Talk:Barack Obama 2008 presidential campaign/Archive 1

message: Note to admins who plan to speedy this article: with the Joe Biden dust-up yesterday, its pretty clear that the campaign have started; might as well report on it. — goethean ॐ 19:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes to admins 

message: This article does not clearly fit speedy deletion criteria and so as an administrator I removed it. If there is still a dispute about this page please add it to articles for deletion in order to see if there is a community consensus to delete. Please do not place the tag back. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 21:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy Deletion Tag 

message: Here is a comprehensive list of Obama's campaign staff.  I'm unsure on how to incorporate this into the article or even if it is necessary information.  - PoliticalJunkie 22:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a bit and ref to this cite in.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campaign Staff 

message: I've noticed in other Wikipedia articles that there are series/topical boxes in the upper right portion of some articles. Maybe one should be created to coordinate all articles connected with the 2008 presidential election? ~ Rollo44 05:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh. Thank you. I hadn't noticed that before. ~ Rollo44 16:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series 

message: "If he's ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq, I would suggest he calls up another 20,000 Australians and sends them to Iraq. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of empty rhetoric."
Actually, based on the populations of Australia and the United States and Obama's estimates of troop numbers, Australia would need to send another 8156 troops to match the US's contribution per capita.
301,142,000 Americans divided by 140,000 troops = 1 soldier per 2151 Americans. 20,555,300 Australians divided by 1400 troops = 1 soldier per 14682 Australians. 20,555,300/9556 would match the American ratio.
For the record, I don't support Bush, Howard, or the war in Iraq. - Gobeirne 15:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i hear what ur saying. Aust is a major partner of the US in Iraq, and he's doesn't seem to know much. the number of troops is beyond aust capacity, and aust dont "call up" troops. i think obama's lack of partners knowledge should be reflected in the article Eevo 15:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It's a rhetorical point and I doubt very much that Obama was *seriously* asking Howard to send more troops (Obama opposes the surge, anyway).  Obama's response is meant to demonstrate the absurdity of Howard's claims, not actually spur Australian action.  Note the preface and post script on the Obama statement: "If Prime Minister Howard truly believes what he says . . ." and "It's easy to talk tough when it's not your country or your troops making the sacrifices." · j e r s y k o talk · 15:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: and Howard's statement is ment to show the lack of realism in Obama's statement regardinf Iraq. Eevo 16:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What?  Obama's statement was after Howard's.  It's perfectly clear what Howard was trying to say.  Gobeirne is discussing Obama's response to Howard's attack, and that's what I'm discussing as well.  My point is that statistical analyses like the one Gobeirne conducted are beside the point when Obama's response was meant to be rhetorical, not literal. · j e r s y k o talk · 16:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I agree, Obama wasn't being literal. I was just pointing out the relative sizes of the contribution of each country - Gobeirne 19:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "...another 20,000 Australians" 

message: I find Howard's decision to involve himself bizzare but has no comentator pointed out that Bush similarly made a (less direct) inference during the last Australian general election? Nil Einne
:Didn't you know? The United States is allowed to interfere with the political process of other countries. :P ~ Rollo44 17:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Mark Latham, where it rates a mention. Slac speak up! 20:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More to the point of editing the article for content, I lengthened the section header from "Howard incident" to "Incident with Australian Prime Minister John Howard"  Howard is ambiguous and, for better or worse, the name John Howard probably doesn't ring many bells outside of Australia.  I would actually think it was a basketball player for the Dallas Mavericks. Mykll42 07:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good move, it's true Howard is completely unknown in America let alone the world. This wierd attack on Obama and the involvement in Iraq is propably his biggest claim to fame outside of Australia. Ecostaz 18:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed header to "Comments by" - it wasn't really an incident.  But are we sure these comments are really worthy of being in this article?  Tvoz | talk 23:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should go.  Mr. Howard will not even be voting in the election.  Why should his opinions matter?  They have probably been forgotten by now by 99% of American voters. If they heard of them in the first place. Steve Dufour 03:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Howard 

message: How about some polls that would show the placement of Obama for the nomination Ecostaz 21:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a section entitled "2006 Opinion Polling", although the poll numbers are about a month old. - PoliticalJunkie 22:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I updated the section with the latest Gallup poll (2/11/07): Clinton 40%, Obama 21%. - PoliticalJunkie 17:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now, we only have Democratic nomination polling, although general election polling should probably be included. - PoliticalJunkie 00:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll numbers 

message: I wonder about this section: 
On March 5, 2007, a video mashup was posted on YouTube, mostly comprised of footage from Macintosh's famous 1984 commercial but with Hillary Clinton's face and words in place of Big Brother's. The clip received widespread coverage in the press and has been viewed over 1 million times as of March 21. Barack Obama's campaign has denied responsibility for the ad.
Does it need to be in the article?  Also, the wording is POV.  Stating that Obama's campaign "denied responsibity" is POV...there was never any evidence thery had anything to do with it.  It became fodder for anti-Obama types to bash his clean image.  —Gaff ταλκ 06:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The anti-Hillary myspace ad. 

message: Is it officially that  Ben Harper song?—Wasabe3543 05:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure.  During his entrance for his announcement speech, U2's "City of Blinding Lights" was playing. - PoliticalJunkie 18:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campaign theme song? 

message: The same set of charts providing state-by-state polling data has recently been added to the articles about several presidential campaigns (Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008, John Edwards presidential campaign, 2008, Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008).  I propose that the detailed state-by-state comparisons remain at the main article, Opinion polling for the Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008.  Please discuss this proposed change at this centralized discussion. -Fagles 20:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  state-by-state polling data on candidate pages 

message: Since the history for the my.barackobama.com section was not merged into this one, it can be found here. Created and amended largely by User:Italiavivi, with a couple of edits by others. Hopefully this suffices for GFDL requirements. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  my.barackobama.com history 

message: I know that it isn't common to include a section on campaign staff/advisors, but I think that in the light of recent developments (ie: Carl Rove, Harriet Miers, Michael Brown etc.) there is a growing concern over a candidate's ability to choose staffmembers.  Some of these advisors are potential cabinet members should the candidate be elected.   I am proposing the inclusion of prominent staff/advisors (and a short bio) to all candidates' campaign entries in order to help voters better understand each candidates' ability to judge character.  I believe that attention is inordinately focussed on individual candidates, when in fact, the major influence on any new administration will be in the advisors surrounding the new president.  Your input would be greatly appreciated.  ----Rawkcuf.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawkcuf (talk • contribs) 04:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, many of the 2008 presidential campaign articles have specific sections on campaign advisors and policy teams, including now this one.  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Campaign Advisors 

message: Is it just me, or does there seem to be gaping hole in these presidential campaign articles on what the candidates' plans are for?
It's almost as if Wikipedia's like a second rate news-coverage, with opinion polls and campaign support - honestly though, although this is interesting, so what? To be an informed voter, surely people need to know the details of proposals. Otherwise elections turn into beauty contests.
What do people think? I'm inclined to say that the absence of policy shows reflects the fact that people in the US media are plain stupid or don't want to inform others. I wouldn't want to say the same for people on Wikipedia though!
Surely what's needed too, is some comparative page, where candidates positions can be measured against one another. Wikidea 11:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you're missing is Political positions of Barack Obama; parallel articles exist for all of the major presidential candidates.  A few months back someone tried to create a table-based comparison page that showed all the candidates' positions, but it suffered from being very oversimplistic and I think it got deleted.  Wasted Time R (talk) 13:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I missed this! I keep hearing Hillary comment that Obama's health care plan leaves people uncovered, and then of course he says it doesn't, so it's probably true that it'd be hard to simplify things for a comparative graph. Makes it harder for voters though! Wikidea 20:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy?? 

