prior formatting and organizational principles be damned. Which again, sorry, is not the way to edit an encyclopedia. Maybe the way to keep controversies going though lol. You have yet to provide anything but your own claims, that this section is somehow different, and needs to be set aside. yes its different then the ret of the subject matter in that section, but I don't think difference is a valid enough reason for non-use of established consensus formatting. Please back-up your claim that "this is more a race question that a religion question" because that is the only grounds I will consider these changes, if you make an argument for it and stop simply saying it like fact. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Did you see Obama's speech, responding to the controversy? It was about race in America - not about religion at all. Yes, he briefly mentioned that Wright was a religious leader, but the controversy, and Obama's response, had nothing to do with Wright's religious beliefs or practices. It has everything to do with his racial and political statements. I am not aware of any theological declarations he has made that have caused a negative reaction from the press or the public. I am also not aware of any other issues which have caused Obama to respond with a major speech. It is at least as significant as the NAFTA thing, which has not gotten close to the coverage and attention that the Wright story has received. Paisan30 (talk) 03:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I would argue those inflammatory comments from wright are exactly theological declarations, made during sermons no less. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 03:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Everything said during a sermon is not about religion. Obama himself recognized that the issue is about race, which is why race was the centerpiece of his "More Perfect Union" speech. There were maybe two or three lines in the entire speech referring to Wright's religious teachings. While the speech is not the entire story, the candidate knows better than anyone what he needed to address... and it was not the Reverend's thoughts on Christianity. Paisan30 (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

look at what you're saying for a second. I know its tough to get caught up in the moment and want to make your point, but I really think your claim of "everything said during a sermon is not about religion" is open to wide interpretation. Again think about the argument you are making. When a divinity-school educated pastor steps down from his church because of sermons he made, its a religious event even if occurs during the primary campaign. True obama's speech was more about race but that does not mean the controversy as a whole follows suit. Again I feel its something certain demographics wish were true, but thats a bit different. Please keep in mind we already have a solid section set-up for this very reason, and If you want to use "extra-ordinary" formatting you need to make an "extraordinary" case which I have yet to see. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 03:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Who is 76.214.211.56 ?

I finally took a look at the "Jeremiah Wright" section here, and found it did not cover in NPOV fashion the main question about Obama's relationship to Wright, since he agrees that Wright's remarks have been "apalling": when did he find this out and why did he take so long to do anything about it. So I imported the relevant material from the main bio article...and was reverted three times by an obvious sock, 76.214.211.56, with no edits on Wikipedia other than these reverts. Obvious because his edit comment each time, "Revert POV-pushing by Andyvphil per WP:SOAP" was not that of a first time editor. And he refused to identify himself. Wordbuilder also reverted, with the comment "If you suspect a sock, request a checksum. Otherwise, WP:AGF" which is nonsense, since AGF does not require that I ignore the fact that the experienced editor hiding behind 76.214.211.56 has refused to identify himself. And if he's Wordbuilder, he is guilty of a 3RR violation as well. Time for me to crash, but I would appreciate another editor filing the checksum, sockpuppet & possible-3RR requests. Thanks in advance. Andyvphil (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

