Talk:Barack Obama 2008 presidential campaign/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Bias?

Hey everyone, I'm new here but I think this page is slightly biased in favor of Barack Obama. I'm not sure how to edit it myself (I tried but my edit was reverted...), but could you guys take a shot? One issue I noticed: next to no information about the "bitter" comments. The only thing there before I added other information was Barack Obama's very positive response ("what I said was the truth") - nothing about the controversy, about how analysts say it cost him some voters, how the Hillary Clinton campaign responded, how other democratic leaders responded, or how Barack Obama has defended himself.

Also, I noticed that on the Hillary Clinton campaign page each controversy is individually highlighted ("Ferraro comments and resignation", "The Limbaugh effect", "Comments about 1996 Bosnia trip", "Health insurance story problems"), while comments about "bittergate" are hidden within the Pennsylvania heading. There's also not much information about how Hillary Clinton is arguing that she is winning "big states" that she is better equipped to win against a Republican candidate or about how Barack Obama has responded to this.

Any thoughts? ~~Michael —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.13.66.215 (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(I'm the person who made that comment, I wasn't signed in) Mgmg (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think s/he's right. A mention that Hillary actually won in Pennsylvania and that there was actually a negative reaction to the "bitter" comments was removed without much justification other than they liked it better the way it was before Bachcell (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Both of these are mentioned in the article in the Pennsylvania section, so I'm not quite sure what the gripe could be with this. --Ubiq (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That's because they had to be put back in. Also noticed that while there were lots of details about the size of Obama's rallies and whistle stop tours, there was no mention of the critical ABC TV debate which was credited for stopping Obama's momentum, and Obama's performance was judged as weak. There appears to be a fairly consistent pattern of leaving out events and reactions critical of Obama when there was a passage mentioning the bitter comments, and his defence, but no mention of the critical comments Obama was responding to when he said the words were poorly chosen. Is there any explanation for writing the number of votes without mentioning that it was a win for Clinton? This article should be at least as balanced as the mainstream press accounts.Bachcell (talk) 04:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"there was no mention of the critical ABC TV debate which was credited for stopping Obama's momentum" Not so sure this (or at least this alone) was credited for stopping his momentum. I'm pretty sure the "bitter" comments are more commonly believed to have had a greater impact.

"Is there any explanation for writing the number of votes without mentioning that it was a win for Clinton?" Not much, but presumably, people who can read an article long enough to get to the point you're referring to can also count, and decide if one number is greater than another number.

"This article should be at least as balanced as the mainstream press accounts." You're presupposing that others here share your view that the mainstream press accounts are balanced. I tend to think mainstream press accounts are quite unbalanced. --Ubiq (talk) 09:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of biases, the delegate/popular vote maps clearly exhibit a bias in favor of Clinton. MI and FL totals are included, and while the caption acknowledges that they don't as of now count for anything, it still frames them as Clinton victories that do not count - which is of course the Clinton campaign position. Obama was not on the ballot in MI and didn't campaign in FL, as his campaign would tell you.Tjm402 (talk) 06:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Muslim Rumors

There seems to be a lot of material on the rumors that Obama might have attended a Muslim school as a child. I wonder if some of the details might be removed since this didn't end up being such a big issue in the campaign. I never hear it mentioned in the media anymore. 67.101.47.212 (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I took this sentence out because it seems to have a couple of problems:

The process began in 2004, when columnist Andy Martin issued a press release falsely alleging that Obama is "a Muslim who has concealed his religion,"[188] a statement which received little media attention.

How can we know that this press release, which received little media attention, started the process? 67.101.47.212 (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A plethora of polls

I don't have time to sort out the conflicting data, but if the regular editors of this page want to update the polling section, a plethora of new polls came out yesterday. Specifically: CBS/New York Times; NBC/Wall Street Journal; Fox News (which also has a related poll on Obama and Wright); and CNN's poll of polls. I tried and failed to make sense of the data over at Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy — since I clearly can't synthesize this into anything coherent, I hand the data over to you good folks. Good luck. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the wording...

In the section "Impact of Rev. Jeremiah Wright" this clause starts the second sentence:

"ABC News found and excerpted racially and videos of politically charged sermons by Rev. Wright,..."

English is my first language, and I don't understand this. Could someone kindly explain what it means? Thanks.

(I changed it yesterday to the following:

"ABC News found and excerpted videos of racially and politically charged sermons by Rev. Wright,..."

but it was reverted back with the comment that it does make sense.)

--RenniePet (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Rennie - you are correct, the sentence was garbled and your correction was right. The sentence should read:

"ABC News found and excerpted videos of racially and politically charged sermons..." Johnpseudo must have read it too quickly. Tvoz/talk 16:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note: I was talking only about the word order, not the choice of words. "ABC News found and excerpted racially and videos of politically charged sermons by Rev. Wright,..." is definitely garbled as the words "videos of" were misplaced. I now have replaced "videos of" with "clips from" as we had it, but now in proper word order. Tvoz/talk 16:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Moving Stuff Over

I've been moving stuff from Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 that is specifically about the general election as it appears; that article is overlong and there is some consensus for putting the general election material in this separate article. Any help would be appreciated, as well as any comments on how to do this fairly and effectively. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 22:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Opting out of Financing

A POV mention of Obama's financing opt out was recently removed. An NPOV mention would be great here... Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Done. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 23:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Title/Restructure

Now that the primaries are past, the general election campaign will be more historically important. With that in mind, I suggest the following:

• Rename Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 to Barack Obama presidential primary election campaign, 2008
• Include a short summary of the primary election campaign in this article, and link to the primary election article as "full article"
• Rename this article to Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008

Given the potential impact of these moves I will not proceed without consensus. Thoughts? --Clubjuggle ^T/C 23:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd agree with move Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 to Barack Obama presidential primary election campaign, 2008 and move this one to Barack Obama presidential general election campaign, 2008. That way the linking can be done off of Barack Obama. Not a fan of the names, but they work.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Either of these ideas would be an improvement, IMO. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 00:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No opinion - normally I wouldn't waste the server space to say it, but you said you wanted to establish consensus. So count this as a vote in favor of this or whatever you decide to name the articles (within reason). Wikidemo (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that in the long run the general election article will be more important, so it should get the main title. And to keep with the naming conventions for historical races, i think it should be "presidential campaign" and not "general election campaign". The contrast should be made in the sub-article title and not the main article title. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Contentious editing

There is already some edit warring and borderline incivility going on here, e.g. this edit[1]. I urge everyone to avoid revert wars, not accuse other editors of making POV edits, not reflexively revert people, etc. Otherwise we may end up with the same kind of mess as at the Barack Obama article, and similar restrictions may apply here. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 03:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Public financing

The way the criticism is being covered here violates various policies and guidelines. We cannot add a refrain after every issue mentioned in the nature of "The candidate did it despite (the truth, the ethically correct move), and was heavily criticized by (his opponent, pundits, etc.)". The main issues are WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, relevance, WP:ANALYSIS, and WP:OR, some of which are covered in the essy Wikipedia:Criticism. Defending the controversial information as sourced misses the point. The main policy violation is not WP:V.

The material was first added in the past day by two editors.[2][3] I trimmed it per WP:WEIGHT[4] ("we don't repeat every criticism"), eliciting an uncivil reversion / AGF violation by one of the editors[5] ("rv blanking please do not seek to push your pov by removing paragraphs you don't like"). A second editor removed the material again,[6] citing a statement[7] the editor claimed to show it had been made for POV purposes ("I have concentrated on gaining a sense of balance and removing NPOV language in the articles"). Another editor reverted the material into the article a third time for a stated purpose that sounds POV[8]("...well-deserved criticism..."), and added on various new criticisms of the candidate[9].

Now we have two over-the-top paragraphs devoted to partisan criticisms (I count five different criticisms shoehorned in here) of a candidate's tactical election finance decision, with such statements as:

• "Many derided the decision" - "derided" is POV language, original analysis (no basis to say "many")
• "..as reneging" - POV, coatracked criticism
• "..reinforced as recently as February" - argumentative tactics; adopting critic's position in the guise of an exposition on Wikipedia. The claim that Obama "reinforced" an earlier statement is not relevant to the issue of his campaign, other than as an argument that he broke his promise, which is a POV claim.
• "Obama received strong criticism for the decision" - so? relevance, weight, and POV problems
• "Slate criticized his justification, stating that"...slate's opinion is not relevant to the election. This, again, is endorsing a criticism.
• "Several allies....condemned the decision" (in addition to other problems, "allies" is an opinion)
• "...both said they were 'very disappointed'" - not relevant what any particular person said

I think this kind of stuff ought to get reverted on sight, and edit warring to insert disputed content in important election-related articles should not be tolerated. I would do so but I've already removed it once and I do not wish to revert anything more than once per day, if at all. I hope others will take up the opportunity to be civil and follow the WP:BRD process or some other semblance of consensus. If not, I will warn the offending editors and seek to have them and/or this article placed under some form of administrative oversight. Please, we are grown-ups here (one assumes). If you're going to edit a highly visible article on a controversial subject, play nice. Wikidemo (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahem, Wikidemo. Your links aren't working. I think you're looking for the colon, not the pound sign. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 12:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC) (Update: Thanks Wikidemo! You fixed it. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 13:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC))

While I was writing this a bunch of new content was added[10] - 3,000 bytes worth - so now it is two long paragraphs. Now that the paragraphs are primarily new material that has not been reviewed or reverted yet, I think it's fair for me to edit them for weight and balance as a mostly 1RR matter. Wikidemo (talk) 13:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure we can hash out the language here. What would be your suggestions for correcting the POV language, WDemo? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 13:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Is no one updating the Fundraising for the 2008 United States presidential election page? That would be a really good place to link to as a "See Also"/"Daughter Article" following WP:SS. If you're concerned about size, we could dump some of this there. That is, if it had been updated since December. Lame. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 13:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I like your edits, WikiDemo! You see, when we work together, it's much better. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 13:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think the criticism is way over-weighted here (notwithstanding my own recent edits to reduce the over-weighting slightly). For a sense of perspective (but at the risk of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), let's keep in mind that in John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, McCain's similar reversal on public financing for the primary election campaign isn't even mentioned at all. Unquestionably statements such as "many", "reneging," "strong" criticism, etc., need to go, but to be honest I'm not sure that much beyond a statement of fact (he opted out of public financing), the historic note that he is the first major-part candidate to do so since the system was created, and perhaps brief sentences characterizing the opinions of supporters and detractors of the decision (is language that is as NPOV as possible) is all that is needed. Two paragraphs is far too much. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 13:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

[EC] - to Geuiwogbil: Thanks, thanks for the civility and encouragement. I guess my edits are the proposal. I've tried to leave in the fact that there is criticism of the decision but not include a detailed overview of who the critics are, and to summarize rather than repeat the criticism (if people want the full thing they can read the sources). The material I removed and refactored isn't necessarily unencyclopedic, it is just not all suited for this section of this article. I was unaware that there is a separate fundraising article and think some of it may go there, particularly the polling info and opinions on things. Wikidemo (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice work guys. I love it when a plan comes together! --Clubjuggle ^T/C 13:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the POV language I ported over. Since I usually work on articles where no one else comments until I reach PR/FAC, it's a bit of a change to work on an article where concerns for absolute neutrality are very important (as they should be in an article on such a prominent public figure!) I guess my impulse is also to teach and provide information that, while important for background (and included in the sources on the issue), might overweight or sway towards POV by placement and style. Again, thanks for taking the time to run through them.