message: I was trying to find out who the ex-gay minister was that Obama has campaigning for him. It's been met with much criticism from the LGBT community and I'm a bit surprised it's not even mentioned. Benjiboi 16:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it - Donnie McClurkin. Benjiboi 16:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ex-gay minister controversy 

message: 150px	Editors of this article are invited to join Wikipedia: WikiProject United States presidential elections.--STX 04:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia: WikiProject United States presidential elections]] 

message: :Image:Mybarackobamaprofile.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Mybarackobamaprofile.png 

message: This article looks like it was heavily worked on earlier this year, then editors lost interest.  The Muslim rumor thing is the least of it.  Just off the top of my head, the article is lacking coverage of:
* Obama falling way behind in the polls, then rebounding in the wake of Hillary's bad Philadelphia debate, to the point where he's now ahead in some Iowa polls
* Focused criticism on Hillary, now a daily back-and-forth
* His debate performances, and mixed reviews thereof
* Assessment of his rallies, enthusiasm of supporters, etc.
* The Oprah endorsement and campaigning for him
* Criticism re using the anti-gay southern preacher
And I'm sure there's more I'm not thinking of right now.  Wasted Time R (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, the "Muslim" rumor thing is now in, xferred from the article on it as a possible alternative to retention in the current AfD debate. Go ahead and fix the rest. ;-) Also the sentence saying opposition to him is mostly because he's a noob and suspected of being a Muslim needs work. Surely some people don't like his policies. And the table of endorsements should probably be positioned as an appendix. Andyvphil (talk) 02:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've hidden the list of endorsements as has been done on several of the other campaign article. Also, on the "Muslim" rumor thing, take a gander at whisper campaign. I think it covers the multitude of different rumors and what not quite well.  A whisper campaign is by it's very nature, a series of rumors, innuendos, etc, etc. --Bobblehead (rants) 02:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't agree, on two grounds. (1) whisper campaign speaks of "...the source of the rumors...". Note the singular, "source". In this case there is no reason to believe there is a singular source. And, (2) it's not all whispering. Martin didn't whisper, Insight didn't whisper (though they allege the Clintonistas did), Couric didn't whisper, etc., etc. I kept "whispering campaignS" in the section head and wouldn't mind having it in the section, but that's not even most of what we're talking about here. On the other hand, what you did with the endorsements works better than my suggestion. Andyvphil (talk) 02:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Wasted Time that there is a lot that needs updating and expanding in this article, but having a full-page section on "Opposition" that talks mainly about the Muslim rumor is giving undue weight to the rumor and is basically creating a troll-magnet "criticisms" section.  The Muslim rumor is more of a media phenomenon than a "campaign development", and certainly isn't as important as "Fundraising" or "post-announcement development", with which it now has equivalent weighting. johnpseudo 15:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: What part of "go ahead and fix the rest" didn't you understand? Andyvphil (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "I'm already heavily involved with the Clinton, Giuliani, McCain, and Gravel articles and was hoping to not further extend myself" part ;-)  Wasted Time R (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you're seeing is blowback from a POV-pushing AfD that was, as usual, a waste of time better spent on improving articles. But the way the media is handling the Muslim business is actually more interesting than Oprah or the horserace, IMHO. Andyvphil (talk) 11:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article not up to date 

message: From AndyvPhil edit summary re-adding the opposition section Got a dozen editors who disagree with you at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Barack_Obama_Muslim_rumor. Go there and speak up.
I think it's pretty nonsensical to think that either side of the AfD discussion would see fit to include a massive section on the Muslim rumor on the Obama campaign main article.  We should either relegate the rumor to its own article so as to have enough space to include all relevant content or simply content ourselves with the small, properly-weighted section in the campaign article.  Putting a half-page section on the rumor on the campaign's main page, with the same weight as the entire "fundraising" section or "post-announcement campaign developments" section, is entirely inappropriate.  Are you suggesting that this rumor on its own is as important/notable as the entire issue of Obama presidential fundraising? johnpseudo 17:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I have no opinion on that, but I reject any option that involves excluding relevant content about a notable subject on the grounds that there's no room on Wikipedia for it. And you are mistaken about at least part of the "deletion" side of the "Rumor" AfD. There are, as I said, multiple contributors to the AfD debate who have argued precisely for merging the material here. My response was that were that done the editors here would object to including that much content. Nonetheless, when one of the merge-here proponents (SouthernTexas) took up my challenge to show what such a merger would look like I found I did not disagree with his conclusion that it "fit well". (If the fundraising is more important some editor who is convinced of that can expand the treatment of that subject. That no editor has done that is a poor argument for artificially reducing the "rumors" material.) Therefor, and partly to demonstrate good faith, I worked a fair amount on the "rumors" material transcluded here by SouthernTexas. And I will certainly restore it in full measure if Barack Obama Muslim rumor is deleted. Andyvphil (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay- let's just hope that doesn't happen. johnpseudo 14:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we reduce the size of this section, now? johnpseudo 03:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, as I said, there were quite a few editors who wanted the material here, and I'd particularly prefer to have input from SouthernTexas, so I'd suggest not acting immediately on my say-so. But if they're not watching this page and don't weigh in... Sure, wait just a bit, then chop away. Despite its idiotic new title the material still exists (and is being developed further) and there's no need for a content fork. Andyvphil (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: "Uh, no. Read WP:POVFORK. You need a summary, not a tidbit".  I'll concede that what I re-added might not have been a very good summary, but WP:POVFORK advises against duplicating content- something that we are doing a lot of right now. I've been working on a better summary - something I think should take only 1 paragraph instead of an entire page. johnpseudo 18:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslim rumor section 

message: I've taken a stab at revising the section structure, to make it more flexible for additional material and more similar to that of the other 2008 presidential campaign articles.  Alas, all the articles are somewhat different from each other, so there's no exact structure to match, but this is closer than what was there before.  If people hate it, it can certainly be revised or backed out.  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section structure 

message: Currently Candidate Photographs are being used in each candidates Info Box. There is a discussion on this topic at [] if you have an input please discuss it there and refrain from changing the info box photo until that discussion reaches some type of consensus. This is nothing special to Barack Obama, it is applied to every 2008 presidential campaign page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtr10 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree - see the discussion at the project page. Tvoz |talk 06:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info Box 

message: I took this sentence out of the intro:
:  If elected, Obama would become the first black U.S. president.
  