as usual consensus is against andy- he gets rv-ed by two different editor's and somehow thinks its their fault and that they are socks. did you ever consider that maybe people just don't agree with the terms you use? because this happens constantly and you always say the same thing. I mean I guess its good to get a list of all the BS anti-consensus arguments that people come up with... but I just hope you realize that the more do stuff like this andy (make user accusation on talk, and use talk as advocacy forum), the stronger the case becomes for your next block. like its not a question of "if" but a question of "when" at this point. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I (deliberately, in order to be impartial) haven't read the text in question so I won't comment on whether it should or should not be in the article in the way that you describe, but I'd just like to point out that in certain BLP situations the 3RR rule does not apply. For example, if editor A adds content that editor B feels is not consistent with BLP convention (e.g. content consisting of contentious, nuanced opinion) then editor B is within his rights to continue to revert it beyond 3RR. This is due to the higher standard to which BLP articles are held.
However, the above definitely doesn't excuse the fact that creating sock puppets in order to get around editing limitations - whether real or perceived - is a huge no-no. I don't think there's any reasonable justification for that kind of activity and I'm disheartened that 72.0.180.2's response above simply attacks Andyvphil without any recognition of this. You may not agree with his edits or his opinion about what should be on this page, 72, but surely you can see that he's right on this particular issue, can't you? -- Hux (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I guess you haven't read the history page either then lol! You will find the IP rv-ed andy AND THEN after the IP bumped up against 3rr, the registered user started rv-ing andy too. So call it what you will but it doesn't fall under the "normal" sock pattern. Also if you're really interested in talking about editor collusion, we could talk about why the first time you post on this page in a week, it is to defend andy on an issue again even though otherwise you make no content or talk contributions. Seriously I don't care but you have to realize that the bar is pretty high for sockpuppet claims, and the fact that Andy had all these concerns, but was "too tired" to follow up on them might give you some insight as to their real priority72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
"You will find the IP rv-ed andy AND THEN after the IP bumped up against 3rr, the registered user started rv-ing andy too" - I fail to see the relevance of the registered user in question. Nobody knows who 76.214.211.56 is except the person posting from that address and I'm making no assumptions as to who it might be.
"if you're really interested in talking about editor collusion" - I didn't say nor did I even remotely imply anything about "editor collusion". Please stop making assumptions.
"it is to defend andy on an issue" - Er, I'm neither defending nor supporting Andyvphil. In fact, if you bother to actually read what I wrote above instead of heading off down irrelevant tangents (seriously, posting frequency? WTF?), I criticized his 3RR argument.
Why do you feel the need to be so combative all the time? -- Hux (talk) 01:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, Hux, you can look at the edits now. No BLP concerns, right? And the fact that I have to be at work 38 min from now may have something to do why I haven't requested checkuser, etc. 76.214.211.56 (Woodstock, IL [2])still has no "contributions" other than the 3 reverts between 14:41 and 15:29, 19 March 2008, and Wordbuilder edited at 14:00 and 15:33, so I'm going to ask for a check. But not until tomorrow morning. Or I'd appreciate someone else asking. Andyvphil (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Requested checkuser.[3] Andyvphil (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
My IP is 70.56.143.113. Even though I'm in New Mexico, that traces to Denver, Colorado since Qwest is my ISP. By the way, do you think if I was guilty of sockpuppet-like activity, I would have encouraged you to request a checkuser in the first place? →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
so are most US ip's in the 70's range? so is mine and I am not on qwest (good lord no) either. anyhoo, andy, a couple more of these and we can report you for wikilawyering so keep up the "good" work lol. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
76.214.211.56 is a sock. The only question is, whose. The checkuser request is under Wordbuilder's name rather than 76.214.211.56 only because the reporting template required it be under the name of some suspected user, whereas what we have here is a known sock and a variety of suspects. I accept Wordbuilder's denial, but only an actual checkuser identifying someone else can exonerate him. Andyvphil (talk) 09:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
<panic> 72.0.180.2 (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I realize that Wikipedia isn't a court of law and thankfully so! What if our legal system worked this way, "You've been charged with murder. The only way to be exonerated is if we can convict someone else." Panic indeed! That said, court of law or not, this kind of attitude doesn't seem to be assuming good faith. →Wordbuilder (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Your confusing trial with investigation. I asked for investigation and it was conducted far enough to exonerate you. That's OK by me. I only want the sock operator identified, and if that's not you then my quarrel is not with you. I already said that. Andyvphil (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Andyvphil: While the IP address is clearly a sock that doesn't implicitly mean that action should be taken - not all sock puppetry is against the rules. It may turn out that this is a registered user who simply didn't log in, reverted you three times and then stopped. If that's the case then there's no problem and you need to admit you made a mistake. If this sock turns out to have been used to evade 3RR then it is possible that something needs to be done about it. However, as I said before, 3RR can sometimes be ignored in BLP situations so there still may be no issue here. -- Hux (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
If the established editor behind the sockpuppet made no reverts to this article within 24 hours then, indeed, no action should be taken against him. I've said as much at the checkuser request. But if he did he should be warned or blocked. Finding out is exactly what checkuser is for. See checkuser "acceptable request" type E. BLP exemptions from 3RR are to be "narrowly construed...it is only in the clearest cases that they will be considered exceptions to the rule" (see [4]). Come on, you can look, now. Is this a "clearest case" of BLP vio? Looks like unwelcome NPOV to me. Andyvphil (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Rev. Wright military service

(continued from user talk pages)