Also: In the spirit of paraphrasing (and not quoting), could you do a hack job on "to dousing 'smears' against the first African-American with a serious shot at the presidency" up in the "Counter campaign" section? "First African-American with a serious shot at the presidency", in particular, is a lengthy circumlocution that could be easily replaced with "Obama". Geuiwogbil (Talk) 13:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 13:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Also: You need citations for "Opinion Polling". Thanks! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 13:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Done - group effort. Wikidemo (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

We still need citations for the "Opinion polling". Geuiwogbil (Talk) 14:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the section, it is very small. As a matter of fact, I'd like to change it around a bit so that we could replace the "many" with specific mentions of major newspapers. Eg "many newspapers, including the New York Times, Boston Globe, etc condemned the decision" and then excerpt a relevant quote from one or two. Then a sentence or two on others, including Feingold, the pro-public financing groups, etc.

Whether or not this controversy will have legs is unknown. But right now it is a big item. There's a whole article for the McCain lobbyist controversy that no longer gets talked about ;). In time, this article will become gigantic, and this section will be but one small part. Trilemma (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I've advocated for removing the lobbyist controversy from the main McCain article for weight reasons. The total amount of coverage of this controversy is very small. The nature of "legs", when we have web archives and google, is that if the controversy becomes big over time it will build up a body of coverage that may justify some greater description here. Things do not get big and then fade on Internet news archives. They just grow and grow. We are not in the business of reporting the news of the day, but rather the material that is notable and relevant. Give it time. If it becomes an issue we will know. Wikidemo (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to distort what you are saying, but I think that the way you are saying it communicates a philosophy that nothing should be reported until its long-term standing can be gaged. This is impractical and essentially impossible to implement--by this standard, we couldn't discuss anything related to the campaign, because who knows, in the long run, how much attention it will have acheived? What we know is that many of the most high profile newspapers in the nation have addressed it, most condemning Obama's decision. And that several prominent politicians and special interest groups have likewise addressed and condemned the decision. Probably within two months this article will be 5 times the size it is now. Trilemma (talk) 14:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

We are in the business of gauging the long-term standing of article topics. Check out WP:NOT#NEWS: "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events." Unfortunately, since Jimbo swapped that in by fiat, we have no real litmus test for what that kind of notability is, unlike the more traditional kind of notability, as explained on WP:N. That's why we hammer this stuff out to a consensus. That's why we're cautious around election-year subjects, or deaths, or murders, or scandals. That's why we're especially cautious here, around BHO. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 14:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this is notable. I should've said, instead of gaged, to objectively measured. We are projecting here, but when we have a huge body of staff editorials in major newspapers, along with high profile comments, I think it's a very safe projection. Trilemma (talk) 14:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Right now, this section and the article as a whole looks balanced to me. Given the point someone made that this article is likely to be five times this size in no time, the lean sections and brief descriptions that we have here seem wise. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Some structure is needed in the organization of sections.

It's kind of a random string of paragraphs right now and we should probably move towards the structure used on the previous campaign articles. For instance, political positions or news events are getting added as new sections without any eye towards their context within the larger campaign (and an encyclopedic description of such).

Opinion polling, if it needs to be mentioned (although I usually hate such sections for WP:NOTNEWS reasons) should be integrated into a chronological Campaign developments section (not it's own section which is altered day by day to reflect the latest polls). There is already a Political positions of Barack Obama article, so we should briefly summarize the major positions of his campaign (Irag, Economy, Energy, Healthcare...) and then point to the daughter article. The thing we want to avoid is adding new sections based on the latest speech or news item and letting this article become a long list. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Energy Section

I think it's clear that this is emerging as a campaign issue of great importance. I think one challenge here is to give a taste of the debate around this issue in this campaign without going too much into McCain's positions in an Obama article, and maintaining an NPOV. The other challenge, as mentioned by another editor, is that this isn't an a policy position article, it's a campaign article, so the information should presented in terms of what's been happening around the issue in the campaign. This shouldn't be too hard given how much the two campaigns have been talking about energy. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I think it needs to be presented within the context of his entire platform (as it is on the primary article). It's worth mentioning, but I don't think that we need a separate section for each of his political positions (Iraq, economy, etc.) I favor briefly describing his entire platform within one section, as was done on the Primary campaign article, but not focusing too much on individual positions (for which an article already exists). --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I still think that the way to go may be presenting issues like this in context of events as they happen--Obama gave a speech on energy in Nevada today that could be appropriately quoted if anyone has the time: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/a_serious_energy_policy_for_ou.html Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Scandals and Gaffes

This section seemed to be added as a POV excuse to repeat attacks, attacks which are already covered in the original primary campaign article. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I left a reply atUser talk:Bigvinu:

"First off all: I placed an ? behind vandalism. Furthermore you cut out quite a bit in the info box and also added a new section title "2 Scandals and Gaffes " yet you call it in your edit summary "added debates section as well as organized the page a bit". So please consider cleaning it up by yourself. "

And after he inserted the "scandal" title again I removed it and ask him to talk it out here. --Floridianed (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Add Scandals and Gaffes section

I say we include a section in which all gaffes and scandals that occur during the General Election be recorded. Bigvinu (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

We do not use crystal balls therefore we don't "prepare" for anything that might happen in the future and we add thinks as they happen in a NPOV manner.

You didn't explain yet what I pointed out on your site and brought it over here (see above). Thanks --Floridianed (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

General Election Logo

Logo debuted by Obama campaign at Chicago HQ following the end of the Democratic primary. New logo for general election article, previous logo and info box were lifted directly from the Obama primary campaign article. Multitude of logos used through out the primary season beginning in 2007. Older primary logo was previously used in info box because it was copied from primary campaign article and while waiting for fair use approval on new logo. — KgKris (talk • contribs) 09:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

All sources I've seen say that this eagle logo was used for a single event only. The eagle logo is not currently in use on the Obama web site or anywhere else I can find. Can you provide a source that says this will be the campaign logo? --Clubjuggle ^T/C 11:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The logo is NOT an ongoing logo--One wonders why this editor is a persistent campaign to include it. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obama_seal;_ylt=Ath3JIPG_TIEdPSdiA08_tFsaMYA Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 16:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

If we create a Scandals and Gaffes section for the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 article, we should do the same for the John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obamamaniac (talk • contribs) 21:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

:Who's talking about creating a "Scandals and Gaffes" section?--JayJasper (talk) 22:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Oh, now I see it. The above comments were obviously placed in the wrong section by mistake.--JayJasper (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Debates

I think this section could be streamlined and rewritten so as not to be WP:CRYSTAL or read like a program schedule announcement. We could simply report that as of early July, 2008 the planned debate schedule is as follows. These will no doubt be filled out in detail as each debate takes place. The history of negotiations and arrangements isn't very important or different than in any election cycle so I suggest we leave that out. It also makes some sense to take a look at the McCain article for how they are presented (do we usually just link to a child article for that)? Wikidemo (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Obama initially agreed in principle to town hall meetings with McCain and then later changed what he would agree to has received significant attention and is a significant factor affecting the campaign. Trilemma (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The debates themselves will be a moderate factor if history is any guide - a minimal factor if they're boring and predictable, and a major factor if something emerges. We just don't know. The arrangements for the debates were routine. It's garden variety low level political sniping for candidates to criticize each other over proposed debate formats, willingness to debate, negotiations about the debates, etc. I doubt you could find a major, reliable, nonpartisan source to say that this is a significant political issue. If you have reliable sources that say otherwise, feel free to mention them. The default would be to remove this kind of material as trivia.Wikidemo (talk) 23:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo, it's not matter of finding a source that says it's relevant, it's a matter of noting the coverage of it. Obama's shifting positions on town hall meetings has gained significant attention and warrants inclusion. Trilemma (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This article has officially become a content fork

The entire section has become a content fork of Political positions of Barack Obama. We need to do what was done previously on (what is now called) the primary campaign article. Add a paragraph briefly mentioning his major platforms and link to the other article. This article is starting to seem as if it is structured somewhat like a mere list of facts about the campaign. We really should be mirroring the structure of the previous article which was put together through no small effort by hundreds of editors. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, seriously. In the couple hours since I posted the above, a whole extra paragraph has been added. This is not sustainable. There is already an article for Obama's political positions and this article is supposed to be written in summary style, pointing to that article. Please read the guidelines on content forking, especially the section on article spinouts. What we have here is kind of a reverse spinout. The entire Issues section needs to be boldly trimmed to a single paragraph or two with links to the daughter article. My guess is that if I do that right now, it will set off an edit-war and possibly even accusations of vandalism. But it must be done, nonetheless. As these two articles fork further apart, the situation will just get worse. Are there objections? Should we go straight to the RfC process? --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Hope some more editors show up to get a go ahead w/o disruptions. --Floridianed (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the issue yet, but of course I'd support going along with whatever style / organization is the norm for these kinds of articles. It's only been a few hours so I would give the discussion another day or two, and if nobody objects here on the talk page just delete, summarize, condense, etc. I'll add a note to the section pointing anyone here who would edit it without first checking the talk page. Wikidemo (talk) 00:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

As the person who started this spinoff page, I completely agree. I started the mess with energy policy stuff, but my intention was never to have a second issues article here, but merely to cover issues in the course of ongoing events and candidate speeches. I say go for it.Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like we're getting some consensus (at least from the experienced, involved editors). I suggest that we just copy the section from primary article verbatim as a starting point, and then we can update it as needed for any post-primary issues (which, as far as platforms go, haven't changed that much with the exception of greater emphasis on energy policy). Does anyone want to go ahead and pull the trigger? --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Strongly agree. I just commented out the Israel/Palestine subsection which consisted of nothing but his comment on dividing Jerusalem. There's already an article on his political positions (although I would call them issue positions) and we don't need misc. soundbites here. Flatterworld (talk) 13:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'm going to make the change. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There being no opposition we should go ahead and do it, sooner rather than later. One editor in particular keeps adding content that's only semi-encyclopedic and a little biased. The longer this gets the harder it will be to integrate into the political positions article. As an interim step we may want to just comment it out or move it all to a sub-page for safekeeping. Wikidemo (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The section should stay. The fact that Obama is changing his position on so many issues right after winning the primary is very relevant to his campaign. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that comment, and some of the edit summaries, reinforce my concern about bias. In any event, even with some desire to add the stuff the baseline in terms of the article history and the norm for similar articles is to not include the material, and there would have to be a consensus to add disputed content. Maybe wait another day or two to see if we get any more support for adding it. Wikidemo (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Bias? It is fact, not opinion, that after Obama won the nomination, he chaned his positions to favor faith based programs, warrantless witetapping, guns in Washington D.C., the death penalty for people who did not commit murder, and keeping the troops in Iraq for more than 16 months. He changed his position on all of these things, all of a sudden, in a short period of time. That is not opinion. It is fact. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