I think that there are several problems with it.  For one thing WP is not a crystal ball.  This alone prevents us from making statements about what might happen in the future, if I understand the policy correctly. Secondly, although in the USA most people would consider Senator Obama "black", some people would not and in Africa and other parts of the world he would not be considered "black."  In the third place, let me get back to you in a minute after more research. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The third reason is that probably some of the other presidents probably had black ancestors too, so they might be called "black" under the One drop rule.  I have heard this said about President Buchanan, but couldn't find an online reference that said so. I think I read it in the book Before the Mayflower. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:SENSE applies here.  I could find 1,000 citations that would discuss him as the first African-American president if he gets elected.  If you want to be pedantic and change that to "first person of noticeable color" instead, go ahead, but you'll just make the article look silly.  If you want to say that his candidacy has no racial significance altogether, go ahead, but you'll just make the article look stupid.  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you 100% that this is one of the greatest importances of Obama's campaign.  I just think that we can not say so according to WP policy.  After he is elected and people make note of this then we can.  Steve Dufour (talk) 04:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're misunderstanding WP:CRYSTAL.  It prohibits us saying "Barack Obama will become the first African-American president."  It does not prohibit us from saying, "If he wins the 2008 election, Barack Obama will become the first African-American president."  That's true statement, not a prediction, unless the extremely unlikely takes place and four people die or become incapacitated within the next year and Condi becomes president.  Again, WP:SENSE applies here.  Wasted Time R (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To me this is exactly the type of statement that does not belong here by WP:CRYSTAL. Besides my other objections, people who check out this article are aware of this point already and are looking for details of the campaign -- not a general statement about its importance.  Steve Dufour (talk) 04:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine.  The main article says, "If elected, Obama would become the first black U.S. president.[105]"  No problem.  This article says anything at all, bad.  I'm beyond caring.  Maybe nasty aliens will land and conquer us weak earthlings and all these articles will go away.  Wasted Time R (talk) 05:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Steve, I completely disagree with your edit here and at Obama's main page. This has nothing to do with WP:CRYSTAL - nothing.  Wasted has it right.  We don't need a compromise because there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying that if elected he would become xyz - and it would be fine for Hillary as well.  And as for your argument that some people don't consider him to be black, well, that's just ridiculous, and I see no reason why we have to bend over backwards for that kind of POV.  I'm reinstating the article the way it was - we don't need a compromise on this, we need common sense.  Tvoz |talk 06:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. I left my comments on the main Obama talk page. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: tweaked to "first African American U.S. president" per main article although I don't think it's a particularly necessary chan ge. Tvoz |talk 20:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First black president 

message: I've been reading Doonesbury lately with one of the characters, Alex Doonesbury, leanings towards Barack Obama and detesting the whole Muslim controversy as seen here: .  She used to have a Facebook account joining a One Million Strong Obama group before it was deactivated as the Facebook discussion ran its course for the strip.  Should we count her as endorsement for Obama? Spongefan (talk) 02:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this could be worked into the article somehow.  It would be an influencial endorsement, even if fictional. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A fictional endorsement? 

message: Should the endorsement's of newspaper be added in the endorsement section.  I don't mean every newspaper, but only the big ones.  ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 05:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so. Newspaper endorsements are often mentioned as being important. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about Governors?  They also vote as superdelegates.  --Aranae (talk) 04:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newspaper endorsements 

message: I ran across a merge tag on Barack Obama drug controversy suggesting the content be brought into this article.  It looks like the request wasn't fully formed as there was no discussion area setup.  Trying to get it started here. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 13:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Is there a reason that the title is so unwieldy? Could this article be moved to Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign, or something similar, or is this a WP convention?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.14.55 (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a convention, there are many articles titled in this way, see :Category:United States presidential election, 2008 for some examples.  Wasted Time R (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headline? 

message: Shouldn't the beginning of the article be changed to say that he would be the first person of "two or more races" elected as president since he is white too?71.174.200.210 (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice strawman argument. Anyway, this has been discussed to death. See the talk archives. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Black President? 

message: During the debate Obama made an interesting statement about a "coalition of change" which would involve Democrats, Independents and Republicans. I feel that in as few words as possible this summarizes his campaign much as the phrase "Ron Paul Revolution" recaps that campaign. I'd like to see a section with this title and have it be given a prominent role as "Ron Paul Revolution" is given in Ron Paul's article.--STX 04:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Googling the phrase "Ron Paul Revolution" returns 544,000 hits, while Obama and "coalition of change" returns just one relevant link, a blog post.  I think we would have to wait until the phrase actually caught on before featuring it so prominently. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually misquoted it. It's Coalition for Change.--STX 04:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coalition of Change 

message: I changed the percentages in Iowa and NH to the exact percentages quoted in the New York Times and used it as a source for both states - if 29.5% = 29 for Clinton in Iowa then we can't have 36.5  equalling 37 in NH for Obama. Tvoz |talk 01:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I favor including the decimal rather than rounding.  It's more encyclopedic that way. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Running the numbers 

message: Does anyone have any information on the ongoing Reagan controversy they can add to the article?  [14:18, 18 January 2008 24.3.20.5]
:Meaningless to-and-fro campaign blather, happens all the time, media outlets play it up to fill the news cycle.  Unless you think that Nancy Reagan's astrological connections have somehow gotten a projection channeling of The Gipper into Obama's head.  Wasted Time R (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also too recent to truly understand if it will have an impact on his campaign and, if it has an impact, what kind of impact it will have. Obama is an appealing alternative to independents and Republicans and he was mostly throwing a bone to them while dissing Bill Clinton at the same time. --Bobblehead (rants) 16:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bobblehead makes a good point; wait a while on adding campaign developments to make sure they have some significance.  Of course that goes against the WP ethos of instant updating ...  Wasted Time R (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reagan Controversy 

message: I just came accross this article: .  It seems to me that it might be worth adding some of its info to the article. I also started a new section for 2008 developments. I hope that is okay. Redddogg (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of that article's material is already covered in the South Carolina section, but you can see there's more that should go in.  I clarified the sectioning; "Campaign developments" is just for 2007, while "Caucuses and primaries" covers all 2008 developments, interwoven with the primary and caucuses themselves.  Wasted Time R (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Sorry I missed that. Redddogg (talk) 04:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSM article 

message: Can somebody please add that Obama has also been endorsed by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch? I would but I don't know how to use all the fancy coding and everything.
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/editorialcommentary/story/121FA9A750C5E018862573DC0003A07F?OpenDocument  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.192.226 (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endorsement 

message: Just to note, I added Ted Kennedy to the text under endorsements (rather than just the list) considering that he is the most prominent Democrat to endorse besides Bill Clinton.  It also seems to makes sense to have the Caroline Kennedy NYT piece in the same sentence, unless anyone disagrees. Joshdboz (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Really major endorsements, which Ted Kennedy's certainly is, deserve to go into the mainline narrative, which I've now done.  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kennedy 

message: Is there some reason why we are excluding superdelegates in the lede?  It makes more sense to me to give the overall state of the delegate race. I made this change, but it was deleted. johnpseudo 18:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A simple solution is to give both ... estimated delegates from the primaries and caucuses so far, and estimated delegates overall including estimated superdelegates.  Wasted Time R (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My problem with that solution is that the breakdown is already given below in the table.  We don't need to provide all of the information in the lede, we just need to give the most important top-level information, which (in my opinion) is the total delegate count. johnpseudo 18:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Another problem with listing superdelegates is that the vast majority of them are uncommitted or undecided and even amongst those that have voiced support for one candidate, many of them can end up supporting another candidate, depending on events.  Right now it's just an opinion poll, not actual primary results. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What you say is also true of delegates from caucus states — where state conventions have yet to happen — and even delegates from some primary states.  It's a deliberately imprecise business, but one that if you're trying to measure progress towards the nomination, you have to engage in.  Wasted Time R (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Whatever figure we choose to give, we need to clarify if the figure includes or excludes pledged superdelegates. --Ezeu (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obama is leading... (excluding superdelegates) 

message: ok, so I changed every thing from Muslim to Islamic. fine to revert but please say why. And about me adding the bit about indonesia- its the truth and and I think the truth behind the rumor is important, and proves the inaccuracy of the main allegations in a new way. anyways if this person was reading the talk page they would realize I am just trying to help.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.220.110.83 (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just wondering if I can reason why we have to use the word Muslim 