Reverted change to Obama campaign article

I've reverted your addition to the Obama campaign article that Rev Wright was a Marine/Navy corpsman prior to being a pastor.[1] Wright's occupation prior to being a pastor is not really applicable to the controversy and if anyone is interested in learning more about Wright, they are more than welcome to click on the link and go to his article. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I argue that that the treatment of wright in that section is fairly one-sided. It is deifinitely an attempt to marginalize wright and add implied POV to his biography. I think considering one of the major lines of attack is that wright said "god damn america" - it is totally notable to make clear that this comes from some one who served his country in two separate branches of the armed forces. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Wrights history as a pastor is entirely applicable to the article, because that is where he has had his influence on Obama, but his bio prior to that is not notable unless you can find a source that makes it applicable. Simply saying that he was a Marine and then a Navy Corpsman and sourcing it to his bio on the church's website is simply not applicable because, oddly enough, for the exact reason that you say is why it should be included, it adds a bias to the article. It shouldn't be that hard to find a reliable source that counters the Wright is anti-American with his military experience. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
cont'd now
ok here is the source from the chicago tribune,(http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/religion/chi-070121-relig_wright,1,271630.story), but I won't add that yet because we both know this isn't a source issue. The issue is: you saying that the article in its current form, treats Rev. Wright in npov fashion, with proper weight to both criticism and positive effect . Say that with a straight face please Bobblehead, because that seem to be your only rationale for saying that my approx. six-word edit, would unbalance the FOUR paragraphs we currently have on this general topic (which as you well know has had other POV tendencies from day one). 72.0.180.2 (talk) 01:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Put Wright's biography on Wright's page. This article is about the Barack Obama campaign. Wright is having an impact on the campaign because of his ties to Obama and his comments, so that is what needs to be mentioned here. Paisan30 (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, Wright's bio is linked on this page. If people want to know about Jeremiah Wright, they can click on that. This article is about the presidential campaign. We do not include biographical information about everyone mentioned on this page, and Wright's military service is not relevant to the story. Paisan30 (talk) 03:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
your refusal to compromise on three separate options, shows your motivations. What do expect me to say? I have a cite and a valid argument- and its more that just a bio issue its an undue weight issue- if we are going to present wright we need to do it fairly, under BLP requirements. This is not some crazy preacher obama has totally disowned- this is a man with a track record of service to his nation and his city, and obama is standing by him. Especially when, for the umteenth time, if we are going to include statements of questionable patriotism from wright, we ARE UNDER OBLIGATION to present the context of wright's patriotism fairly and npov. Which I really feel an extremely short phrase concerning his military service is totally applicable. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The compromise is to leave Wright's biographical information on Wright's page. And who said that Wright's statments are unpatriotic? The article simply reports what he said. I did not include any language that suggests his quotes are unpatriotic at all. Incidentally, Obama himself did say on CNN that the remarks were unpatriotic. I'm not sure if you want to include that in this article, though. Paisan30 (talk) 04:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
what I want to include is just one phrase of context, out the multitude of paragraphs we are currently graced with. Yes if Obama is truly the only person calling wright unpatriotic then lets include it, but something tells me there are others, and as YOU have even tacitly accepted at this point that discussion of wright's patriotism requires balance, I think that is another strong argument for inclusion. from you no less. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, now both phrases are included. I do not accept that Wright's patriotism ever needed to be mentioned in this article. Apparently you feel that his military service is evidence that he's patriotic, so maybe others think that as well. That being the case, we should include the fact that Senator Obama said that his remarks were unpatriotic. Paisan30 (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the "Navy corpsman" business. It's improbable that Wright joined both the Navy and the Marines, and neither source says so. And I have no idea where "corpsman" came from -- it's in neither source. Obama says he was a Marine, the Trib says he joined the Navy. He's been close to Obama for up to 23 years, so I believe Obama. The Trib reporter probably heard something about his being on a Navy ship and didn't realize that that didn't mean he was in the Navy. Andyvphil (talk) 13:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
the navy/marine thing is from the TUCC bio page, which says he joined the marines and then transferred to the navy. Corpsman is simply a term (I thought people knew) which means military medical personnel. However that don't roll off the tongue as quaintly so I used, true, a term not actually from the cite. I think we should use both and use the TUCC bio, if Paisan30 might accept that now as a ref. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
"Medic" or "Medical corpsman" would be clearer than "corpsman". If you want to use info from the TUCC page you have to cite the TUCC page. Obama cited his service in the Marines as evidence of his patriotism, and I don't see a reason to go beyond that in maintext, once the point is made. Linking to the bio is fine by me -- the purpose of links is to encourage exploration, not merely to support current wording, as I said recently on this page or the bio's talk, I disremember which. Andyvphil (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I would agree "medic" is clearer but (I think) that the medic is a term only used by army and airforce, where navy and marines use corpsman. I would be ready to simply use "navy medic" even if its not technically correct, in the interest of easy understanding... as far as navy and marines go, I don't care what we say, I just wanted a ref. to wright't military service. What branch is pretty secondary. However from what I have read, he was barely in the marines, so perhaps if we don't use both we should emphasize the navy end of things. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 05:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Just a note here.. The US Navy provides the medical personnel for both the Marine Corps and the Navy. In the case of Wright, it seems that he started out as a Marine, but then transfered to the Navy where he became a Hospital Corpsman, but it appears that he was not a "Field Medical Service Technician" - the type is associate with the person that comes running through gunfire when a Marine is wounded in combat - but rather worked on shore as a cardiopulmonary tech. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Typical White Person statement?

Should Obamas statement concerning his white grandmother be mentioned in this article? It has been mentioned on Fox News, MSNBC and Larry King Live.