While Obama's AIPAC speech and subsequent statement gained some scrutiny, it did not reach the level that would warrant inclusion in this article. Certainly the controversy it stirred warrants mention in the positions article. It isn't comparable to the campaign finance issue, which attracted broad attention and stirred quite a lot of controversy. I agree with the move of most of the material to political positions article. Trilemma (talk) 23:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, as long as it gets moved, and not erased, that sounds reasonable. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems that some editors keep adding material that seems to grind their own political axes. A section of an article doesn't stay just because you have some criticism of Barack Obama that you're determined to make. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 02:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You didn't move anything to the other article. You just erased it. The fact is that after Obama won the primary, he shifted to the right on many issues. Why are you afraid of people finding out that Obama is a phony liberal who doesn't have any principles? Grundle2600 (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It was never the intention to move anything from this article to that article. We simply rectified the problem of this article becoming a content and POV fork of the much more established Political positions of Barack Obama. If you want to make changes to that article, you can go there and discuss it on that talk page. Although, since that article is fairly stable and watched by a quite a few good editors (of all political stripes), I don't think your attempts to push the POV that "Obama is a phony liberal who doesn't have any principals" will get very far. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've returned the section on public financing. I think the thing was misfiled when it was put under "Issue stances" anyways. As a technical description of how the campaign is being financed, it's more appropriate to keep it in this article than to move it to a "Political positions..." article. I'm also following the lead of the Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008 here, where "Fundraising" is kept separate from "Political positions". Hope I'm not stepping on any toes here. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 04:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Concerns about balance and context (since a section nominally about "Fundraising" focuses entirely on the subsubject of "Public financing") should probably be BOLDly rectified by porting over other content from the "Primaries" article. (Since he can use that cash all the way up to Nov. 7 without having to funnel it through the DNC! Sweet!) Geuiwogbil (Talk) 04:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. And yes, his decision on public financing isn't really a political position as much as it is a campaign development. It should be mentioned in the larger context of fundraising, given all the usual caveats about weight and NPOV.--Loonymonkey (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Loony, where are you getting the "133,549,000" figure? I ctrl-f'ed the thing on the linked FEC filings, but couldn't find it. Under "14. NET Contributions (Other than Loans)", I read "137,484,270.88". Also: Why cite the Herald's report on BHO's March returns? The Herald isn't telling us anything particularly useful, or interesting. It certainly doesn't support the cited statement. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 03:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Media Campaign section

Part of covering the media campaign of Obama is covering the reaction and analysis of commercials. Factcheck is a non-profit organization and their analysis of Obama commercials is relevant and warrants inclusion. Trilemma (talk) 23:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Here are additional cites for criticism of Obama's ads: [11][12][13]. Trilemma (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That Factcheck is a non-profit is irrelevant to the fact that what you want to include is simply editorial opinion and is not notable to the campaign itself (which is what this article is about). Every single thing that Obama does or says will be editorialized on by someone (pro and con) but we don't include those editorials here. It has to be notable to the campaign, not simply about the campaign to be included. By way of example, try reversing the situation. Would you support the inclusion of a statement such as "Moveon.org commented that the ads were very truthful and effective." No, of course not and neither would I. There is a place for listing all of the editorial opinions offered in this campaign, but that place is not this article (or probably even Wikipedia). --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Comparing factcheck, a reputable apolitical organization, with a partisan political action committee is ludicrous. The links I provided denote a significant amount of attention being paid to the claims of Obama's campaign commercials. Trilemma (talk) 23:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read Loonymonkey's whole answer. S/he gave several clear arguments in respond to your question. --Floridianed (talk) 00:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Floridianed, I did read the whole answer. The analysis of the commercials is a very relevant topic of the campaign. Campaign commercials are almost always important aspects of campaigns that warrant inclusion. When a commercial receives broad condemnation from a variety of notable sources, it's especially pertinent. Please note the links I have included. Trilemma (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Campaign finance

Currently, an editor is pushing a version that refers to people objecting to Obama's renouncing his campaign finance promise as "critics." This is inaccurate. Allies such as Russ Feingold, and non-partisan pro campaign finance reform groups, hardly Obama "critics", have condemned the decision. I provided links to said statements. The current edit is deceptive. Trilemma (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, if this is uncontested, then I will make the edit as soon as tomorrow. Trilemma (talk) 04:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not uncontested, but it's about to become a moot point as we will be consolidating the entire "Issues and stances" section into a single paragraph with a link to the main article (it has become a content fork of Political positions of Barack Obama.) See above talk section. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The action of going back on his pledge to take public financing is not a position. It doesn't belong in a political positions article, but rather in this article, and the current edit is misleading. Trilemma (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I've changed "Critics" to "Critics of the decision". That should eliminate confusion. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 22:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly an improvement but given the widespread condemnation and the volume of attention this received, it'd still be a good idea to include a pertinent quote or two. Trilemma (talk) 22:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph looks fairly balanced to me. There's substantial support for as well as opposition to the decision. I remember hearing on XM's POTUS '08 channel (which does 24/7 coverage of the election) that one of the creators of the public financing system, for example, praised Obama's decision. The article as it stands appears to clearly lay out both the supporting and opposing positions. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 23:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

My objection, though, is that this doesn't give the proper scale to the depth of support and opposition. The two major pro-campaign finance reform groups both condemned it. Feingold condemned it. Virtually every major newspaper condemned it. Biden said it would be harder to get public financing legislation passed now. The depth of condemnation of the decision warrants a broader detail.Trilemma (talk) 13:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Welfare reform

I recently added this to the article:

"Although Obama had long been an opponent of welfare reform, on June 30, 2008, he said he now favors it. "

But someone took it out, saying it's not a current issue.

However, the fact that Obama is shifting to the right, right after winning the primary, is a current issue. So I think it should be in the article.

Grundle2600 (talk) 19:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like we're going to be slashing the issues section down drasically and linking to the Obama issues page. As I noted in my response to your comment on my user page, the Welfare issue is not one that appears to be relevant to this year's election. In other words, what Obama thinks of Clinton administration welfare policies implemented over a decade ago is not relevant, particularly in an article that has too much issue stuff in it to begin with. Your point seems to be more about a media perception of an Obama rightward shift, not about the particular relevance of the welfare issue itself. In my opinion, an editor could start a small section on this shift to the center and give examples, but we'd have to be careful to make sure it didn't turn into some kind of POV attack section. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed compromise text for the campaign finance section

Because I feel that the current version fails to demonstrate the scope of backlash over Obama's decision on campaign financing, I'm proposing a compromise text:

Fundraising

See also: Fundraising for the 2008 United States presidential election

On June 19, Obama became the first major-party presidential candidate to turn down public financing since the system was created after the Watergate scandal. Obama was expected to raise $265 million between the time of the announcement and election day. By rejecting the funds in favor of private donations, the campaign set itself in a position to outspend John McCain prior to the election. Had he signed on to the plan, he would only have been able to spend $84.1 million over the period between the party convention in August and the general election in November.

Obama explained his decision to opt out of the public financing system, saying, "public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who've become masters at gaming this broken system." The decision was condemned by many high profile newspapers, including the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Boston Globe, USA Today, and the Washington Post, which said, “effort to cloak (Obama's) broken promise in the smug mantle of selfless dedication to the public good is a little hard to take.”, as well as campaign finance proponents Russ Feingold and Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer, who said that the move harmed the effort to achieve public financing of campaigns. Critics also said that Obama's campaign was receiving as much support from unregulated 527 groups as McCain's.

A quote from a pertinent defender of Obama could also be included above. But the material above is necessary in order to give readers a better understanding of the scope of condemnation of the decision. Currently, the article is vague and incomplete.Trilemma (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you make that version a little more one-sided? Maybe some quotations from the National Review would help. — goethean ॐ 19:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The support or criticism of that issue isn't the big news. Of course everything a presidential candidate does on every front gets criticized by his critics and defended by his defenders. The real issue here is the underlying decision and its impact on this campaign and the future (as it emerges) of campaigning. This article is primarily about the campaign itself, not about pundits and partisans commenting about the campaign. Wikidemo (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo, this isn't conservative pundits. This is the editorial board of the most major news publications in the United States, along with other independent sources. This current version fails to give proper weight to the controversy. Trilemma (talk) 00:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not whether the pundits are conservative or liberal but that it's punditry, which isn't all that helpful. The long view of what this means for the election and the future of politics is a lot more interesting than the sparring and the existence of criticism, and whether this makes Obama look bad or gives his opponents some point to attack him on. Wikidemo (talk) 00:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Going out of one's way to indicate who is fundraising for a candidate is an irrelevant and POV exercise. I note that the fundraising section on the McCain campaign page does not indicate that Carl Icahn and Donald Trump are among those who raised $100,000 apiece in bundled contributions (nor should it). Individual donors/bundlers are not noteworthy for this page, unless there is some kind of scandal or major story. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 00:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Obama has shifted to the right on (at least 12) important issues

Obama has shifted to the right on unwarranted wiretapping, Israel, free trade, gun control, the death penalty, faith based programs, welfare reform, the Iraq war, abortion, the Patriot Act, campaign finance, and the Cuban embargo. List of sources Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? Grundle2600 (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The direct observation that he has done so is synthesis and analysis. However, if we can find enough reliable secondary sources that give substantial, credible descriptions of this phenomenon it is worth mentioning. It's a universal fact of campaigns - covered in the academic theory and literature, by pundits, and by newspapers - that candidates shift towards the center after the primaries. That Obama is part of this migration isn't earth shaking news but if the reliable sources find it notable and relevant enough to mention in their publications, we should too. That's likely going to emerge much stronger after the conventions.Wikidemo (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It's still developing, but the coverage over Obama's apparent shift in philosophy has been pretty significant and probably warrants inclusion in the article. I agree that finding worthy sources is paramount. Trilemma (talk) 00:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It's doubtful that this will develop into a genuine issue for the Obama campaign. Every campaign starts on the left (or right in the case of Republicans) and then gravitates towards the center for the general election. This is true of both candidates in this election as well as the candidates in pretty much every presidential election in recent history. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd welcome some more voices on this, but as this continues to unfold, I think it does warrant some form of inclusion. We've seen a vocal backlash on Obama's website, on other generally Democrat-leaning websites, etc. The reason this is a bigger issue, worth mentioning, and beyond the normal realm of political shifting is that there are many people arguing that this undermines the entire message of the Obama campaign. I don't mean to editorialize or push a POV, I'm just reporting what has been widely talked about in political circles. Trilemma (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, it appears true that most presidential candidates move to the center and that this is not huge news; moreover, most of these so-called moves appear to be a matter of emphasis rather than true changes on position. The organizing on Obama's website that Trilemma mentioned, however, appears unique and may be worth mentioning. It appears to be focused on the telecommunications bill rather than all of these issues. The fact that a large group has organized on a candidate's website in an attempt to influence a candidate's position on an issue does appear newsworthy to me and could be worth a mention, as long as it's brief and NPOV. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Something like this should only be added if accompanied by citations from reputable, neutral sources. Opinion is not NPOV.