message: Johnpseudo deleted information relating to Obama's Pakistan comments here claiming this event is not relevent to this article describing Obama's presidential campaign. There are references describing how it is notable and how it was commentated on by rivals and major news carriers. There is no doubt that such a major policy shift from the current administration is noteworthy. Prester John  -(Talk to the Hand) 05:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your text overstated the case when it said "After weeks of discourse surrounding the policy ..."  In fact your two cites are only six days apart (Aug 1 to Aug 7).  Wasted Time R (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll assume you read the references, in particular this one, which states in its lead paragraph; "Comments he made regarding sending U.S. troops into Pakistan stayed with Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama for a second week.". Even if you disagree that that the two weeks mentioned can be classified as "weeks" does this disqualify the entire section? Prester John  -(Talk to the Hand) 00:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: And in any case, his Pakistan statements are already addressed in the Political positions article, as one of the other editors' edit summary pointed out.  This kind of back-and-forth on policy questions goes on all the time during campaigns; only the most critical ones that really affect the shape and course of the campaign need to be described in this article, and I don't think the Pakistan question meets that bar.  For example, this article doesn't even discuss the debate over whether Obama's health care plan offers universal coverage, which has attracted far more attention during the campaign and the Democratic debates than his Pakistan comments.  Wasted Time R (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is this reasoning based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Just because something you believe is important  is not in the article means this should not be in the article? I don't think wikipedia qualifies that as a valid argument. Prester John  -(Talk to the Hand) 00:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: As you yourself said- this story is a "policy shift".  There has been a LOT of policy shifting on the part of all the campaigns, and those policies belong on the "Political positions" page. johnpseudo 14:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  So even though this article is Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 we are not to include the policies and discussion he creates during the campaign? Is this article resigned to only contain inane cruft like this;
In March 2007, Obama posted a question on Yahoo! Answers, entitled: "How can we engage more people in the democratic process?" which ultimately drew in over 17,000 responses.
On 12 April 2007, Bo Dietl, a regular guest on Imus in the Morning, repeatedly called attention to Obama's middle name (Hussein, as in Saddam Hussein) during an interview with Rebecca Gomez, and Imus in the Morning producer Bernard McGuirk was quoted as saying Obama had a "Jew-hating name." This is possible retaliation for Obama's call for the shows host, Don Imus to be fired after the Rutgers basketball incident.http://mediamatters.org/items/200704130004http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3031317&page=1
Are really going to present an article this inane? Prester John  -(Talk to the Hand) 00:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: After reworking the Pakistan passage to suit previous User:Johnpseudo requirements referenced relevant information has again been deleted again here. This time using the edit summary reasoning of "This wasn't a "campaign development". Here is copy of the text deleted for disscussion;
On August 1 when making his foreign policy speech Obama created controversy by declaring that the United States must be willing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan, with or without the consent of the Pakistani government. He stated that if elected, "If we have actionable intelligence about high value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will".Tough talk on Pakistan from Obama ABC News described the policy speech as "counterintuitive", and commented on how "one of the more liberal candidates in the race, is proposing a geopolitical posture that is more aggressive than that of President Bush" 
 		 	
After weeks of discourse surrounding the policy, Obama said there was "misreporting" of his comments, claiming that, "I never called for an invasion of Pakistan or Afghanistan." He clarified that rather than a surge in the number of troops in Iraq, there needs to be a "diplomatic surge" and that if there were "actionable intelligence reports" showing al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, the U.S. troops as a last resort should enter and try to capture terrorists. That would happen, he added, only if "the Pakistani government was unable or unwilling" to go after the terrorists. 
Was this really not a campain development? Prester John  -(Talk to the Hand) 00:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree a weakness of our campaign articles is a focus on horserace material rather than policy material.  In part, that's because the policy material tends to accumulate in the Political positions articles rather than here, in part it's because the press covers horserace more too.  However, my argument about including Pakistan and not bangings over health care coverage and other top issues isn't "other stuff exists", it's WP:Undue weight.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of referenced information by [[User:Johnpseudo]] 

message: In the last updated delegate count in the lede, Obama's total went from 182 down to 158 and Clinton's lead went from 78 down to 74.  I am just wondering how in 4 days he could have lost delagates and gained on Clinton.  Jons63 (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody had the first number wrong. johnpseudo 17:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Jons63 (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delegate Count 

message: User:Johnpseudo has again deleted referenced information here, this time regarding comments made by the top three leading candidates on Ronald Reagan. His edit summary was "Deleting Reagan comments again. This is a very minor occurence, he wasn't praising Reagan (find a source), and it wasn't a controversy (find a source))". Here is the text deleted complete with the references from MSNBC and the New York Times;
In mid January 2008 comments made by Obama that appeared to praise the legacy of former Republican president Ronald Reagan attracted rebuke from rivals and dissection from all sections of the media. Obama had stated in an interview that; "Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not." Hillary Clinton ridiculed the idea that the Republicans were the party of ideas, suggesting Mr. Obama had said that the Republicans had “better” ideas, which he did not.  The New York Times January 21 2008 Senator John Edwards criticized Obama specifically for referring to Ronald Reagan as an agent of change stating in a newspaper interview that; “I would never use Ronald Reagan as an example of change,” 
Here the paragraph includes  comments from Hillary Clinton and John Edwards in the NewYork Times, and MSBC, both of which go on to describe the controversy it created. Is it disingenuous to say these sources do not meet WP:RS? Is there another word other than "praise" that could be used to describe Obama's comments? Does the fact that, in the opinion of User:Johnpseudo he was not "praising Reagan" justify removal of the entire section? Has this been deleted under a policy as flimsy as WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Prester John  -(Talk to the Hand) 00:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would include the Reagan/Republican-ideas material. It falls under the category of, "Candidate A makes the mistake of saying something thoughtful and arguably true that doesn't conform to party orthodoxy, candidate B jumps all over candidate A with feigned outrage." This stuff goes on all the time during campaigns, usually over minor junk that isn't worth remembering but sometimes over matters more substantial, which I think this is. A somewhat similar example in the other direction was Hillary's comment about MLK and LBJ, for which she also got jumped on. The Reagan/Repub bit is an example of how Obama view things and an example of the kind of discourse level the primary battle took place at. But if you do include it, you should put in Obama's full quote with all necessary context, as we've done for the Hillary MLK-LBJ quote. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I admit- I was out-of-line deleting the Pakistan section, and I should have been better at assuming good faith.  The Pakistan comment he made really did generate enough stir to be considered a "development".  The Reagan comment I still disagree with how much weight it was given and how it was phrased.  The Australian citation I think it out of the mainstream in claiming that Obama was praising Reagan.  That mis-characterizes his comments just as Hillary did, and I think a lot of sources out there acknowledge that distortion of his words from his opponents. johnpseudo 04:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Are we supposed to include everything that the news media and/or candidates comment on?  Weren't you just arguing that the article should be less trivial?  You may be believe that there is no doubt the Reagan comments are notable, but I think that wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should be a step up from the echo chamber of mainstream media.  I agree with Wasted Time above- Clinton picks a brief snippet of an Obama speech, takes it out of context and criticizes it (or was it Bill?), this gets repeated by the news and Edwards, and it finally dies down when people realize it wasn't praise at all.  In the end- there wasn't actually a story, or if there was a story, it was that Clinton mis-characterized Obama's comments. johnpseudo 14:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: So there were a couple people who corrected misspellings and another person who restored your content.  What's your point?  johnpseudo 16:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Is there anyone who can reply to this? Note that I am not making any comment about whether this section should be in the article or what the article should say. I am simply trying to work out what the sentence currently in the article means. I don't believe the meaning is clear, as it is not clear who or what "he" refers to at the end of the sentence.Hobson (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The "he" is in reference to Obama, not Reagan or the Republican Party. Basically a poorly constructed sentence. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More referenced information deleted by [[User:Johnpseudo]] 

