Talk:Barack Obama 2008 presidential campaign/Archive 3

Image display problem?
For some reason, the image under the "First half 2007" section isn't displaying correctly for me. I tried to fiddle with the formatting, and every time it worked in "Show preview" but didn't display in the actual article. I'm seeing the wikicode instead of the image: do other folks have this problem?

I'm wondering whether the problem is that the image's name contains a double .jpg suffix: it's named Image:Obama at UNLV Health care forum.jpg.jpg. I don't know enough about the workings behind image syntax to know whether the ".jpg.jpg" in the image's name could cause problems. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm... it's displaying fine now. No idea what the problem was. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Texas in intro
Does the phrase "winning Texas" in the introductory paragraph need further explication? As we know (and as the article says later), Obama won the Texas caucuses but lost the primary. He ended up with more Texas delegates (in part because of the complex way the state apportions delegates), so in that sense it's accurate to say that he won Texas. But I can imagine a Clinton supporter arguing the point of who "really" won Texas. Should the Texas line in the intro be worded differently, to avoid the appearance of POV-pushing? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * considering the entire race has been viewed in the context of delegates, at least since 08 began, I think it might be appropriate to wait until such a time as the popular vote actually does become a factor again, to make this clarification. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like my prediction came true. . Trying for a neutral wording. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * well we have not been using the Popular vote as the main yardstick for months, since Nevada probably (where the two were first divergent). Yes it subject to some discussion, but not until there is some change to what has so far appeared to be a steady trend, no the popular vote is not "an issue" to the point were we should be discussing it in the lede, where the primary concern is clarity.


 * to wit: to make even the popular vote close, and there for an issue for the lede on this page, HRC has to get a big pop. vote margin in Penn., and if she does that, she will also get a big delegate margin, which will be be notable even using the delegate-style we are currently using. So it will get added at the same time no matter what standard we use- and considering so far we have been using a consistent format for months, and considering this is how the Democratic party actually nominates (delegates and superdelegates), I see no reason to muddy the lead for your reason. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm just the middle-man here — I put the "mud" in because someone else had moved Texas from the "win" to the "lose" category. I suppose that the RCP citation should have been enough to take care of that, though.  /shrug/ —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, had the rules for what constitutes "winning" been different in Texas, Clinton would have won. However, using the official rules (two thirds primary/one third caucuses), Obama won.  Same applies to the national contest. johnpseudo 23:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

martin quote still
so I am getting a little nervous here. myself and two other regular editors had reached a consensus on that text, adding new cites and tightening, etc. Then when I log on again, all this consensus had been reverted, whole cloth, to an earlier version which has several errors, error which the adding editor was well-aware of before his edit. For example, I don't think changing a cite from a free NYT news article, to a blog website, is acceptable editing. I also question the removal of a quote from the NYT article. And finally re-adding inflammatory text. I have (at last) received a good explanation for why WTA does not apply to the martin quote, but surely WTA still applies to the rest of the paragraph? 72.0.180.2 (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Can't easily tell what you're talking about without diffs. Andyvphil (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

rev wright issue has peaked
I am cross posting this to Obama, and Obama Campaign 08.