Here is another source: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080703/D91MKQ681.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.243.53 (talk) 02:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama v. McCain charts in battleground states

Keep or Delete?

Using Wikipedia data from a related article Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2008 and Excel, I crunched the numbers in states where the lead in the polls for any one candidate is close or has shown signs of swinging back and forth between Obama and McCain. At this point, I've selected Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Virginia, Indiana and Missouri for additional analysis using charts and trendlines. I believe that these seven states are, as it happens, a good representative example, because three of the states are currently leaning toward Obama (Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania), three are currently leaning toward McCain (Florida, Indiana and Missouri) and Virginia is virtually tied. Incidentally, between these seven states, there are 120 electoral votes at stake, which represents 44% of the total (270) needed to secure the nomination. In most of the states, there are still at least about 10% of the voters with no opinion yet between the two candidates (or are supporting a third candidate). Your thoughts, suggestions and general input are greatly appreciated. If time is available, I will work to create these charts in the more visually friendly PNG format.--Robapalooza (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that classifying these seven states as the "battleground states" is your POV. The charts take up too much room for the amount of information they convey, and a simple paragraph or two of text or a composite 50-state map of the polling would be much more useful. johnpseudo 16:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought the charts we're interesting; however, I agree that they are a little too much for the scope of this article. There could be a spinoff article on polling. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of a spinoff article tracking the opinion polling. This is a fairly significant detail that receives a lot of attention in academic circles. Not only will there be tons of RS polls, but in the coming years, there will be significant RS scholarly articles and books written tracking and analyzing the polls. In regards to 'battleground states' being POV, I think we can find numerous RS' that agree on which states are battleground areas. It's virtually universally agreed that OH, MI, and VA are going to be battleground states. PA and FL are usually included, too.Trilemma (talk) 13:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Those states are easy to classify. The difficulty comes when attempting to classify states like OR, AK (unless McCain takes Sarah Palin as his running mate), CO and the Carolinas. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 13:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

For now, I've undeleted the cut. I've also updated the charts and analysis based on recent data. Actually, I don't think the selection of these seven states represents my POV, because I obtained the list from other Wikipedia articles. I selected the term "battleground," because it is readily understood. Just so you know, these seven states are the largest (from an electoral college and population standpoint) battleground states. Also, these seven represent the most "even" in terms of polling numbers so far (from February to present). While some smaller states could be added to the list, I think most eyes will be on these seven with a few others (like Colorado, which seems to be getting a lot of attention since the Democratic Convention will be held there). In any event, I had to stop somewhere, because I didn't want to do 50 charts, and I thought these seven were representative. That said, I'm open to suggestions, additions, reasonable deletions, corrections, etc. A 50-state map of the polling exists here: [14]. --Robapalooza (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that first of all, the section takes up far too much weight in the article, but beyond that it has some serious issues. For starters, none of this stuff is sourced, except by pointing to other wikipedia articles (which is not allowed). Further, much of it seems to be unverifiable and based on original research. Where did these charts come from? How are we to know they are accurate? Who made the decision what data to use and how? I really appreciate your efforts on this, Robopalooza, but unfortunately I think we should lose the entire section. Since these charts have never been published by a reliable source, we cannot use them here. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Many of these issues could be solved with the creation of a spinoff article detailing the polls. Polls for all 50 states could be included, along with a section on RS coverage of swing states. This way, size wouldn't be an issue on this page or on the McCain campaign page. Trilemma (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep. I entirely disagree with the wholesale deletion of this section. My contribution was meant to be a starting point for further development by other Wikipedians in the collaborative spirit of this site. I think this section elevates the intellectual level of the article without being biased for at least the reasons noted below. I'll deal with of the each issues raised above in turn.

(1) Weight. I think the weight given to discussion of these seven states is highly appropriate for this highly topical article. This article is about the Obama presidential campaign. Obama's campaign, to be successful, will likely be decided in the battleground states. Specifically, what happens in Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Virginia, Indiana and Missouri will, basically, decide the election. This is because, as I noted above, in these seven states, there are 120 electoral votes at stake, which represents 44% of the total (270) needed to secure the nomination, and because the polling is very, very close in these states. These states also represent the largest states in which the polling is close. Sure, it would be great to discuss the race in California and Texas, but it's just not as likely that these states are going to determine the outcome, because, in California and Texas, Obama and McCain have huge leads in the polls, respectively. It is important to discuss these states in detail in order to have a better understanding of this election. I'm not saying that the text that I proposed for each state is perfect or couldn't be improved with additional quotations or references (it can and will be as time goes on), but I started with verifible, factual information and was hoping that others would add to the sections for each state. If there are other states that deserve to be included or some that should be excluded, let's talk about that in a deliberative manner, but I think the mass deletion was and is inappropriate. Maybe I need to add additional content myself to round out the discussion of the race in each key state, and I will try to do so, if I have time.

(1)(a) I just wanted to point out that, if the size of the charts is a problem, we could just point readers to the Wiki article containing the Charts of polling data in battleground states.--Robapalooza (talk) 02:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

(2) Verifiability. The entire content is carefully and thoroughly verified through the polling data summarized at Wikipedia's site on statewide polling. If you want complete citations, go to that article. I don't think it's necessary to repeat all the refs from that article, in fact, to do so would be redundant, but, if I'm wrong, let me know. I've never heard that is is wrong to use Wikipedia content that is itself sourced. If there is some sort of prohibition against this, then it would be necessary to duplicate all the refs in the other Wiki article, which is possible.

(3) Original Research. There is absolutely zero original research in this section.

(4) Accuracy. The data for the charts comes from the above-referenced article, which is completely sourced. If you think the data in the charts is wrong, check it against the actual polls. If there are errors, please let me know, and I'll gladly fix the errors.

(5) What Data to Use. Wikipedians decided what data to include in the summary of statewide polling data posted in Wikipedia. As discussed in some detail in the article and its discussion pages, only scientific, statewide opinion polls are used. If data makes it past the editors and is posted on the article, then it is included in the chart. I think the charts allow a reader to summarize a massive amount of information in a short period of time and elevate the discussion beyond mere conjecture as to which states are going to be important to the candidates. Also, trendlines and changes in momentum are interesting to observe (take a look at Michigan for example). For at least these reasons, I think we should keep the charts. That said, as always, I am open to hearing more of your thoughts on the matter.Robapalooza (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a stylistic note--can you throw in paragraph breaks next time? That massive block is a bit of an eyesore ;) Trilemma (talk) 22:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I realize that discussing California and Texas is a problem, however, I'm not sure the choice of "battleground" states is the best one. It seems that seven of the eleven battleground states were chosen, and they all happen to be on the eastern side of the United States. It appears to me that the "battleground" states are these seven plus Colorado, Nevada, Montana and New Mexico (correct me if I'm wrong). So why not add these four states? They all seem to be within four percent of even, and this wouldn't upset the balance either (NM is leaning toward Obama, MT is leaning McCain and CO and NV are about even). I understand that articles must sometimes be shortened, and that it may not be possible to cover every swing state, but currently it seems to be done in a geographically discriminate way. If eleven states is too many, maybe we could remove state(s) like MO and PA which are leaning a certain way and add state(s) like CO and NV which are closer? 129.24.47.34 (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

(editConflict) This is a lot to respond to, and unfortunately I don't have time to go through it point by point today. I do want to quickly say a couple of things, though. First, I was not suggesting any bias or tendentiousness on your part, Robapalooza. I really appreciate your hard work on crunching these numbers and creating these charts. However, it does veer into some very questionable territory, particularly in that these moving averages and such are the result of your own research (synthesizing the raw data from the other article). There isn't a reliable third-party source that tells us what these trends are. Also, using other Wikipedia pages as references is not allowed (otherwise what would stop editors of that page from pointing back here as a reference?) Please see this article for a more detailed explanation. I'm not going to remove the charts again while we're discussing it, I'm just going to try to get concensus. I am going to put the unreferenced section tag back though, as there aren't any reliable third-party sources cited. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Would citations to the original polls be sufficient?--Robapalooza (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

[line break] I have some concerns too: Even if the polls themselves are reliable, they're presented together in a way that may violate WP:SYNTH. The lines on the charts connect data points sourced to different polls that use different methodologies. When the data points from these polls are set directly adjacent to one another and connected by a bold red line, it can give the reader a grossly misleading impression of the data. Did Barack Obama really move from a 5-point advantage in Florida on June 17 (ARG) to an 8-point deficit on the 18th (Rasmussen)? I would feel less concerned about the charts if they simply parotted RCP's methodology or that of some other prominent RS, or if they were simple X-Y scatter plots, or if you separated out the data for each pollster (tracking all Rasmussen results together, all Quinnipiac results together, and all SUSA results together). As is, these charts might be a violation of WP:SYNTH, in that they take multiple reliable sources and compile them to advance a position (the trend lines) that isn't contained any single source. Also: (1) I can't see the three-point moving average line; and (2) If these charts stay in any form, then their source data needs to be immediately accessible from this article. I can't think of any interpretation of WP:V that allows for sources to be cordoned off in other articles. "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." (It's no real problem; just put the polls in really big footnotes.) Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

So, in your opinion, if the trendlines and 3 day moving averages are removed, and if direct citations are added, then these charts might be acceptable? As to the argument regarding WP:SYNTH, it is not at all uncommon to aggregate public opinions into a single chart, see for example [15]. I think separate charts for each pollster would get incredibly cumbersome, but it may be possible to use a different icon for each pollster (again see, e.g., [16]). While I appreciate the thought behind the concern of different methodologies, I think any differences are smoothed out over time. In fact, the chart is probably more accurate than any one poll due to inherent bias (in methodology, and more overt sources) from one polling company to another. --Robapalooza (talk) 02:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in my opinion these charts would be acceptable if the lines on the charts were removed and direct citations were added. I agree that separating out the pollsters into different charts would be too cumbersome, so different shaped and colored points would be helpful, following the lead of the site you've linked to. Also: The methodology of the 50-state map should be explained in a footnote. (Viz., "Data is averaged from at least last three poll results according to en:Statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008, with Washington DC presumed heavy Democrat. If there are more than 3 polls in the past 45 days of the latest poll, then these are averaged.") I raised my eyebrow skeptically at the map initially, but became satisfied once I read how the map was constructed. I'm sure other readers feel the same way. Also: These charts are getting to be real screen-hogs, hence the WP:WEIGHT braggadocio. You'll need to convey this information in less space. A few suggestions: (1) Remove the titles (the reader already knows he's looking at Florida polling; you've just told him in the subheading); and (2) Since the legend is the same for all the charts (BHO blue, JSM red, etc.), you could place it in a single, separate box, so that one legend can serve all seven charts. It might be worthwhile to ditch the charts altogether, and simply give the data in tables (With a somewhat more sensible construction than that used in the source. Instead of listing Democrat: Barack Obama/Barack Obama/Barack Obama/Barack Obama, wouldn't it be simpler to put a small blue "D" and a small red "R" at the head of the columns listing their respective percentages? And why give "2008" in the "Administered" box, when all the "Administered" dates are in 2008?) Geuiwogbil (Talk) 03:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll do what I can to do all this. Any help would be greatly appreciated. I've posted my .xls file used to create the charts here: [17]. Please feel free to tinker and improve.--Robapalooza (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