message: There is a description in the first paragraph of section Second Half 2007 of abc declaring Obama's foreign policy on pakistan as more aggressive than George Bush. Now, if this opinion was stated and has thus been cited properly I can understand the relevance it holds as to how the media is viewing Obama; however, for the purposes of a npov it might be proper either to delete the line completely or add in easily citable information, Guardian WSJ NYtimes Washingtonpost, that on two instances now the military or CIA has used predator drones to try to take out targets - which, if I am not mistaken would contradict the statement highlighting an ABC point of view. Just a thought, I will let the usual editors of this article decide. (PhilipDSullivan (talk) 06:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Half 2007 

message: MoveOn has endorsed Obama - I place it here for consideration for inclusion (or not).  KillerChihuahua?!? 17:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  MoveOn endorsement 

message: Where'd they go? They seem to be missing now. HoosierStateTalk 22:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They are hidden in Unions and political groups endorsing Barack Obama, not sure how fix that though.  Jons63 (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refs and External Links 

message: What is everyone's thoughts on just shunting the list of people/organizations that are endorsing Obama for the primary to a List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements, or some other article title that is similar, and just leave a very short list of the "heavy hitting" endorsements.  There are 260+ references in that section alone and if we add much more it's bound to start messing with the templates in the rest of the article. The full list of endorsements is already unimportant enough that they are hidden from the main article, doesn't seem like that big of a leap to move them off to their own article. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You have my 100% support for that. I just contributed to the problem by adding one. :-) Redddogg (talk) 06:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Coincidentally enough, I was just typing out the announcement that I had moved the endorsement list to List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements. I've split the list into endorsements for the primary and if/when Obama wins the Dem's primary, a new section can be created for the general election. --Bobblehead (rants) 06:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of endorsements 

message: It appears that the fourth quarter fundraising data for presidential and house and senate campaigns are up on the FEC website.  Anyone can add the new info to all of the campaign pages, but I'm too lazy/sleepy right now...Collegebookworm (talk) 06:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  4Q 2007 Fundraising Is On FEC website 

message: After reviewing the Clinton campaign Wikipedia page and this one, it is more than apparent to me that the complete absence of any Criticism on Obama's campaign page is unjustified.  I also feel that much of this page reads to me as being NPOV and that there is much fanboyism going on here.  I among others who I've been corresponding with on Wiki will be proposing and adding a criticism section in the upcoming week.  I believe that this should be a balanced article, and to have a large criticism section under Clinton while there is none here, suggests that Wiki editing always reflects the interests and biases of those who edit.  Aznusmcmarine (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 does not have a "large criticism section".  It has a fairly small section called "Opposition", which details some of the 2007 objections to her candidacy from assorted people.  It's kind of a mishmash, and not something I'd especially recommend emulating.  Wasted Time R (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't an opposition section pretty much a criticism/controversy section under a different name? Hillary's section seems to have attracted a lot of crap. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually, what you should be proposing is dismantling the criticism section on the Clinton page, not degrading other articles by adding one for "balance."  Criticism sections are strongly discouraged on Wikipedia for multiple reasons. They are unencyclopedic and read poorly, and in practice they tend to just turn into coatracks for any POV comment or attack that can be "sourced" by finding an editorial or blog written by opponents of the subject. Wikipedia style guides point out that it is far better (albeit harder) to weave the criticism into relevant sections throughout the article. If you were to propose dismantling the criticism section of Clinton's article, I for one would strongly support it.  --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of the 2008 prez campaign articles have 'Opposition' sections, not just Hillary.  I think the idea originally was to describe why people who you might normally would support the candidate, don't.  Not sure how successful it's been.  Wasted Time R (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a terrible idea for reasons already stated.  In the Clinton article specifically, it's just a collection of POV quotes and links that have little or anything to do with her campaign (which is ostensibly the subject of the article).  Is there really anyone out there that feels it's encyclopedic to mention that there is a "stop hillary" group on Facebook?  Reading through that section makes it very clear that we should not repeat the same mistake here. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV:  Complete absence of Criticism section? 

message: I find this edit made today troubling.  Is the lead section of this article supposed to give a summary of the history of the campaign, or an up-to-the-minute status on the campaign?  The edit is doing the latter, while I view the purpose of the article as the former.  Wasted Time R (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry you found my edit troubling.  I agree with you that this article should detail the history of the campaign, but the lead shouldn't become a running list of updates to the status of the Obama vs. Hillary delegate race.  At one point it made sense to list the balance of wins and losses in each individual contest, but now I think that there have been too many contests for it to be practical.  The reason I have the "After the contests of February 9th and 10th" preface is just to include some hint of how recent the article has been updated. johnpseudo 16:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Taking out the running delegates count is one thing.  You also took out the description of who won the first four caucuses/primaries.  Wasted Time R (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel there is room for a couple more phrases or sentences to give the intro a more historical tone. I am glad we are using both styles of delegate count as it takes up almost no extra space, and you know what a stickler for accuracy I yam lol 208.100.144.69 (talk) 06:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: There have been ~31 primary contests at this point.  Should we list the results of each one in the lead? What makes the first four more important than the rest?  The play-by-play of the momentum swings for the primaries should go in the details below, not in the lead. johnpseudo 15:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this a history article or a news site? 

message: Could the monkey who keeps removing the link to the wikinews article settle down? I don't think he knows what he is doing and I suggest he looks over an addition before mindlessly reverting it. I don't want any trouble so I ask for the monkey to please revert his revision.--Uga Man (talk)  UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008  04:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refrain from namecalling (see Wikipedia:No personal attacks). →Wordbuilder (talk) 04:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but its his name, LooneyMonkey ... I think. No apologies needed. I'd like for the monkey to reply. --Uga Man (talk)  UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008  04:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikinews 

message: Could we add a section on superdelegates endorsing Obama.  I don't know if there is verifiable information about the superdelegates that have endorsed him,but I think it would be useful to add. Remember (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superdelegates endorsing 