Now that Obama has polled ahead of clinton for two days in a row, after being behind her during the time of the wright issue, I would like to advocate that new progress on it has ceased, new first-tier reporting on it has ceased, and it is receding into historical background. So it is time for editors to stop adding material on it, until such time as something new happens in the issue. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone had written that Wright had quoted Peck and this had been taken out of context. As if the problem with Wright in this instance were an innocent quote of Peck, not his blame-America-first approving elaboration on the text he apparently took from Peck. So I gave him a best-case treatment before mentioning the opposing POV. It's called NPOV. Try it sometimes. Anyway, the Wright business totally undermines Obama's pose as the Democratic Party's equivalent of Colin Powell, and the voters lost are not primarily those waffling between Obama and Clinton. We'll find out if it's worn off if and when he and McCain go head to head. Obama used to have a lead in that contest. Andyvphil (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * in february he led, not so much in march...72.0.180.2 (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Fail
I'm sorry, but this article has to be failed as a GA nomination as a clear violation of quick fail criterion #5: "The article specifically addresses a currently unfolding event with a definite endpoint." This is an ongoing presidential campaign which will have a definite endpoint, Election Day 2008. As such this can't be a Good Article at this time. Otto4711 (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Merrill McPeak
People with expertise on sources and references on the people associated with this campaign are welcome to look at the above article. It's currently in sorry shape. I'll work on it myself, but I'm more an expert on the military side than the political side. Nesodak (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section titles
129.116.12.33 seems to think that the sections currently titled "Coverage" should be renamed "Controversy", and claims these are how sections like this are titled in other related articles. Not only is that false, but the McCain and Clinton articles don't have similar sections, whatsoever. Please don't make this edit again.  Grsz  ' 11 ' 05:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Although I think "Coverage of Obama's childhood and heritage" is appropriate because there isn't anything controversial about it, I am not so sure about "Coverage of Obama's church and former pastor" to be perfectly honest. The fact is that it is a controversy. Jeremiah Wright is a controversial figure, and Barack Obama's association with him remains a point of controversy. Since this particular sub-section covers the controversy surrounding his relationship with Wright (rather than his association with Trinity, which is not controversial), I feel a more appropriate title would be "Controversy involving Obama's former pastor" or something of that ilk. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of controversy sections (or even entire articles) entitled "controversy" in articles about other politicians. E.g. John Kerry military service controversy and George W. Bush military service controversy. --Dr.enh (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Since the controversy does not involve his church or religion, but rather the comments made by Jeremiah Wright specifically, it seemed appropriate to rename the section "Jeremiah Wright controversy". This is consistent with similar sections in the campaign articles of other candidates. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like to keep a religious association to it- as I think it is, and I have seen attempts to push the story in "other" directions to put it delicately. So "Controversy surrounding former pastor" I think would be ideal because we use his name in the sentence afterwards, and two "rev. Wrights" so close together might be a bit clunky. But I'm sure someone out there will prefer wording like "hate Church" (lol) so any basic summary header will surely be fine even if it uses the word controversy (but not the word professor) 72.0.180.2 (talk) 08:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you imagine anyone accusing Oprah of attending a "hate church" as vigorously as people do with Obama? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Article size
This article is getting quite long, as well as the Barack Obama page, probably because of the amount of material on this topic. It might make sense to start summarizing this article and moving the content to new articles.  Yahel  Guhan  04:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Refimprove tag
I have tagged this article with "refimprove" because I see far too many blogs being cited as references. Blogs are acceptable references when the blog is owned by an article's subject. It's okay to use blogs as a source of quotations for the blog author's opinions, but in this article blogs are used to cite various quantitative facts such as polling popularity, and that's wrong.

I'd like to see the blog citations go away. These citations will eventually start getting replaced by "fact" tags, after which the tagged sentences will be deleted. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * most of those are news site blogs, which have been considered RS throughout the campaign (ask wasted time R). I think a better solution would be to immediately start fact tagging the individual sentence you feel aren't verified. I am removing the top header.
 * also after a very quick glance at the cites, I can't say I agree with you anyways. The first column seems to be almost all news organizations at least. We have heard before that the endorsement cites are the least reputable- is that what you are talking about? 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I see a few blog citations that aren't news organizations. You're right, most are news sites.  I agree it's probably best to delete the other blog citations and add fact tags. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

How to fix the problem with the size of this huge article
I think we should follow WP:SUMMARY, and create 3 new articles based on the content presented within this article, and summarize this article.

I propose we create the following articles:
 * 1) The "Campaign developments" section should be moved to Development of the Barack Obama campaign, and summarized.
 * 2) The "Caucuses and primaries 2008" section should be merged into Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries (as well as the similar section on Clinton's campaign article).
 * 3) The "Coverage of Obama's religion during the campaign" section should be moved to its own title, entitled Coverage of Obama's religion during the campaign.

I have proposed a similar proposal for the Hillary Clinton campaign article as well. Any thoughts?  Yahel  Guhan  06:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am worried that the "development of campaign" page might not get developed and will sort of be ignored.


 * I like your idea of how to handle the results section- but I think it may be too early to pull that off, it might be better to leave as is, or create TWO new pages and let them content fork, until one senator is out of the race and we can effectively merge.