One more observation: Some of the concerns raised here are addressed in an intelligent manner (my opinion) at this website: [18]. In other words, at the end of the day, these are merely opinion polls, and a certain amount of caution is prudent. Obviously, in the present context (an encyclopedia), the nature of the present article (an event in progress) may run counter to the "usual" rules of Wikipedia. In other words, this article will be a work in progress until November and thereafter, when this entire article will be rewritten with the benefit of hindsight. Until then, I think it's appropriate to be focused on content such as it is between now and November 2008. I'm not saying we should abandon all Wikipedia standards, and I'm definitely open to ideas for improvement of the charts and content, but I think we should allow for a bit of "boldness" and experimentation given the type of article that this is.--Robapalooza (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Long term separate article for media campaign

Projecting into the long term, I think it may be a good idea to have separate articles for Obama(and McCain)'s media campaigns. It would provide an opportunity to have a more fully encyclopedic collection of advertisements, radio, television, internet, etc. that would provide a great reference for years to come. Trilemma (talk) 16:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Since nobody reacted to your comment I assume there is no interest (and agreement) on this topic but I would like to give you my opinion on this.

In the long term most of the as you call it "collection of advertisements, radio, television, internet, etc." will be forgotten as a non-issue. What will matter then ("in the years to come") is a summary of those events; anything more would be some kind of trivia that readers with specific interest can find on their own via Google and else.

To come to my point: There will be rare interest in this about both major candidates after November and therefore there is no need to create two more (collection-) articles which in my opinion won't get a big hit rate anyway. --Floridianed (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Vice President

There's no information about any contenders for his running mate. 87.194.131.188 (talk) Jooler (talk) 07:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That information will be rapidly changing, and soon obsolete, once he actually does choose a running mate. I'm wondering if it's a good idea at all to report on it, or whether we should simply say who the running mate is once it's been decided. Wikidemo (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I've always favored waiting until there is concrete information. Reporting every rumor as it arises gets into WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS issues. The fact is, there is no verifiable information right now, just speculation, and anything we add will just have to be changed or removed in a couple months anyway. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There's no use or appropriateness in including speculation. Within a month we'll know who he chooses anyway, so have patience ;). Trilemma (talk) 13:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the article should explicitly say that he hasn't chosen one yet. At the moment there's no mention of the office of Vice President until the final para about upcoming debates. Jooler (talk) 07:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Vote: Which chart is better?

The chart on the left-hand side is currently being used. It includes solid lines that link each poll, a straight dashed line that is a simple linear trendline (half the results fall above the linear trendline, half the results fall below the trendline, and the trendline itself is an average at any given point in time), and the moving light colored line is a three period moving average (a simple average of the three most recent polls). Some have suggested that the chart on the left contains original research and may be violation of various Wikipedia policies. I disagree. The chart on the right is a simple summary of the polling data presented at Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election,_2008#Florida without any of the trendlines noted above.--Robapalooza (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Here's a compromise position, which might be easier to read than the chart above, at left.--Robapalooza (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahem. Polling is Evil. Beyond that, I do like the second and would be willing to compromise on the third. Some further concerns, mostly related to the fact that these graphs are unreadable at anything smaller than 500px, making them unacceptable screen-hogs: (1) I think the titles ("Florida - 27 Electoral Votes (10% of 270 needed)") are unnecessary and take up too much space; (2) I think the labels on the axes (0%, 5%, 10%, etc.; and 02/02/08, 03/01/08. 03/29/08, etc.) are too small and too condensed for the average reader, and should be enlarged and trimmed (perhaps 0%, 10%, etc.? These charts are really too big, hence others' WP:WEIGHT concerns.); (3) I think the grid is too dense. Also: Does any reliable source (in political polling) actually use a linear trend line in cases like this? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 00:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'm the first to admit that polling is no substitute for actual substantive content, but I also think statewide polling in key states is particularly important to the subject at hand. I'll work on making the charts more legible at smaller sizes. I'm open to cleaning up the titles, but I like the electoral vote information, because it shows the relative "importance" (for lack of a better term) of each state in question. The labels and dates can be easily fixed. The charts can be reduced in size, but that risks legibility. On the other hand, if a reader is willing to "drill down" to a more legible size, that works, too. In picking 500px, I tried to strike a balance. I'll play with other sizes once the text has been rendered more legible. The density of grilines is easily fixed. As for whether linear trendlines are used, I did some quick research. Electoral vote simply connects one poll to the next: [19]. Pollster.com and realclearpolitics.com use a moving average: [20] [21]. In my humble opinion, the value in the linear trendline is that it is relatively unbiased and averages the results. So, if one pollster or pollster's methodology is biased, the trendline should flatten that bias (unless they're all biased, which is quite possible). --Robapalooza (talk) 22:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I've created a new type of chart based on your suggestions. Your feedback, as always, is welcome. Here's a sample of the new chart in 500px, 400px, 300px formats:
This size is used in this and other articles.
A compromise size?
Hmmm, small but still legible by my eyes.
--Robapalooza (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If I remember right there was a discussion about your charts before in which was mentioned that they're using to much space, needed to be updated constantly [guess I said that] and a suggestion to make a sub-page for them (what I'm in favor for). Furthermore there is the question of which states to include. --Floridianed (talk) 02:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of the need to update, these charts are getting old. I like all the work that's been done though; great job! The references need better formatting, however, as they're chewing away at space like suburban pythons. I'll see what I can do to clamp down on their weighty masses. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 23:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the second as a compromise size, but I'd like to hear other voices before taking a position on the issue. Also: You make a good point on the EV values of the states, but I think they'd be a bit if included on the charts themselves. Maybe you could begin each state's section with a segment noting the state's EV count, along the lines of "In Florida, which has 27 electoral votes [link]," or some variant thereof. Also: There's still an unpleasant redundancy (and space consumption) in having a large "Florida" on the chart immediately beneath a large "Florida" in the section heading. I advise cutting the chart title (or at least making a variant for this page that doesn't include it.) Geuiwogbil (Talk) 23:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Also: The references need date tags. I might do this myself (Whee! Data entry!) if I find the time. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 23:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Again- there are too many problems with these charts for their inclusion. They are biased in their choice of states, they make maintenance difficult, they take up way too much space, and they simply aren't an efficient method of communicating the message that is appropriate for this article. The readers of this article don't need to know the results of every poll taken in every battleground state. They need to know overarching themes and events. These charts should be kept off of this page. johnpseudo 14:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Jonspseudo. If a reader is interested in "Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008," then that reader is probably interested in knowing how well Obama is doing in the race. I respectfully submit that how Obama does in Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Virginia, Indiana and Missouri will be highly determinative of whether he wins the overall election in November.--Robapalooza (talk) 01:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

visit to Iraq/Middle East

shouldnt there be a page on his visits?Tehw1k1 (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hard to say. Are the visits themselves a notable subject best treated in their own article? They're a relatively minor part of this page and don't merit a whole long section, so if there's that much encyclopedic content about them and it's worth treating I would put them in their own article. If the subject is ephemeral, newsy, etc., then it's probably worth only a short mention here. I would use the test of thinking about whether it would be interesting to a reader five years from now, or even one. Wikidemo (talk) 00:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

His trip is notable and important, NOW. Creating a new page for it that would become a useless sub no later than after the election makes no sense at all to me. I agree with Wikidemo on his last sentence in his comment above. --Floridianed (talk) 02:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Mideast speech

For what it's worth, I think a longish direct quote of a political speech is out of place here. The speech may have been notable but the quotation is not. It's more of a data dump. It's not a original research question but more of a primary source question. A video is allowable as a source (though not as useful as a transcript - there seem to be 22,000 citations available if you want that[22]). But we use summary style here instead of repeating politicians' speeches. Just what about this speech is notable and why should we have it here? Say that, cite it to a source, make sure it's appropriate weight, and now you're talking. Wikidemo (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree. There isn't any reason for that specific quote and it doesn't even summarize any of the major themes of that speech. If we're going to use a quote at all, we should simply pull one of the short quotes from the WP:RS sources that reported on it (not from a video or transcript). Note also that the editor who added it originally wrote it to falsely claim that Obama called for a "New World Order" and that the same editor has been involved in Obama-related vandalism on other pages, see [23] and [24] --Loonymonkey (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yawn. Agree. I've cut the quotation. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 17:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Also: The quotation was from Obama's speech in Berlin. Also: The whole section is woefully undercited. Where will readers go if they want the details? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 17:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Fight the Smears

If information about the Counter-campaign is going to be in this article, then information that is relevant about the activities of the campain belong here as well. A reliable source noted that the first post on the "fight the smears" site was, in fact, guilty of falsely smearing Limbaugh. This was not an attempt to Soapbox or Tenditious editing. If its a wording issue, fix it, dont delete it. CENSEI (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. It's undue weight - the main issue is the counter-campaign, and trying to poke holes in it by including an entire sentence to point out an apparent mistake is out of proportion. You've just reverted content that you tried to add that was disputed - this article is included in the article probation order. You're on notice of article probation on Obama-related articles. Do we have to add a notice so people won't get into revert wars? Wikidemo (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

One sentence makes an entire section, that’s a bit of a stretch? There is no undue weigh with pointing out a factual error in the Fight The Smears campaign, especially when others have done so. But if surcing is the issue, how many sources would this be required to have in order for you to consider this notable enough for inclusion? One revert does not a revert war make. I have explained me edit here on talk. CENSEI (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a disputed addition of contentious material in a field that has article probation. It's not a matter of the number of sources - the subject matter is trivial. The way it reads creates a misapprehension about the subject by suggesting that this is a major flaw in the countercampaign. Wikidemo (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I just checked the sources. They don't support the claim that there was an inaccuracy in fightthesmears. So we've got zero sourcs so far. The material should go, if nothing else for being unverified and seemingly not true. Wikidemo (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