message: fter checking the cite from the first sentence, I am becoming convinced the cite does not support the text we currently use. specifically I read the whole nation article which supposedly supports that "the smear connected Obama to radical islam". In fact the article seems to only show that "the smear connected Obama's childhood education to supposed radical islam" (wahabbism). The same education brawl being fought out on this page every day, and thats it. And considering it is the only text with even a sixth-degree connection to anything remotely radical-islamic (whatever that is)- basically I think even the current text is weasel-text if you will. The strongest statements I think the source permits should always refer to his childhood in regards to the smears. I have seen no attacks or research or connections between adult obama and any strain of Muslim ethos. and i think thats notable indeed. All I think it needs right now is the addition of the one word "childhood" into the first sentence. go team 72.0.187.153 (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The 2004 date comes from the Nation and refers to the Andy Martin attack (www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1189687/posts) which posits "a threat to the Jewish community" from "Fact: Obama is a Muslim who has concealed his religion". So saying Martin "connected Obama to radical islam" doesn't look wrong to me. Nor does he say anything about Obama's childhood. The connection to the Insight piece is pure speculation on the part of Hayes. The two-hours-a-week is from the Chi Trib,[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-070325obama-islam-story,0,7180545.story 
], I believe. And why Kerrey mentioned the grandmother rather than the grandfather, who dictated when the family was Muslim and when it wasn't, is hard to understand. Hope this helps. Andyvphil (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend people read current cite #133- i stand by my statement that nothing there makes a current muslim connection case. If you want to try keeping that leadoff you will need to find a new source. It is martin making the case that obama's education was radicalized, and furthermore martin claiming that this education somehow (somehow...) applies to his current views. I have read the source several times and that is  what I find. a childhood connection and thats all anyone seems to claim on either side. And this is a PERFECT example of inflammatory words that don't really need to be here, staying in (for some reason...). I think 'extremism' is even worse than 'radical' and 'extremism' is what we're currently using.  anyways... why are we continuing to use language that is needlessly vague, and leaves open implication against Obama's adult character, when all reputable sources on any side of the issue say its a closed issue, a heritage issue? Furthermore and VERY IMPORTANTLY- let us remember that when Barry O was attending Menteng 01, the words "radical islam" and "islamic extremism" did not exist, or at least were not used in the current politicized and highly charged sense. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It is martin making the case that obama's education was radicalized, and furthermore martin claiming that this education somehow (somehow...) applies to his current views. No, the current first sentence of this article, "A series of right-wing smear campaigns falsely attempting to connect Obama's childhood education to radical Islamic sects began in 2004,..." is simply factually untrue. Hayes("cite#133"): "Within a few days of Martin's press conference, the conservative site Free Republic had picked it up, attracting a long comment thread, but after that small blip the specious 'questions' about Obama's background disappeared. Then, in the fall of 2006,..." 2004 is Martin (and FreeRepublic[(www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1189687/posts)]) and Martin doesn't mention "Obama's childhood education". As the second sentence of WP:BLP says, "We must get the article right.Jimmy Wales. Keynote speech, Wikimania, August 2006." Try a little harder to do that, ok? Andyvphil (talk) 06:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: lol all those cites you just dropped are all only childhood references...still... why am I not surprised? considering consensus is starting to form up  agreeing that these are smears against child-Obama and not adult obama, I wish you would be a little more judicious with the rv button. Oh well I think you really need to re-read those cites. you seem to either mis-understand or willfully ignore what other (multiple other) users mean when they frame this discussion from Obama's childhood perspective. I will keep trying synonyms until one sticks but please realize the longer you make barely justified knee-jerk edits that go against consensus- the more it looks like pov pushing on the page. show me some connections to Obama as an adult please or stop making these crazy claims I can't find in any of your sources... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 09:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What "crazy claims"? Please supply quotes. Andyvphil (talk) 09:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: crazy claim number one- that this whole obama religion thing IS NOT totally about his childhood, and implications of things that happened then- not an adult issue. yet again and again I check the page only to find new language added which attempts to re-open the idea that ADULT obama is connected to islam (and until very recently islamic extremism). yes that is a crazy idea and it needs to get unequivocably squashed for the good of the page. i asked you to show me some connection to adult obama, and you responded (typically) with your own "rubber/glue" style request for MY "quotes". So----, I've played this game before, its late and I'm not in the mood. my quotes are not what you should be reading, its the quotes of others who agree with me on the childhood issue and are building consensus on this page. frankly I wouldn't care IF my subtle language mods concerning public schools and WOT buzzwords were going directly against consensus- but I'm not the the one with a user name lol. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 10:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

text: In other words, you can't quote me making any "crazy claims", presumably because I haven't made any. Nor have you supplied any diffs for your new false claim that my edits "attempt to re-open the idea that ADULT obama is connected to islam [or] islamic extremism". In other words, you're full of s**t. Pardonnez-moi. Can't say that even if it's true. WP:CIVIL, you know. Andyvphil (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: i just did quote you making a crazy claim- and I noticed you've stopped rv-ing without cause so I think we both know which way the wind is blowing... anyways thanks for recognizing consensus. like I said before I am perfectly willing to explore "stronger" language (since thats what you seem to want so badly) but the cites need to support that language. As you can see there are at least two users who are having trouble understanding your interpretation of the references, specifically the martin one. So maybe it would be beneficial for you to explain you interpretation them, on the talk page so instead of edit warring we can actually try to build further consensus. ps good luck with the admins72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your trumphalism is premature, and the consensus not what you imagine it to be. Nor are "quotes" what you must imagine them to be if you think you "just did quote" me. A "quote" would be finding something in one of my posts that you think is a "crazy claim" and reproducing it here surrounded by quote marks. You haven't done that. And I don't know  what your problem is understanding that when Martin says "Fact: Obama is a Muslim who has concealed his religion"(www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1189687/posts) he is speaking in what is called in the English language the present tense and not about Obama's childhood. Or what to make of your bizarre suggestion that "it would be beneficial for you to explain you interpretation them, on the talk page" since this is the third time I have supplied the link to Martin's press release and pointed out that he does exactly what you denied when you said "i stand by my statement that nothing there makes a current muslim connection case". (That 's what a "quote" looks like, btw.) And, again, he says nothing about Obama's education. Andyvphil (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1189687/posts this] is not a reliable source. WNDL42 (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

text: all that and more... yes martin says obama is a muslim, BECAUSE of his heritage and childhood experiences. You still haven't produced anything which even squarely CLAIMS he is a muslim NOW. yet that that is language you keep forcing into the text. if you want to use present-tense language you need to find a present-tense source, which the martin thing is not (as other contributors agree).  A source indicting muslim activity in the last 10-20 years conceivably could qualify as present-tense, but not from this one cite we keep bickering about. I am expecting some actual text here at some point, because like I have said consensus is building against your interpretation and the burden is on you to make your argument-  not on WP to accept POV language 'tweaks" on a topic that the main article presents as false. "Obama is a muslim"- that is a good start but you need to back it up with other text from the article if you think it rises above the general notability of the rumor section and the consensus presentation which portrays this subject as an outgrowth of Obama's childhood and family history. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: First sentence, Muslim allegations section

message: it needs to be more than a pile of numbers and links etc. So that sentance needs to stay because it allows to article to flow. You are welcome to provide another sentance that neutrally explains the flow of the campaign post super-tuesday, but I think after 10 straight wins by one candidate and continued block-buster financial numbers, any sentence anyone writes is going to look essentially the same. if you have a problem with use of the word "momentum"- i know what you mean, but seriously what other word can we use? the current state of the race is basically the definition of the word lol. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My problem is with the speculation that it was Obama's "grassroots fundraising" and previous electoral gains that led to his 10-state winning streak.  That speculation and the idea of "momentum" is entirely POV and, like I said, needs a strong reference.  I'll try to change the wording to include mention of Obama's fundraising success. johnpseudo 02:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: and the 10-state win streak please... also keep in mind I can find mainstream news cites using the word "momentum" until the cows come home (its not POV its google lol)72.0.180.2 (talk) 02:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, they all talk about momentum, but it's just an idea, not necessarily anything real. johnpseudo 02:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lead paragraph needs to give historical perspective, right? 