 * coverage of religion should not get its own page- that is undue weight; both main thrusts in that section are possible long-term recentism edits waiting to happen. Yes they need space but I doubt they will have as much space as they do in five to ten years. Not to mention the muslim thing is basically all based on rumors (even if we are reporting on the reporting of these rumors). also the rev wright thing has its own page (the speech page) so again we would basically be making a new page for the sake of carrying the muslim rumor section. Thats not going to happen.


 * If I suggested three sections, it would be: Obama campaign results, Obama campaign demographics, Obama political connections.


 * If not that perhaps, Obama Campaign timeline, Obama's personal relationships, and Obama Campaign positions.


 * anyways I think we should put in some effort, if we split, into splitting up the main "contentious" points as well, so each page has about the same level of stability vs. controversy etc. Perhaps that is a goal too lofty, but imagine if president kennedy had looked at the moon, and said "no that's too far"... (lol) 72.0.180.2 (talk) 06:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think merging into Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries is a good idea. That article is a statistically-focused one that just describes, as its name suggests, results. And does a good job of it, from what I've seen. The "Caucuses and primaries 2008" sections of this article and Hillary's campaign article have a little overlap with that, but not much. Instead, these sections are about campaign developments, polls, trends, speeches, charges back and forth between the campaigns, staff shakeups, and so forth — the narrative of the campaign. This would totally mess up the Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries article if we moved it all there. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. By consensus on that page, Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries is for warehousing numerical data only. It is a sub-article of the main article Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008. The main article already contains a "Chronicle" of campaign events, which includes the most important information from the campaign narratives on both the Obama and Clinton campaign articles and provides an overview of key events in the race. There also concerns about length on those articles, and we are trying to keep the "Chronicle" section of Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 trim. Merging more information into either of those two articles is not a good idea. Instead, I would suggest trimming the narrative sections on the Obama and Clinton campaign articles and, if necessary, creating further sub-articles. The Obama campaign article currently has a lot of information about Clinton's campaign and vice versa. Some of this is necessary, of course; but we may be able to cut some of it back, so that in the end, Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 provides a narrative of the nomination race as a whole, while the two candidate articles focus more on internal developments within the campaigns, such as fundraising, staff changes, individual speeches, etc., as well as focusing on how the state results affected each candidate's campaign arc. Also, we may want to simply condense or cut some information, bearing in mind WP:NOT.Northwesterner1 (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What is an appropriate summary size for the Jeremiah Wright section now?
I feel that unless we find some compromise between the previous large size and the current one-paragraph version by Grsz11, we'll be violating WP:POVFORK. Any thoughts? johnpseudo 22:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * you should check out the various discussions at the new page- it has been both merge tagged and delete tagged in the past 24 hrs, so perhaps the text will come back here at some point... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

April developments?
I removed this section simply because it reflects something that happens in campaigns on a regular basis: candidates attacking other candidates in hopes that some media will pick it up and make it stick. You know, the "throw enough mud and some will stick" philosophy. The "elitism" tag by McCain is just that; a little more mud. If it is important enough, the reporting will continue; if not it is just a blip on the screen and should not be in the article. We have had this discussion before:
 * "actually if any of the three of you did your homework you would have seen that there is a long-standing situation with new users not knowing what "recentism" means and trying to add whatever random thing is being spun that day or week. If it has legs, don't worry it will get mentioned . . . either way it will need consistent reporting for a week or more before it will even be considered. and let me tell you the two users you three are starting trouble with are much faster with their rv-buttons than you will ever be." 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Marylandstater (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have no problem including Obama's "bitter" remarks so long as it was not described as a blunder or damaging to his campaign or that it proves he is a so called "elitist". I think the remarks he made were fine and he should not even have said they were phrased poorly. The media is siding with McCain and Hillary on this issue which is absurd but I have no problem with a mention of Obama's remarks. JonErber (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is a notable event in the campaign. There's no need to mention how any of the opposing campaigns have reacted.  Simply providing the quote would be sufficient.  Additionally, Obama subsequently said that he didn't choose his words well, but added: "I said something that everybody knows is true." Finnegan, Michael.  “Obama expresses regret for remarks on small towns”, Los Angeles Times (2008-04-13).  I'll edit accordingly, taking out the "elitism" charge.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I have included information on the 2004 interview he made where he said similiar stuff to provide more context. Mpondopondo (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC) ''
 * short clip of Interview with Charlie Rose
 * Full interview with Charlie Rose
 * short transcript of speech. in which he says the same stuff