In other words, nothing can be added to the article if another editor disputes it? I would disagree on the # of sources. No matter how trivial you might think something is, if enough reliable sources think otherwise, it ceases to be trivial. If you or anyone else objects to the wording fix it. The sources are accurately, IMO, represented here.CENSEI (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You might want to review WP:BRD on how consensus is supposed to work but you've got it right, basically. If people object to your addition of material it stays out until you get consensus. "fixing" it is to remove the material. The basic set-up is Rush badmouthed Obama's wife over a supposed secret "whitey" tape. Obama called Rush out on it. Rush and his defenders said Rush didn't claim the tape actually existed, he said only that there are rumors of such a tape. So the accusation against Obama looks like total spin, and boils down to Obama saying that Rush claimed something bad about OBama's wife when Rush was only spreading bad rumors about OBbama's wife. The difference between "you said it" and "no, I just implied it" is not a worthy subject to spend more than 1/3 of the section on the countercampaign detailing one supposed error that's not actually an error. It's nothing but spin to carry Rush's spin on this here in the Obama article. Wikidemo (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to move polling charts to a separate article

The battleground states polling charts are in both this article, Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 and John McCain presidential campaign, 2008.
What a surprise.
It's time to take these enormous graphics out of the article, and put them in a suitable location which both of these campaign articles would link to. I propose something like U.S. presidential election 2008 polling charts in battleground states.
Comments, amendments, suggestions, complaints, counter-proposals below. I propose the same at the McCain campaign article talk pages.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Discussion

Approve

• Favor the idea as the proposer -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• Favor the idea, as was similarly done with the corresponding McCain article. --Amwestover (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

---

Wikipedia works by consensus. I agree with your suggestion, and I think having amateurish graphs taking up half the article makes the article unencyclopedic. We can express opinion poll shifts in paragraph form. That would make the information much easier to digest and much easier to update. johnpseudo 18:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Johnpseudo, the proposal was to, and I quote, "take these enormous graphics out of the article, and put them in a suitable location which both of these campaign articles would link to" [emphasis mine]. If you really agreed with your Yellowdesk, as you say you do, you would actually create U.S. presidential election 2008 polling charts in battleground states and move the charts into it. If you don't intend to do that, you're acting unilaterally. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 18:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not stopping anybody from doing that. The important thing to me was to get them off of this page. Feel free, be bold, go ahead. johnpseudo 18:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Controversy Relevence

I sincerly suggest that the "Controversies" section be placed under his career rather than campaign as they have NO direct relevance other than distant relation 1 donor of 8 million from a 200 million surplus. Why is this even relevant? Furthermore, the earmark section comes from 1 article of "conservative" origin, of which they state themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.181.248.152 (talk) 01:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Poster

I propose inclusion of this campaign poster with the article. What do others think?

campaign poster

VP debate moderator wrote pro-Obama book which is being released on January 20, 2009

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

closed because identical post / edit / discussion taking place at Talk:United States presidential election debates, 2008 - Wikidemon (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I added this to the article, but someone erased it:

Gwen Ifill, the scheduled moderator of the October 2, 2008 vice presidential debate, wrote a pro-Obama book called "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," which is being released on January 20, 2009.

Grundle2600 (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Campaign Racism

I believe this campaign has developed a racist tone with the new association with Bill Ayers. In many McCain/Palin rallies, there supporters that are calling Obama a terrorist and saying that because of his African roots that he is somehow a terrorist. I think when all is said and done, the racist tone that this campaign has taken will be remembered and should be included when writing about this campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.60.23 (talk) 01:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This campaign will probably be known for its general bigotry rather than just the racism. There is racism, ageism, misogyny, class warfare, the list goes on... and it's mostly bullshit. This article should stick to the campaign, and not original research of Wikipedia contributors and politically biased analysts. Just the facts, ma'am. --Amwestover (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Include info about Andy Martin, the man behind the anti-Obama smear campaign

Somebody ought to include some of the information from today's front-page New York Times article about him, such as the recent Fox News special about (that is, against) Obama--and yes, I have posted this same comment in the Talk page of the article about his campaign, so that you can collectively decide if the information about Andy Martin should be in which article, and where. Here's the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/us/politics/13martin.html?scp=1&sq=andy%20martin&st=cse
68.174.101.64 (talk) 10:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is the disambiguated link to Andy Martin's page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Martin_(U.S._politician) so of course, his name should be scripted as Andy Martin
68.174.101.64 (talk) 10:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Fundraising (October)

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please add: On 19 October 2008, Obama's campaign announced a record fundraising total of $150 million for September 2008. This exceeded the campaign's single-month record ($66 million) for August 2008.

Citation: Wall Street Journal, 19 October 2008, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122441294251948009.html?mod=googlenews_wsj—Preceding unsigned comment added by Adsypads (talk • contribs) 00:46, 22 October 2008

Done--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} PLEASE ADD THE FULL STORY INSTEAD: On 19 October 2008, Obama's campaign announced a record fundraising total of $150 million for September 2008. This exceeded the campaign's single-month record ($66 million) for August 2008. This money was collected in violation of Federal campaign laws regarding the security and verification of people doing the donating. The Republican party has filed an official complaint agains Obama's campaign for its failure to collect funds within legal means. The Obama campaign has disabled the default AVS credit card verification systems and CVV/CVS security code checks, as well as allowing donations from outside the US with no verification that the donators are legal US Citizens. Obama has already had to return large amounts of suspect donations in earlier portions of the campaign. Direct analysis of the Obama campaign's FEC filings has shown that many fraudulent names and filings have given the Obama campaign donations far above the legal limits, and multiple names have been used to donate from single credit cards.

Citations: http://www.gop.com/News/NewsRead.aspx?Guid=9a39321d-4842-446f-ac9a-25fa32eb5911 http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDljNTdjMTgxNDFjNWRiZTNlMzIzMTMzMGM5NDJlMTA= http://www.thenextright.com/patrick-ruffini/exclusive-barackobamacoms-lax-security-opens-door-to-online-donor-fraud http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/23/john-galt-donating-to-obama-this-year-too-apparently/ http://www.newsweek.com/id/162403—Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.75.203 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Done I was able to add information from the gop.com and newsweek.com sources. If you can find some more reliable sources to substantiate the claims in the three blog sources you provided, I'll be happy to add those. Also, please don't strikethrough comments which are not yours. Thanks!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 00:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I reverted - it's partisan material, and lacking consensus. I my edit summary I did not notice that the poor sourcing had been mostly eliminated - thanks for that (though citing the GOP website for what the GOP shows is a primary source that has some issues with establishing notability). I didn't respond here because I did not think anyone took the request seriously. Newsweek is a reliable source but this is a vignette of something that always happens in campaigns and is not notable. A website allows click-to-donate submissions, and a certain portion of those are bad donations. When the campaign finds out it returns them. That's run-of-the-mill stuff and not a notable fact of this election. If there are sufficient sources to show that the GOP or McCain campaign have made a significant campaign issue out of this on the scale of others covered here, it might merit inclusion for that reason, but due WP:WEIGHT would have to be shown. Wikidemon (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I partially reverted and added more sources. And does notability apply to the article only or also to details? The RNC is a reliable source for what it says, and there are other sources which state that the RNC filed a complaint. One source says Democratic lawyers also filed a complaint but not which D group to search for that info. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like partisan politicking, not encyclopedic material. Is there any consensus for adding it? Saying that some people ($17K, a trivial amount) use made-up names to donate does not seem notable. There is no support that this is a "problem" for the Obama campaign versus a random typical fundraising matter. "Notability" is shorthand for a more complex concept - the material is not relevant enough to the subject of the article and of sufficient weight, as evidenced by the extent of coverage of the thing (as opposed to partisan politicking about the thing) in reliable sources, and logically, to merit inclusion. Overall it looks like a rather weak and tangential republican campaign parry, not a real issue in the campaign.Wikidemon (talk) 09:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

More Fundraising

Obama Accepting Untraceable Donations

Contributions Reviewed After Deposits

By Matthew Mosk

Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, October 29, 2008; A02

Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor's identity, campaign officials confirmed.

Seems important ... now how do we get it into the article? What especially notable, as the article goes onto to mention is that the campaign’s excuse that they screen the donors afterwards is pure poppy cock because its several orders of magnitude more difficult to do this rather than to turn on the verification software. Dodad Pro (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• This story seems Hot. Dodad Pro (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I found this interesting as well, good anecdotal point:

Mr A Hitler of Berlin, Germany is only the most obvious fake donor to make a contribution and receive shortly afterwards a Wilkommen, Bienvenue, Welcome email thanking him for joining the active community of community activists.

Dodad Pro (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the second Mosk article on the topic; I think the first one is already references at the end of the "Fundraising" section. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I have condensed and removed some of this section after my tags / questions went unanswered for several days. The sources say that screening invalid donations is an issue for both campaigns, and that the criticism of Obama came mainly from conservative blogs/critics. The claim that this is a "problem" for the Obama campaign or that "some" donations were a problem was not really sourced, and was linked to an article that gave two examples and did not attempt to explain the prevalence, so the claims were weakly sourced and of undue weight. This does not look like any real scandal, just part of the mechanics of fundraising. It is probably worth a mention, in a neutral way, that the campaign like the McCain campaign deals with this as a regular issue. Each party regularly asks for investigations of the other, so nothing particularly notable there.Wikidemon (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Infomercial

Is the infomercial that aired on multiple TV channels on October 29 notable enough for inclusion? —MicahBrwn (talk) 03:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Fight the smears but no discussion of the smears?

Uh yeah... It seems like we've completely removed them from this article. Which isn't that great. For example, over on the Fox News controversies article we link to this page for a further debunking of the whole madrassa allegation but then we don't have it here. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Category- Future Elections

When is it appropriate to remove the "Future Candidates" category? Quite soon, I would think. KConWiki (talk) 05:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be removed as the election is over and uncontested by the Republicans. The template has already been removed from the McCain 2008 election page. Copana2002 (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Where to put transition team info and announcement news

Whare to put transition news and items? In Presidential transition of Barack Obama
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

"Status" in info box topic at McCain's campaign article

There is a discussion going on at Talk:John McCain presidential campaign, 2008[25] that would affect this page too. You might want to take a look over there and maybe comment on the discussion to prevent another thread about the same topic here (which could emerge at some point).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Broken Reference Links

References numbers 63, 61, lower half of 60 don't go anywhere. Reference 68 is a "for purchase" article!! Reference 70 has the wrong URL (close but no cigar) 76.110.165.21 (talk) 01:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Berlin speech needs to be mentioned

To form a foreign policy reputation, Obama held a speech in Berlin and gathered more than 200,000 people. After the speech Obama said he was rather a symbol than the actual reason for the people who came. This produced some controversy and could be mentioned as well. Here are some references [26] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.99.87 (talk) 03:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Link works for me...

http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/birthcert "The truth about Barack's birth certificate," Obama for America. Retrieved 2008-06-14.