message: I notice the page has been protected without explanation or deploying the usual template. Seems WNDL42 requested it and got 2 days.  The protecting admin has written the following on his user page, "If you have the capability to unprotect something, I trust you to determine whether a page I protected should be unprotected or not. No need to ask." So if you've got an admin bit and recognize WNDL42's request for the tendentious nonsense it is, go right ahead. Andyvphil (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: agreed the edit warring seems to have ended about 24 hrs ago. Don't really see the point of blocking the page especially now. there have always been plenty of concerned users monitoring the vandalism and I dont feel there is even that much vandalism in the first place. Also I don't think a couple dozen edits of the course of a week or two counts as an edit war...72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protected 

message: Will somebody please spell check the article.
(Among other things, 'Mayor' is not spelled M-A-Y-E-R.)
71.168.142.89 (talk) 05:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only "Mayer" I see in the article now is somebody's name. Got any more? Andyvphil (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spell Check 

message: I already explained this in my third opinion in the section below, but since a separate opinion was asked with reference to this section, I will say: It is appropriate to quote a critic of Obama using that critic's own words. The fact is, Martin wrote "Obama is a Muslim". It is important to state it as what Martin wrote, and not make it sound like Wikipedia is claiming Obama is currrently a Muslim. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion - edit warring

message: The Nation source does seem to support the "perennial Republican Senate candidate" reference to Andy Martin, Andyvphil. So not sure why you removed it.  --Bobblehead (rants) 05:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if it's true or not that Martin often files to run in Republican primaries. He's done it twice, that we know of, in two different states (Florida & Illinois). But if he describes himself as "independent" and if, when he runs in Republican primaries, he gets negligible votes, it's misleading to describe him as a "perennial Republican candidate" when what he's really known for is tortuous litigation and Jew-baiting. The Nation (magazine) is a highly partisan left-wing source and in my judgement Hayes' description is a drive-by guilt-by-association smear of Republicans. The whole subject of his press-release is non-notable: he's got mentions by Hayes and only two blog listings (compare with dozens for the Che flag). And there is no known connection, other than his self-important quote to Hayes, between him and the viral email or the Insight story. It's not as if the idea of connecting someone named Barack Hussein Obama to Islam is such a wild idea that it could only occur once and all subsequent occurrances must be causally connected. Even one paragraph is too much to devote to him, in terms of his significance to this article. So, show me that he's significant in Illinois Republican politics with some more convincing evidence than the Nation 's smear and I'll reconsider whether it's worth the extra words. Otherwise, let's leave it out. Andyvphil (talk) 09:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Martin a "Republican"?

message: ==="Pro-Palestinian" before?===
And I think some of Obama's newly calibrating language, as he continues basically to bolster his being-to-the-right-of-Nader bonefides--e/g with regard his pastor the Rev. Wright and his prominent campaign advisor re Nat'l Security Brzezinski (whom I myself agree with, though this go-round I'm no Naderite)--as instances of it become covered in the MSM, deserve place in the article somewhere (along with contexts) too.
[...] Rev. Jeremiah Wright, has created problems for Obama in Jewish circles. A magazine connected to Wright honored [... Farrakhan], and last month Obama said he condemned "the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan" and disagreed with a decision to honor him. - ¶ - Wright, Obama said Sunday, "is like an old uncle who sometimes will say things that I don't agree with. And I suspect there are some of the people in this room who have heard relatives say some things that they don't agree with, including, on occasion, directed at African Americans. ... I am not suggesting that's definitive." - ¶ - Obama also distanced himself from [...Brzezinski]. - ¶ - "I do not share his views with respect to Israel. I have said so clearly and unequivocally," Obama said. "He's not one of my key advisers. I've had lunch with him once. I've exchanged e-mails with him maybe three times. [...] - ¶ - The Republican Jewish Coalition has been critical of Obama's plan, if elected president, to call "a summit in the Muslim world." [...] (ref: Jonathan Martin)</small>--Justmeherenow (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's going to take more than a blog post on the subject for this to be considered notable enough to include. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice try, but the print version of The Politico is said to have a circulation of 25,000. --Justmeherenow (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So? Many partisan blogs have readership in the hundreds of thousands, but that doesn't mean that their claims are reliable or that their opinions are notable. Hundreds of editorials are written about the candidates every day.  An issue must rise to a larger level of notability before we can even consider mentioning such opinion pieces in these articles. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that due care needs to be taken with regard to reporters' bias. While the Politico allows its reporters to editorialize (as in the British style e/g in the Economist or Guardian or Financial Times) it is still both a newspaper and often a published source of news. --Justmeherenow (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It is not at all clear what you are proposing for the article. You seem to be straying from strict purpose of this talk page and veering into general comments about or discussion of Barack Obama or his campaign.--Loonymonkey (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Are you proposing a change to the article with your frequent posting of quotes here, or are you just posting them here to post them here? --Bobblehead (rants) 19:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When I veer from discussions toward improving maintext, please specify. (Sorry!) Still, while, Loonymonkey, it's fine you revert "questionably sourced material" much, constructively extend the courtesy to post such conscientiously documented submissions to the discussion page for vetting not so much - Do enlighten us as to wotcher beef is that other editors discuss contentions here before distilled submissions to main text. --Justmeherenow (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.. You've still lost me, Justmeherenow. What would you like us to do with these quotes you've posted on the talk page?  The only purpose for this talk page is to discuss improvements to the main text. If you're posting the quotes for any other reason, then please discontinue posting them on this talk page.  Using this page as a discussion board for Obama's campaign is not an appropriate use. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, let me try the imperative tense. Please show me the guideline where it says that talkpages are for lazily and unspecifically generalizing how another editor's suggested material has nothing in it worthy to contribute, rather than specififying what, if anything, out of it does not belong in the article and why. In any case, I will henceforth only respond to specific criticisms of my posted subject mater (and not to non-specific "Whatch doin' here!" blather.) Thankyou. --Justmeherenow (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want us to add the above to the article, then we can discuss it, you just need to be clearer about it. Perhaps something along the lines of "Should we could include information about how Barack Obama received donations from a member of Weatherman (organization)..." To which we can respond.. Umm.. How is that important? You don't need the full on quotes to get your point across. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I'll try that tack. :^) --Justmeherenow (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Just a note :Image:25campaign-obama250.jpg‎ is a higher quality image, so I've nominated :Image:Barack Hussein Obama.jpg for speedy deletion. There really isn't a point to having two of the image on WP. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watching how campaign addresses various issues 

message: And I think some of Obama's newly calibrating language, as he continues basically to bolster his being-to-the-right-of-Nader bonefides--e/g with regard his pastor the Rev. Wright and his prominent campaign advisor re Nat'l Security Brzezinski (whom I myself agree with, though this go-round I'm no Naderite)--as instances of it become covered in the MSM, deserve place in the article somewhere (along with contexts) too.
[...] Rev. Jeremiah Wright, has created problems for Obama in Jewish circles. A magazine connected to Wright honored [... Farrakhan], and last month Obama said he condemned "the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan" and disagreed with a decision to honor him. - ¶ - Wright, Obama said Sunday, "is like an old uncle who sometimes will say things that I don't agree with. And I suspect there are some of the people in this room who have heard relatives say some things that they don't agree with, including, on occasion, directed at African Americans. ... I am not suggesting that's definitive." - ¶ - Obama also distanced himself from [...Brzezinski]. - ¶ - "I do not share his views with respect to Israel. I have said so clearly and unequivocally," Obama said. "He's not one of my key advisers. I've had lunch with him once. I've exchanged e-mails with him maybe three times. [...] - ¶ - The Republican Jewish Coalition has been critical of Obama's plan, if elected president, to call "a summit in the Muslim world." [...] (ref: Jonathan Martin)</small>--Justmeherenow (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's going to take more than a blog post on the subject for this to be considered notable enough to include. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice try, but the print version of The Politico is said to have a circulation of 25,000. --Justmeherenow (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So? Many partisan blogs have readership in the hundreds of thousands, but that doesn't mean that their claims are reliable or that their opinions are notable. Hundreds of editorials are written about the candidates every day.  An issue must rise to a larger level of notability before we can even consider mentioning such opinion pieces in these articles. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that due care needs to be taken with regard to reporters' bias. While the Politico allows its reporters to editorialize (as in the British style e/g in the Economist or Guardian or Financial Times) it is still both a newspaper and often a published source of news. --Justmeherenow (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: ''"Pro-Palestinian" before?''

