# Talk:Barack Obama assassination plot in Denver

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)

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)

I've made some updates, and will make more by the end of the night. I think it'll be a significant improvement, but I'm more than open to suggestions and help as I go along... -- Hunter Kahn (talk) 03:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
That is certainly a significant improvement, so I think the tone issue is solved :) Thanks! nneonneo talk 03:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Most definitely, I was in the middle of editing when I had to leave. My bad.:( --Hourick (talk) 08:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
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)

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)

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) 

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)

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)
Thanks. I just saw it and you're right, that it needs some "polishing". Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)
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) 

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

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.
"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.
"Sources," 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.
"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.
"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.
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)

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)

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)

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)

I agree with your proposed change. Borock (talk) 11:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Me too. I did it. Let me know if that's what you had in mind... — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 07:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

I'm no expert either, but the source describes it that way... — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 07:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
There are a couple references to "massive arsenal" in the article, which just seems silly.  They had two rifles, both rather ordinary hunting rifles.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.250.27 (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

BAn 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)

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:

Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/5jZ04cLLV?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bradblog.com%2F%3Fp%3D6337 with https://web.archive.org/web/20080903072945/http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6337 on http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6337
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)

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