Obama on WIP:

"The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, there's a reaction that's been bred into our experiences that don't go away, and that sometimes come out in the wrong way, and that's just the nature of race in our society." [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.206.166 (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Not just his grandmother. Jesse Jackson, for instance. As Ann Coulter noted in her "Throws Grandmother Under the Train" piece. His maternal grandmother raised him in Hawaii, after he came back from Indonesia. Isn't she mentioned? Andyvphil (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
getting a little long, so brought back down to proper weight, per recentism and the rest... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Page Protection / Goofy Cites

so Paisan30, next time you think "Anonymous editors (one or two in particular) keep editing without discussion." please BRING IT UP on talk before requesting protection of the page. Some of those asshole IPs actually do good work once in a while, and I think maybe you would be surprised to know how long some of them have been editing on these pages. PS- if you're so worried about vandalism, your effort might be better spent watching (andyvphil), than me. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggest you come up with a diff of an edit by me that you wish to characterize as "vandalism". Otherwise you're just lying, again. Andyvphil (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I haven't noticed whether Anydvphil is committing vandalism. If I notice it, I'll respond to it. I didn't really think you were committing vandalism either - just adding stuff that I didn't think was necessary to the article. Paisan30 (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
so you join the long list of editors who end up getting into edit wars with me, and then we come to a resolution lol. what a strange way to do business. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I guess so. In other news, does anyone know what's wrong with the footnotes? The wires are crossed somewhere. It starts around footnote 5... for example, click on number 18 and you go to footnote 15. Weird. I'm probably missing something, but I'm on only a couple hours of sleep. Paisan30 (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I really want to blame it on the Anne Korblut NYT cite. I have deleted different cites, but it still seems to involve that cite. However deleting the kornblut cite also has no effect on the problem. So I don't know either 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
it is fixed up to cite 101 now, but THAT one now refers back to 75... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I fixed it and then I broke it again. 75 used to be the problem, but now that one is fine and all the ones around it don't work. I have no idea what the problem is other than we have WAY TOO many cites in general. I give up for now. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Sheesh.. I have no idea what's going on.. Every time I refresh the page the problem starts at a different location... Sounds like a job for the WP:VPT. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

GA nom on hold

GA review (see here for criteria)

First of all, a disclaimer: I am a Barack Obama supporter. However, I do not believe this impacts my ability to review this article. If anyone feels that I should not do so, you may request that I not review the article and I will be more than happy to defer this to another editor. With that out of the way, let's get to work! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    No prose issues, but I have some layout concerns I would like to address. I'll do so in the scale/scope portion of this review.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Here's where we begin to run into issues. There are numerous citations that are not even written out properly but instead consist of just a web address. I will not promote this article until all citations are properly written out. Furthermore, there are four endorsements in the Endorsements section without any citation. Find those, please.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    These are fine, but I need a section of this review to address the article's structure and this looks like as good a place as any. Please take a look at both the Biden campaign and Dodd campaign articles and note how they have structured their articles. Biden's campaign goes by fiscal quarter, while Dodd's goes by month. I would like to see something similar here, since there are issues of undue weight given towards more recent events as compared to more distant events. Since this is likely just a matter of shuffling things around I won't fail the article in a prose or scope aspect, but I would like to see it discussed and implemented.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    No bias issues.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
    The article is stable in that there are no meaningful edit wars. Since it's an ongoing election, it's not exactly a rock in the storm, but hey, nobody's perfect.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Great pictures.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Please address the issues I have described. If you have any questions, seek any clarifications, or wish to notify me when you've implemented my suggestions, please contact me! Good luck! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Good Article help needed

It seems the only problem we have to fix is proper citing of references. There is a lot of these that need to be fixed, so we're going to need help from everyone to get this done. I would have no problem doing this all myself but if you check out the references section there is probably over 100 that need fixed. Thanks for any contributions to fixing this issue. HoosierStateTalk 22:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a tool that can help. If you use it, be sure to remove any unused fields before saving. --HailFire (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


Comment I agree that this is a good article, and very useful to many readers. However I have a couple of problems with WP naming it a "Wikipedia Good Article", which are supposed to be articles that represent the best of WP. This is not really an encyclopedia article, but an ongoing report on current events. (No problem with it being on WP, but I would think that WP Good Articles should be examples of good encyclopedia articles.) An encyclopedia article on the campaign should really wait to be written after the election and probably after Obama leaves office. I also have a problem that WP will be seen as partisian if it highlights ongoing politicial events. Of course I would have the same objections if Clinton's or McCain's campaign articles were nominated. Redddogg (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I was confusing a "WP Good Article" with a "WP Featured Article." Most of my objection was to it being "featured" on the main page. I don't have as much problem with it being merely named a "good" article. Redddogg (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama_2008_presidential_campaign/Archive_2&oldid=1136548923"