 * Sorry, guys. NPOV means that other POVs than your own get a place on the page. Obama was condescending to suggest that the yahoos in PA "cling' to religion and guns" only because they're too stoopid to realize that their real problems are economic. Maybe they like guns and religion because they like shooting and are religious, just like the working class white folks he condescended to in his race speech don't like affirmative action and welfare because they don't feel they owe anybody anything, not because they have a false conciousness. This POV, expressed in "how... the opposing campaigns have reacted" and otherwise, can't be excluded. And won't be, I promise.Andyvphil (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it is fair to say that when you read the transcript of what he said that he intended no slight to the people he was talking about. I suppose that if you take a "soundbite" out of that transcript, spray it all over the media, rinse and repeat, then perhaps the most Republican or racist or simple folk among us might think he was being an elitist. The guy was talking about how he understood their frustrations, and he's getting reamed for some awkward phrasing. And all because of the press release spoon-fed to the media by Clinton. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Read this one. Fellow liberal. Maybe you'll get it. Andyvphil (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ...oh, and Clinton's tin ear was evident on this one too. She was the one who concentrated on "bitter" before Obama eagerly agreed to make that the focus of the controversy. She was also very resistant to nailing Obama on Wright. They're too alike for her to recognize and exploit his faults, and she may be toast as a result. Andyvphil (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Just came across this page and was embarrassed to see that the controversy over Obama's "bitter" remarks were barely mentioned. I appreciate the fact that Obama supporters want to close the door on the issue, but this is an encyclopedia, not CBS News. Covering up such a massive story is as bad as fabricating one. I suggest the editors of this page do some serious rethinking of the message such a cover-up sends. It's a bit shamefully biased when Wikipedia won't even call his remarks what they are. Don't label them disrespectful, or arrogant, or elitist... but at the very least call them controversial. 138.23.2.34 (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Got an email from Gallup to say Clinton had finally retaken a lead in the daily tracking and came here to find that in this la-la land Obama still had double digits. Fixed that a bit, but the "Comments about small towns" section is truly an embarassment. The remarks are quoted, Obama apologizes, more pro-Obama "context" is supplied, Axelrod accuses Bill Clinton of doing it too. That's it. Not even a clue as to why "Obama subsequently said that he did not choose his words well" or that there's been any effect of his remarks being "widely reported". No time now, but I'll be back. Andyvphil (talk) 02:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You need to achieve consensus before you can claim consensus has been achieved
Concerning User:Scjessey's edit summary comment "rv back to agreed-upon consensus wording": I've checked the talk page and the archive, and not only is there no consensus shown regarding the term "soundbite" or the phrase "which placed Wright's anger in a larger historical context", both of which I removed in my edit, but there was never even any discussion of this wording. If you have a good reason to revert my changes, that's fine, but don't claim that consensus has been achieved when it hasn't.

