Jump to content

Talk:Barack Obama assassination plot in Denver

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleBarack Obama assassination plot in Denver has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 27, 2009Good article nomineeListed
December 6, 2009Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
December 26, 2009Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
December 27, 2009Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
December 29, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 22, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article

Page

[edit]

Per Talk:Tharin Gartrell, figured a consolidation of the various articles need to be put here, which can later be either improved or merged into Barrak Obama's page.--Hourick (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tone

[edit]

The article reads like a news snippet, which is not an appropriate tone. In addition, some of the material seems to have been copied from a news agency directly, which is copyright infringement and must be removed or reworded (search Google for "Three men who authorities initially feared were plotting to assassinate"). nneonneo talk 03:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The tone read like a news snippet because when I first authored the section that was the seed of this article, the story was still unfolding. Steven Walling (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


2008 Barack Obama Assassination Scare

[edit]

I suggest retitling the article from "plot" to "scare" as the most accurate summation. It was not a Plot. I am not able to retitle.75.57.160.195 (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted text

[edit]

I've deleted the following passage:

"Authorities and media outlets said regardless of the threat level, the assassination plot underscored the challenges Obama faced as the first African American major party presidential candidate.[1]"

Which is based upon this citation from the NYT:

“This issue didn’t change the landscape at all,” the F.B.I. official said. “When you have an African-American candidate for president, you are certainly going to look at the general threat picture against any candidate and factor in the threats posed by those who preach hate and racism.”

The interpretation just isn't there. I've substituted the following:

The FBI stated that with an African-American candidate for President threats by racists are now a standard part of the "general threat picture". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.57.160.195 (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much time but I leave you a suggestion below. I won't revert you again so it's up to you to decide. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The FBI stated that with an African-American candidate for President "...you are certainly going to look at the general threat picture against any candidate and factor in the threats posed by those who preach hate and racism.”


I added your text as written. I think it could be improved on for readability, but it's accurate and I'll leave the polishing to fresh editors in the future.75.57.160.195 (talk) 02:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I just saw it and you're right, that it needs some "polishing". Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

attempt categorization?

[edit]

This article should not be under the category "Assassination Attempts" It was a scare - and regardless of credibility/progress of the plan, there was no attempt made that has been reported to the public. This is an encyclopedia after all, and care must be taken in categorizing wrongly for whatever reason, I won't speculate. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't kept up with this, but I think the category should stay as an example of initial impressions. Besides, this discussion might not matter as I would figure that this might be reduced to a small blurb on the Obama or DNC's article.--Hourick (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"plot" vs. "scare"

[edit]

I think "plot" is the better term.

I don't know whether their plan had a lot of details worked out, but they did have at least the basis of a plan. They came to Denver with a high-powered rifle with which they intended to shoot Senator Obama. That's a plot, if only in a very basic sense.

On the other hand, there was no "scare." From the moment the plotters first came to the attention of law enforcement, it was clear that they were complete losers who had no idea what they were doing and never presented a real threat to their intended target. They scared nobody. Capedia (talk) 02:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just my personal opinion, "scare" is less formal to me than "Plot". The word Plot to me brings to mind more serious plans/actions historically, whereas the word scare simply implies something minor occurred, like a bomb scare at some building that later turned out to be an inert package that someone left behind. In this context scare would be the better term for this. IMO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.146.128.22 (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another plot (foiled)

[edit]

Reuters is running a story on another scare. It may deserve a mention in this article. nneonneo talk 03:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

notability

[edit]

Matthiasb has added the {{notability}} template questioning the notability of this subject.

This is what the notability guidelines have to say:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.
  • "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.[1]
  • "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.[2]
  • "Sources,"[3] defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.[4]
  • "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.[5]
  • "Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate what Wikipedia is not.[6]

Mainstream media is generally considered a reliable source and a secondary source. Although this assassination scare may not have been front page news, it was widely covered in mainstream media in a considerable amount of detail. By the guidelines above, this establishes it as notable. Unless anybody disagrees (or beats me to it), I'll remove the {{notability}} template in the next few days. Capedia (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since there hadn't been much discussion since Capedia's point, I went ahead and deleted the {{notability}} template. -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 04:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)) is plainly trivial.
  2. ^ Self-promotion, autobiography, and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works should be someone else writing independently about the topic. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it. Otherwise, someone could give their own topic as much notability as they want by simply expounding on it outside of Wikipedia, which would defeat the purpose of the concept. Also, neutral sources should exist in order to guarantee a neutral article can be written — self-promotion is not neutral (obviously), and self-published sources often are biased if even unintentionally: see Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for discussion of neutrality concerns of such sources. Even non-promotional self-published sources, in the rare cases they may exist, are still not evidence of notability as they do not measure the attention a subject has received by the world at large.
  3. ^ Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.
  4. ^ Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article within the same geographic region from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works.
  5. ^ Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations.
  6. ^ Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.

Assessment for Barack Obama WikiProject

[edit]

I've assessed the importance of this article as low, as an isolated event within a campaign tour within the campaign. I agree with a previous reviewer that the quality is B-class, but only because this article should formally be accepted as a WP:Good article to score above this. Pending a final proofreading, I think you are ready to nominate it. Mike Serfas (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection / Hatnote Request

[edit]

Hi all. I'm a newcomer to editing at Wikipedia, so please correct and assist me as necessary.

I've created a page on the author and martial artist Nathan J Johnson who is known in his community, and credited on many of his books, as simply 'Nathan Johnson'. At the moment Nathan Johnson redirects here.

Ideally, I'd like to direct Nathan Johnson to the martial artist, with a Hatnote regarding this fellow linking to here. If you don't feel that's appropriate, I'd like a Hatnote here, directing to the martial artist.

Regarding the relative importance of these two men, a google web search turns up the martial artist first, but a google image search turns up this guy first. I would argue that the martial artist will continue to have relevance, and likely grow in importance, whereas this fellow's importance to the public will fade over time. David Wigram (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your proposed change. Borock (talk) 11:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

High-powered rifle

[edit]

I am not an expert on guns. Are these really "high-powered" rifles? "Ruger Model M77 Mark II 22-250 bolt-action rifle with an attached scope and bipod, and a Remington Model 721 270 bolt-action rifle with an attached hunting scope."Borock (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

neutrality tag

[edit]

These men were never convicted of attempted assassination even though they are 3 stooges that should be jailed. Bad behavior is not an excuse to libel them. Stop calling them assasins or would be assassins.

Also renamed from "scare" from the title. Nobody was scared of these clowns. Even the police are quoted as this being a non-credible threat. So it is an alleged assissination plot in Denver that resulted in no convictions of attempted murder. Head of Security for the World (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've removed any references to would-be assassins or would-be shooters. If you can cite other specific issues I'd be happy to address them, but I really don't think this issue has a neutrality problem. Whether the article should be kept or not is a matter for AFD, but when it comes to whether the article is neutral, I've gone out of my way to make sure it was neutral. The article very clearly demonstrates that there were many who felt the three men were not a serious threat, and it's also very clear that the allegations were never proven... — Hunter Kahn (c) 01:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

[edit]

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not moved. bd2412 T 01:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama assassination plot in Denver → Barack Obama assassination scare – The evidence clearly does not point to a cohesive plot, and the response of law enforcement and prosecutors reflects this. Plot causes problems, it should be moved back to scare. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barack Obama assassination plot in Denver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted move

[edit]

I reverted yesterdays move. It's definitely not uncontroversial, please open a RM—blindlynx 16:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama_assassination_plot_in_Denver&oldid=1205586983"