message: And, overly broad "Hyde Park" paintstrokes trying to paint Obama " ":   
In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district’s influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. - ¶ - While Ayers and Dohrn may be thought of in Hyde Park as local activists, they’re better known nationally as two of the most notorious — and unrepentant — figures from the violent fringe of the 1960s anti-war movement. (ref: Ben Smith)--Justmeherenow (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not at all clear what you are proposing for the article. You seem to be straying from strict purpose of this talk page and veering into general comments about or discussion of Barack Obama or his campaign.--Loonymonkey (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Are you proposing a change to the article with your frequent posting of quotes here, or are you just posting them here to post them here? --Bobblehead (rants) 19:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When I veer from discussions toward improving maintext, please specify. (Sorry!) Still, while, Loonymonkey, it's fine you revert "questionably sourced material" much, constructively extend the courtesy to post such conscientiously documented submissions to the discussion page for vetting not so much - Do enlighten us as to wotcher beef is that other editors discuss contentions here before distilled submissions to main text. --Justmeherenow (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.. You've still lost me, Justmeherenow. What would you like us to do with these quotes you've posted on the talk page?  The only purpose for this talk page is to discuss improvements to the main text. If you're posting the quotes for any other reason, then please discontinue posting them on this talk page.  Using this page as a discussion board for Obama's campaign is not an appropriate use. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, let me try the imperative tense. Please show me the guideline where it says that talkpages are for lazily and unspecifically generalizing how another editor's suggested material has nothing in it worthy to contribute, rather than specififying what, if anything, out of it does not belong in the article and why. In any case, I will henceforth only respond to specific criticisms of my posted subject mater (and not to non-specific "Whatch doin' here!" blather.) Thankyou. --Justmeherenow (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want us to add the above to the article, then we can discuss it, you just need to be clearer about it. Perhaps something along the lines of "Should we could include information about how Barack Obama received donations from a member of Weatherman (organization)..." To which we can respond.. Umm.. How is that important? You don't need the full on quotes to get your point across. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I'll try that tack. :^) --Justmeherenow (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Hyde Park weather report''

message: A problem keeps coming up of editors editing who have not first read WP's guidelines or are lazy: e/g this image :Image:Barack Hussein Obama.jpg of Obama (in garb of a Kenyan clan---analogous to donning a ceremonial kilt during a diplomatic trip to the U.K.) was removed but not posted here. Or it of course could have been left in but with the claimed-faulty caption (which was "Obama wearing a muslim dress during a 2006 visit to his native Kenya") altered or some rationale given why the image itself was to be deleted. Let's try not to keep falling off the hay rack, fellow Wiki- farmers/co-operative members! :^) --Justmeherenow (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a note :Image:25campaign-obama250.jpg‎ is a higher quality image, so I've nominated :Image:Barack Hussein Obama.jpg for speedy deletion. There really isn't a point to having two of the image on WP. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Pic be-turbaned''

message: The Fundraising section states, "Obama's fundraising prowess has matched that of Hillary Clinton's and, financially speaking, is staying competitive with her."
While that was accurate early in the race, I think it is fair to say that now his "fundraising prowess" exceeds Clinton's far beyond "staying competitive". As is later stated in the article, >1,000,000 individual donors is a record for a presidential primary race. His one-day total of $6.5 million speaks for itself. Her campaign is $8 million in debt, and while she is expected to take in $30mil in February, this is eclipsed by the Obama campaign's estimate of over $50 million for February.
I think the above-mentioned sentence should be revised to reflect the current situation. 65.198.5.140 (talk) 00:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: then go for it, this page ain't locked! and enjoy it because this is one of the few that allows free edits. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 01:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fundraising 

message: I removed:
:On 12 April 2007, Bo Dietl, a regular guest on Imus in the Morning, repeatedly called attention to Obama's middle name, Hussein, during an interview with Rebecca Gomez, and Imus in the Morning producer Bernard McGuirk was quoted as saying Obama had a "Jew-hating name." This is possible retaliation for Obama's call for the shows host, Don Imus to be fired after the Rutgers basketball incident.
Does anyone think it was an important event in Obama's campaign? Redddogg (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivial (?) item removed 

message: who ever keeps deleting this section should stop or attempt a clean up. My information is triple sourced and if need be I will provide the FEC sheets if necessary. Hillary has an exhaustive analysis of her fundraising with a tremendous amount of scrutiny. IT isn't biased just because it contradicts your viewpoint of your candidate. the fact that you are using a blocked ip adrress makes it kind of obvious.
:moved this post to where new posts usually go; you make a bunch of great points. yes everyone would love to see your "fec sheets" and all that other stuff. what we would also like to see is proper grammar and etiguette from you when you make sweeping changes to a page many of us take pride in. You think this is about our POV and your NPOV, but please rest assured that none of us even think about that until we see things properly formatted, spelled, and sourced with something more than two cites for an entire paragraph. Then and only then will consensus address whether your text meets neutrality standards. basically- please don't post dupe sections- if nothing else it makes the page ugly and wrong regardless of what the FEC says. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  fundraising 

message: 1: Where should this go? It happened last August and is particularly important,maybe, because he was a politician in a border state and should have known better, perhaps. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Same reposnse as your question at Talk:Barack Obama, Yes he should have known better, but a single instance of someone making a mistake is not significant enough for placing in the article.  IMO it does not belong anywhere in Wikipedia.  Jons63 (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was notable every time a politician misspoke, then a certain current leader might have a whole article dedicated to the subject. But, alas, it is not. I'm sure he does know better. We all say one thing when we mean another. I agree with Jons63. Doesn't belong. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree except for the whole issue of "Day 1 Preparedness" which seems to becoming an important part of the campaign. I mean, if the front runner in the race for Prime Minister of Canada referred to the U.S. President as "Prime Minister of the United States" would that be a significant enough of a "mistake" to place in that article? Of course it also depends upon whether it was a mistake (mis-spoke)or a lack of knowledge and that's not for us to assume either way, I'd say. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would not be of significance to place a Prime minister misspeaking either, the same logic applies to that arguement.  Just because he mispoke/didn't know does not mean he isn't prepared to lead the US.  Jons63 (talk) 16:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling someone President versus Prime Minister or vice versa is not a particularly good indicator of "Day 1 Preparedness", particularly given that in the context in which this misstatement was used the terms are essentially identical in that they both mean the person that is the head of government and in current practice head of state. Canada's head of state is technically the Queen of England and her proxy, the Governor General of Canada, but the position is mostly ceremonial now and while certain powers, ie commander in chief, are legally vested in the Governor General, in practice they are carried out by the PM. Now, if Obama had made the misstatement in regards to a country like Lebanon, where the Prime Minister and President both exist and hold completely different functions it might be significant, but in relation to Canada it isn't that significant. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

text: May be it does not belong in the article but I can't see where recentism would be the problem since the event happened 10 months ago? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize. You are correct on that. →Wordbuilder (talk) 05:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: however the current reporting on this talk IS an example of recentism, and because it clearly does not meet the ten-year rule, inclusion is still discouraged. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obama referred to Canada's Prime Minister as the [http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/World/2007/08/08/4402977.html "President"] of Canada