The link below works for me:

"The truth about Barack's birth certificate", Obama for America. Retrieved 2008-06-14.

--Phenylalanine (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Wording

This article uses many POV phrases that editors will edit war to keep in the article per here.

I am setting up this talkpage sub heading to discuss the merits of how "allegation" is a more NPOV term than "disparaging rumor", and how asserting that a website is "counter smear" is less POV than just labbelling it as a "website". Glen Twenty (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not a serious allegation. It's a disparaging rumor. "Smear" also works. What is notable is not that Obama was accused of all kinds of random improbable stuff that played to people's bigotry, but that there was a concerted effort to do so on the part of various parties, some affiliated with the GOP or McCain campaign, and others on their own.Wikidemon (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Since the "allegations", as you put it, have no basis in fact, the description "disparaging rumors" is apt. Moreover, the referenced source uses the term "rumor" many times, and never uses the term "allegation". Another reason the edit was reverted was the blatant original research that was added, such as "and as such not entitled to run for President". -- Scjessey (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I still contend that since the most widely known "allegation" documented on this website is that he is supposedly a Muslim, that labelling this a "disparaging rumor" is in fact incredibly offensive to the 2 billion Muslims on this planet. It is important that wikipedia follows its own manual of style and does not engage in offensive Point of view pushing. Glen Twenty (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, if that's the point then it could be reworded to avoid the implication that being accused of being a Muslim is a disparaging thing. It might take a few more words but that could be made clear. E.g. we could say that some attempted to disparage Obama by spreading the untrue rumor that he is Muslim. And we could even include one of his statements regarding the fact that being Muslim is not a negative thing.Wikidemon (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

So I take you accept that "allegation" is a more neutral phrase than "disparaging rumour"? Glen Twenty (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not an allegation. Allegation implies a certain modicum of good faith and consideration. It's a smear or a rumor, depending on whether the person repeating it did so knowing its falsity.Wikidemon (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

How about "fallacious claims"? That would accurately describe the claims in question without suggesting that any of them were objectively disparaging (though clearly a number of those making them intended them to be disparaging). --The Bruce (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Birth Certificate

Efforts to de emphasize the fact that the birth certificate shown in the article is in fact the "short form" birth certificate continue as per here. There is no valid reason to reduce the accuracy of the wikipedia by withholding valid referenced information.

It is important to note that this short form birth certificate extract is different from the "long form" birth certificate which is the subject of a supreme court challenge. Glen Twenty (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

As I have said elsewhere, there is no need for the (unsourced) qualifier. Short-form birth certificates are ubiquitous and perfectly satisfactory legal documents. My spidey-sense is detecting agenda-based editing, particularly since you mention the BS court case. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Labeling it a short form is clearly correct, and there is no need to require sourcing of the term "short form". The kinds of certificates are common knowledge to those who see birth certificates, including genealogists and millions of passport holders who had to see their own certificate. See Birth certificate for examples of the different types. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to include the terminology "short form". It is not a relevant detail, and we no more need to note it in the article than the fact that the document is printed on paper. It bears no relevance to the document itself, to Obama's presidential campaign, or anything else. It is not, as suggested above, related to any court case. Berg is apparently asking to see the original document from Hawaii's archive, not a copy of any sort (long- or short-form). His assertion appears to be that there is some sort of conspiracy and that the state government of Hawaii produced a fraudulent copy, and I can't imagine the form of that copy would have made a difference. --The Bruce (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Keyes lawsuit

I inserted the following today, but it has been removed:

In November 2008, Alan Keyes sued Obama, seeking more information about this birth issue. See“Alan Keyes, AIP leaders sue in CA court to obtain Obama citizenship proof”, The Sacramento Union (2008-11-15).

It should go without saying that mentioning a lawsuit by a very high-profile figure is not undue weight. I'm 98% sure Obama is a natural-born citizen. However, this is definitely worth a mention, especially given that this article already addresses the citizenship issue (including an image).Ferrylodge (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I would agree it is totally relevant. Glen Twenty (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)The theory that Obama is not a citizen is WP:FRINGE. Obama is a US citizen, period. There is no reliable sourcing to the contrary, and lots of sourcing about this being a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory. Second, Alan Keyes is not "very high profile". He is a failed extremely minor third party political candidate who got just over 40,000 votes in the election, mostly in California. That he was once more famous as an ambassador and darling of Reagan is not the point. He is not relevant now. Even a vastly more important figure, like Jimmy Carter, does not automatically earn a spot in every article about a current head of state every time he goes off on a tangential rant. There have been a number of frivolous lawsuits over Obama's citizenship, plus hundreds of other accusations - he's an Arab, a Muslim, not African American, a communist, a terrorist, etc. None of that is worth a hill of beans. The sourcing from this is not good, a free weekly tabloid from Sacramento that prints random screeds, mostly conservative, with little editorial regard. Any serious challenge to Obama is going to get a lot more neutral, reliable major press than that; a free weekly does not satisfy weight concerns. Further, even if this is worth reporting this is the wrong place to do it. This article is about the campaign, and the campaign is over. Further, the section in question is about Obama's anti-smear website, not his citizenship. The counter-smear campaign is the wrong section to try to establish that any of the smears are in fact true. As a final point, the material misrepresents what happened. The suit is not "seeking more information about this birth issue", it is on the face of it attempting to invalidate the election. Wikidemon (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• Further in this regard these other edits are POV pushing against consensus. The "short form" birth certificate thing[27] has been repeatedly rejected as slanted innuendo about Obama's citizenship. Calling the smears "allegations"[28] has also been rejected, and gives them undue credence. The same editors are adding this stuff in other articles too. This is an encyclopedia, not a conspiracy tabloid.Wikidemon (talk) 20:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon, you know very well that the sentence that you deleted from this article did not suggest in any way that Keyes is correct, or that any fringe theory is correct. If you look at WP:FRINGE, you'll see that it contains no prohibition on mentioning fringe theories. Even if we agree that Keyes is espousing a fringe theory, WP:FRINGE says: "Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources."

You also deny that Keyes' lawsuit is "seeking more information about this birth issue". You are obviously incorrect. After all, you know that Keyes said: "I hope the issue can be quickly clarified so that the new President can take office under no shadow of doubt. This will be good for him and for the nation.”

Keyes was the Republican nominee who Obama defeated to become a US Senator. Keyes has been in presidential debates, he was an Ambassador, and he has very high name recognition in the United States. So, I disagree with you that "He is not relevant now."

Also, please cut out the nonsense about POV pushing. Keyes' lawsuit has never before been discussed at any Wikipedia talk page. It just happened.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The lawsuit is yet another smear attack based on a fringe theory, and has no significant coverage in reliable sources. The suit is absurd, and it is not "seeking information" - the suit asks the election results to be stayed. Keyes' self-serving statements on the topic are obvious pseudo-legal PR speak and are completely unreliable as to the purpose of the suit. Typically suits contain stilted language, and argumentative PR statements are made, that the suit is just seeking a clarification, or asking the truth to come out. We cannot reasonably cover lawsuits that way. I know that covering it gives undue credence to a fringe theory. If he were relevant now, we would expect to see this suit covered on the front page of the Wall Street Journal, CNN, New York Times, etc. Who knows, it might be someday but for now it is in a free weekly tabloid. Further, shoehorning it into a section about Obama's anti-smear website is the wrong place to bring it up - it can be adequately treated in Keyes' own article. Some POV nonsense has just been edit-warred into this and other articles by a recently blocked SPA who restored your (Ferrylodge's) material about the lawsuit - calling the smears "allegations", and hyping up the "short form" birth certificates. This is no way to edit an article. The material should stay out until and unless there is consensus to include it. Wikidemon (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Plenty of reliable sources have covered the many lawsuits on this issue. See, for example:

Gonzales, Veronica. “Hampstead man's suit contests President-elect Obama's citizenship”, Wilmington Star-News (2008-11-14).

“Conn. court upholds Obama's place on ballot”, Associated Press via Hartford Courant (2008-11-03).

McLaughlin, Sheila. “Lawsuit tossed on Obama's birth site”, Cincinnati Enquirer (2008-11-01).

“Judge tosses suit over Obama's birth”, Washington Times (2008-10-26).

Holmes, Jamie. “Obama citizenship questions continue”, WPTV (2008-10-23).

You seem bound and determined to prevent this article from giving any hint or pointer that such lawsuits (including that of Keyes) exist. In the complaint that Keyes filed, he pointed out that states require more proof of citizenship to obtain a valid driver's license than to become president of the United States. When the Department of Motor Vehicles asks you for proof of citizenship, it's not because they have a fringe theory that you are an illegal alien; rather, they seek proof of citizenship merely as a precaution.

Anyway, I intend to at least insert a "see also" into this article. And Wikidemon, although others may comment about this in the future, you appear to be in the minority right now.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

In that case the material should stay out until others weigh in. One serious editor plus a tendentious SPA over the course of a couple hours obviously do not create consensus to include disputed material over another serious editor who objects, on a perennial point where there is long-term consensus across multiple articles to avoid. What kind of game is that? In a subject with hundreds of thousands to millions of sources, a stray reliable source for one peculiar event or another does not establish weight. Quite the opposite, the lack of coverage confirms their unimportance. Extraordinary claims, that America's President-elect is ineligible for office, need extraordinary sources. The Keyes lawsuit is more poorly sourced than most. The paper covering it is very minor and somewhere around or below the threshold of reliability. It's not worth a "see also" either, it is a non-issue in the election campaign and, again, not relevant to the campaign or the anti-smear site.Wikidemon (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I see: we can mention that there are "smears" but not mention who's making them. Got it.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's set aside the fact that it's just a frivolous lawsuit filed as a PR stunt by a perennial candidate seeking attention. Please explain how something that occurred a couple of weeks after the election has anything whatsoever to do with the presidential campaign (which ended on election day). --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

A perennial candidate is one who has a record of success that is either infrequent or non-existent. Keyes has obtained major-party nominations, participated in presidential debates, and actually served in piblic office. In any event, the election is not over until the electors vote.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether the election is technically "over" is a semantic point, and a pretty meaningless one. But the campaign (remember that? the subject of this article?) is most certainly over. It ended November 4th when the votes were counted and Obama won. Keyes' little PR stunt after the election is irrelevant to this article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion is that it's a publicity stunt, whereas Keyes says he's sincerely trying to defend the Constitution; I don't think it's really relevant whether you are right or Keyes is right. The fact is that many reliable sources devoted considerable attention to citizen suits filed before November 4 on this matter. However, so far, the media has not devoted much attention to this suit filed by a person who actually seems to have standing. For now, I'll let the matter drop here at this article. If the California judge sides with Keyes, then perhaps you'll acknowledge that maybe one of the Obama articles should mention it. :-) Not holding my breath though. I do personally think it would be perfectly appropriate for Mr. O. to divulge his 1961 original certificate, but I'm not holding my breath for that either.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You're approaching this thing entirely backwards. You don't get a piece of information (in this case, "information" is used pretty loosely as it's just a tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory) and then try to figure out which article to put it in. That's simply editing with an agenda. Rather, you should be looking at an article on its own merits and deciding how to improve it. The fact that you've been shopping this theory (and this non-notable stunt by Keyes) to various unrelated Obama articles is especially puzzling considering that you fought against the exact same thing on McCain-related articles. I agreed with you then, and in fact fought vehemently to keep the "McCain is not a citizen because he was born in Panama" garbage out of multiple articles. So I must admit that I'm confused by your change of heart in principal, if not in ideology. --Loonymonkey (talk) 05:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It is relevant to the campaign (and this article) because the lawsuit contends that the result of the campaign is null and void. The lawsuit is supported by WP:V sources and the lawsuit applicant satisfies WP:N. Glen Twenty (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That's too indirect. By that reasoning we should duplicate the material in most of the election-related articles. As of now there remains only very minor reliable source coverage that the lawsuit exists. Nothing at all to suggest it is significant to Obama at all, much less a campaign that ended before the suit was filed. Wikidemon (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

With respect to Loonymonkey's comment, let me point out that the McCain analogy is a bit off. With McCain, there were two facets: a) a serious if academic (in the sense that the political and legal establishment were totally behind McCain) discussion of whether his birth in the Panama Canal Zone made him eligible to become president, that got serious coverage by legal academics, the NYT, etc.; and b) a fringe theory that McCain wasn't born in the PCZ but instead in regular Panama. We rightly covered (a) briefly in our articles but we rightly ignored (b). With Obama, there is no (a) part, since if he was born in Hawaii he's obviously eligible. There's only the fringe theories that he wasn't born in Hawaii, or if he was, that he forfeited his citizenship later by living too long in Indonesia (or whatever, I'm not fully up on all this nonsense). So if we go by the McCain approach, this fringe action by Keyes (who was once a legitimate figure in the Republican/conservative world, but who in recent years has become untethered by reality) would not be mentioned here. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Saddleback Civil forum

I suggest that other than just adding a refer to..., some information should be taken from that article and placed in the main article. It makes the article more complete. 220.255.7.182 (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Campaign Finance

Today referenced information about Obama's intial pledge to follow the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act was deleted here citing the policy of WP:COATRACK. Does this episode satisfiy WP:N? Glen Twenty (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

A neutral statement that Obama made an earlier announcement he would accept public financing but later opted out may well be relevant to the history of the campaign, and should probably be explained for what it is worth in a single one of the campaign-related articles. However, "reneged" is hardly a neutral characterization of what happened. Notability does not overcome coatracking, which is a separate issue. Wikidemon (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Controversies

I see no controversy section here. The whole Jesse Jackson gaffe seems to have been erased from the WP record in all Obama related articles. I have got it well-sourced in both Jesse Jackson and Jesse Jackson, Jr.. Should it be in this article? Should it be in Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008? What about Rev. Wright?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

A "Controversy" section may not be warranted, but the information should be included. It may fit best in the article in sections where the controversies correspond to, assuming for instance the Reverend Wright controversy with the primaries -- but that's just an initial guess at where it may best fit. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 04:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Support Controversy section. For examples, see below. EagleScout18 (talk) 05:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

A controversy section will only arise from details which we decide should be included in the article but cannot be contextualised into it. We have not yet found such details. Conversely, I don't think the "Israel for Obama" campaign is nearly as relevant to Obama's biography as the Reverend Wright controversy. I don't know much about it though, nor do I live in the US, so could somebody assess whether or not it should be included at all? Bigbluefish (talk) 12:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The Wright story was well-covered, and when it posed a threat to Obama's campaign, he wisely said, "See ya" to his former friend. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, it's covered in Public image of Barack Obama and the spinoff article Jeremiah Wright controversy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Uhh... you should probably disregard everything I've said on this matter. I thought both the article and the talk page I was looking at were Barack Obama, not his presidential campaign. D'oh! Bigbluefish (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008 and Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008

Just asking, why do these articles exist as 2 when they could be merged as one? Aren't they on the same topic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.76.216.155 (talk) 09:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

They're both long and they're about different stages of Obama's candidacy for president. Obama's battle with Clinton was exceptionally drawn out, and almost as difficult to win as that with McCain. No particular reason to make them into one doubly-long article although they could no doubt each be improved, perhaps concisened and refer more clearly to the context relating to the other. Bigbluefish (talk) 15:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Germany Protest Ban

Support New subsection "Controversy" and inclusion of protest ban in Berlin. See also Talk:Public image of Barack Obama and Talk:Barack Obama EagleScout18 (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

What he does after the presidential election has very little to do with this article. I strongly oppose inclusion. Icewedge (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Your opposition is confused, then. The ban occurred during the election. EagleScout18 (talk) 07:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Trivial, non-notable. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - not notable. I question why this editor is trying to add this to multiple articles. Also, for the record, "controversy" sections are discouraged - if information is notable and appropriate, it should be worked into the existing structure of an article. Tvoz/talk 09:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Question no more. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Public_image_of_Barack_Obama: "First source is in a foreign language, and therefore unusable. Second source is okay, but your proposed addition still has nothing to do with Barack Obama's public image. Consider the election article instead (although you will have to find consensus there too). -- Scjessey (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)" EagleScout18 (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep. And so far, no consensus. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Support Exclusion of sarcastic, trivial commentary. 19:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. And yet you're still writing here. Shazam! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

As well as banal, wasteful commentary. (Shazam? Isn't that for six year olds?) EagleScout18 (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• • Meanwhile, maybe you could get back to explaining why you think this one item is notable. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The notability is self-explanatory. Bild, the German newspaper that ran the story, is the fourth largest newspaper, in terms of circulation, in the world. The LA Times mentioned it as well. Various TV media broadcasted the protest footage. And, on top of all that, I hear rumors of bumper stickers. EagleScout18 (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - Too trivial of information to be included. Brothejr (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose not specific to Obama. Simailar no protest zones existed during the G8 summit, Bushs visit to Germany earlier, etc. --Dschwen 20:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

But has such a ban occurred prior during a U.S. presidential campaign abroad? That is significant. And isn't the protest itself notable, i.e., Germany and others opposing Sen. Obama's proposed attacks on Afghanistan and Pakistan? EagleScout18 (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You're asking for our opinions. What you should be doing is looking for a reliable source that makes that claim. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

See message, Talk:Public image of Barack Obama. As for asking opinions, isn't that what RfC is about? Wait, before you answer that, check the reliable sources first. EagleScout18 (talk) 00:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose not specific to Obama. Try it as a stand alone article and see if it stands on its own merits.--Triple3D 06:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • EagleScout18 will be working on that standalone article in his copious free time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"Sitting" U.S. Senator ?

I noticed in the opening blurb it states he will become the 3rd sitting senator to become president. I know this is a very trivial, and likely a very stupid question to ask. Given the fact that he has stepped down from his senate seat, doesn't that mean he's no longer a sitting senator?

Having asked that. I would also point out that I could be wrong on the fact he won the presidency as a sitting senator. I don't know, just wondering. I'm pretty sure I'm incorrect. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Technically, no sitting Senator can become President, because they have to resign from the Senate before they can assume the Presidency. The third sitting Senator to be elected President would be more accurate, after Garfield and Harding. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually the fourth, after Garfield, Harding and Kennedy. The Garfield item is debated by some. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the "Ascend" from the blurb, I added in "be elected." Would that sound right? I personally think the word "Ascend" adds a bit of glorification to it. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "ascend" is a bit much. I rearranged the section a bit, but it says "third". What's the deal with Garfield? Tvoz/talk 23:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Right. He wasn't born in a manger. As he reminded us. However, I dispute the "third". Garfield was the recently-apointed Senator from Ohio in 1880, and won both for Senate and for President (just as Biden won for Senate and VP) and of course had to resign his Senate seat. Had he known what was coming, he might have said, "I'll just stay in the Senate, thank you." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

[ec]Hmm, yeah, it might have been better for his health. I guess, as always, we go with what sources say - we need something more on this. The James A. Garfield article makes the point that he was the first sitting Representative to move to the White House, and that he never actually "sat" as Senator, so it seems to me to be an asterisk - kinda sorta the first Senator, but not quite... so, again, let's see what we find in sources. Tvoz/talk 23:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If Garfield were in that seat for even a day, he'd be a sitting U.S. Senator. If he was the victor on November 4th and he was a Senator on November 4th = Sitting U.S. Senator elected president. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but did he ever sit? I do think we should be consistent across articles - I don't have much opinion on which way it should go (other than that it should reflect what sources say) - but we shouldn't be contradicting ourselves. Tvoz/talk 23:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You've hit the point of the problem, which is the colloquial term "sitting". No, he didn't "sit" in the Senate, as he was appointed during recess and had already resigned by the time the Congress met again. Facts About the Presidents, by Joseph Nathan Kane, said simply that Harding "was the second President elected while a Senator". And that is probably the more encyclopedic way to say it anyway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

That's ok with me, if the Garfield article editors go along with it. Otherwise, I think we still have an issue. I was looking for any sources that talk about Obama being the third or fourth - haven't found one yet. That would be the better sourcing, to avoid an appearance of OR, right? Tvoz/talk 00:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, for what it's worth - unless I'm missing it, I don't think either the JFK or 1960 presidential election article makes the point about his being the second/third sitting Senator to become President. Maybe they chose to avoid the mini-controversy, and should we sidestep it too? Tvoz/talk 00:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

(od) The purpose of the whole "sitting Senator" point is that it's been very infrequent, with the theory as to why being that senators (a) are forced to cast lots of difficult votes that will make them unpopular to numerous segments of the electorate, and (b) are hindered by the reputation of the Senate as a deliberate, talkative, ponderous, filibustering institution, unlike say governors who can take dynamic executive action. Since that's the purpose of this statistic, the pedantic point about not being 'sitting' at inauguration is irrelevant, and Garfield shouldn't count since he wasn't hindered by either of these factors. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, sourcing would be good. In looking at this again, at the time of the 1880 election, George H. Pendleton was one of Ohio's sitting Senators, taking office in 1879; and the other was Allen G. Thurman. However, the Ohio legislature had gone Republican, and Thurman became a lame duck. They elected Garfield, hence he was a Senator-elect when he was elected President. So it gets kind of slippery. Note that Thurman's term ended in 1881, and Garfield's replacement, John Sherman (politician), took over. So Garfield was Senator-elect when he won the Presidency, but was arguably not a Senator yet. As a side note, John Sherman was younger brother of General William Tecumseh Sherman of "War Is Hell" fame. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, My questions answered, all the rest of you are to smart for me. I'm outta here before I prove my severe lack of Garfieldian knowledge. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

One of my grandmothers (who was already very old when I was young) had a memory of Garfield being shot from her very early childhood. So I have this once removed collective memory too, 127 years later. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)