In terms of the specifics here, my problem with these phrases are that (1) "soundbite" is a loaded term which can signify unprofessionalism on the part of the reporter or unfairness to the person being excerpted, while the term "excerpt" serves the same basic purpose without being pejorative; and (2) claiming that Obama's speech "placed Wright's anger in a larger historical context" constitutes interpretation beyond that of the cited sources, and is therefore original research. I would like to reinstate my changes, but I am willing to solicit opinions from other editors first to determine if there's a better way to resolve tehse issues. -- Dachannien TalkContrib 00:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a carry-over from Barack Obama. You will find the same paragraph in that article, and the discussion about the exact wording on the talk page. "Soundbite" is an accurate term in this case, as it denotes the cherry-picking that took place to lift controversial statements from the enormous archive of Wright's sermons (so it fails your "unfairness" test). The choice of words regarding context was carefully worked out by consensus after studying various reliable sources, with the primary goal being a concise description that didn't give undue weight to the controversy. Of course, there is no reason why these two descriptions should not diverge. I assume that the controversy isn't given a fuller treatment in this article because of the creation of Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy and the coverage on Jeremiah Wright and A More Perfect Union. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I see. Well, for future reference, if consensus is being drawn from some other source than the article's own talk page, it would be helpful at least to mention that source in the edit summary so that there is no confusion.  As for the issue at hand, my complaints actually do apply both to this article and the Barack Obama article.  I've posted a comment over there, but would be happy to discuss the matter in either place (or both places).  On the "unfairness" test, making the claim of whether the sermons were excerpted fairly or unfairly is a POV matter, and Wikipedia should not be making such a claim one way or the other.  By removing the term altogether and depending solely on "excerpt", the POV issue is resolved by conveying the relevant information without performing an analysis of whether the excerpts were fair or not.  -- Dachannien TalkContrib 09:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Scjessey is the editor who wrote that the reason there is so little criticism of Obama in his bio is that there is so little to criticize. And several other howlers of similar import. There is no consensus on "soundbites" and no consensus in favor of Wikipedia reporting that Obama succeeded in "placing Wright in historical context" as opposed to convincing only the already susceptible to turn away from the subject of his 23-year relationship with Wright. But I had a hard enough time getting rid of the lie that Wright "questioned the origin of AIDS" and the misleadingly anodyne "his suggestion that past U.S. policies were partially responsible for the September 11 attacks" is still in place. There are only so many battles you can fight when outnumbered by the local claque. But if you stick around I can see you'll be a help. Please do. Andyvphil (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Andy is misleading you here. You can see for yourself that I posed a rhetorical question that considered the possibility that the lack of criticism of Obama could be attributed to the lack of things to criticize. Andy is suggesting I think Obama isn't worthy of criticism, when I was merely saying that a dedicated criticism section was unwarranted. Andy's personal attack aside, he is essentially saying that trying to get a consensus on anything is difficult, and I agree that your input would be welcome. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. "Rhetorical". He actually links to this statement, and doesn't get it: "Besides, the three individuals you are comparing Obama too (sic--Bush,H Clinton, McCain, btw) are more worthy of criticism by a considerable margin. Have you considered that the reason the article contains little criticism is because there is little to criticize about Obama?" The sincerity of his biases are not in doubt. Like the sincerity of Obama's belief that anyone who disagrees with him is a dolt or a villain. Andyvphil (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I consider the personal opinions of individual editors to be irrelevant to the goal of Wikipedia. As far as the difficulties in achieving consensus, it was like pulling teeth even getting editors to discuss the issues I brought up over at Jeremiah Wright, so it's pretty much a breath of fresh air to even be having this conversation here.  -- Dachannien TalkContrib 14:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Dunno about the "goal of Wikipedia", but after "the personal opinions of individual editors" results in your attempts at NPOV being summarily and repeatedly and implacably reverted, and your arguments endlessly ignored while thoroughly discredited assertions are endlessly repeated... well, if it continues to smell sweet, lucky you! It's made me quite snappish, however. Andyvphil (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

overseas influence?
Many overseas politicians are copying Obama's campaign slogans eg Italian general election, 2008, Republic of China presidential election, 2008. Should this be mentioned in the article? F (talk) 09:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably more appropriate for those other articles. -- Dachannien TalkContrib 13:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is an article about an event, and certainly the international ramifications would be relevant. If there are sources I don't see why not here, even if just a brief explanation. Joshdboz (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It might not be appropriate to mention it here, in part because any replication of the campaign slogans in foreign countries doesn't seem to be having an impact in this campaign. If there's a cite indicating that the overseas use of those slogans is having an effect here, it might be worth including.  But I get the impression that this is a situation of completely unrelated parties picking up a campaign slogan and using it of their own accord, without the permission or involvement of Obama's campaign, and with no impact on the campaign in the US.  I would be interested in looking at these citations, though.  -- Dachannien TalkContrib 13:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Changed the title of another section
I changed the title of "April Devolpemts" to "comments about small towns", as that more accurately describes the section. If you have a problem, you can change it, but please try to keep it more descriptive than "April developments", as that really doesn't say anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlebum2002 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed the title of this sub-section as well. Months where there was only one state primary, the sub-section bore the name of the state. When there was more than one state primary we titled by the month's name:

Since April had only one primary, I though the title "Pennsylvania" would be the most consistent.Marylandstater (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 6 Caucuses and primaries 2008
 * 6.1 Iowa
 * 6.2 New Hampshire
 * 6.3 Nevada
 * 6.4 South Carolina
 * 6.5 Florida
 * 6.6 Super Tuesday
 * 6.7 More February contests
 * 6.8 March primaries


 * works for me littlebum2002 19:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Opinion polling (or, one picture would be worth those thousand words)
The "opinion polling" section is starting to turn into a day-by-day play-by-play on the Gallup tracking polls. The result will quickly be a section that isn't particularly encyclopedic in style, and there may even be issues with cherry-picking POV, as certain changes in polling data are mentioned while others are left out. One way to fix this problem is to have a graph (or at least a table) of this data, leaving the text to highlight significant changes in polling data that occurred in conjunction with other notable campaign events. My concern, though, is that a graph or table of the data may be a copyright violation. Is anybody familiar enough with this sort of issue, or does anybody have any ideas for how to present this data effectively (and "safely")? -- Dachannien TalkContrib 16:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Black sermonic tradition
This is not appropriate as a "see also" in this article's summary of the Wright controversy; it belongs, and already is, in the Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy article as a wikilink to "rhetorical tradition" which is precisely what is being talked about. It is too far afield from this Obama presidential campaign article which is just a summary. Tvoz | talk 06:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Not appropriate in this article, and especially not appropriate as a section hatnote, which gives undue weight to the opinion that Wright's sermons are part of the black sermonic tradition.  -- Dachannien TalkContrib 12:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you a partisan point of view pusher who likes to enforce ignorance in others, or just that terribly ignorant about blacks and religion yourself? Wrights sermons are part of the Black sermonic tradition, just like Fish and Chips are part of the British culinary tradition, or just like "The Pope is Catholic". But if you really need to see it, you can see the NPR pieces about Wright that call them that, if you like. Or see this article, which says "His commitment to political activism, coupled with his dedication to the African American sermonic tradition, has made him a highly sought-after speaker nationally and internationally."  Or see the book Living Stones in the Household of God.  I could go on and on.  The link to Black sermonic tradition gives CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND to the sermons, and to remove it enforces ignorance, nothing more.  I swear it seems that half the people around do little more than remove good content while they've never added much of anything. Ewenss (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * First, Ewenss, I'm going to assume that you're not calling me an idiot, not that I think it's ok for you to call anyone else one - can you try being civil? Here's my point: this is an article about Barack Obama's presidential campaign - the whole campaign.  The Jeremiah Wright controversy correctly has a place in this article, but it was decided that it was or would be taking up too much space in this article to go into the depth it deserved without giving it undue weight in his campaign article, so it was forked off into a sub-article as is common, leaving just a short summary here.  Because this is just a summary, the proper hatnote should be to direct readers to the longer sub-article that does have the space to go into an in-depth analysis and detailed explanation of all sides of this specific issue.    Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy does that.  As a part of that longer article, a wikilink to Black sermonic tradition seems appropriate, as it has been extensively argued that Reverend Wright's sermons ought to be seen in the light of the larger traditions from where he comes.  There is a prominent wikilink to Black sermonic tradition to explicate the phrase "rhetorical tradition" that is in the sub-article. - not a "see also" there either, because you don't need that when you use the wikilink.   As I'm writing this, in fact, I realized that the hatnote to TUCC  in this article should also come out, and I will do that - the same logic applies.   The section here should point to the longer sub-article, and the longer sub-article should refer to other articles as appropriate using wikilinks.  If there are peripheral articles that relate in some way, we use the "see also", but the wikilinks are preferred if they are front and central to the text, as this one is, in the sub-article.    So  that is my logic for removal of the hatnotes here.   This is neither partisan nor ignorant.  Do you want to have a civil discussion about this, or do you see the wisdom of my argument?  If you can't be civil, I'm not going to talk to you.  Tvoz | talk 17:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * PS I am the second highest contributor to Barack Obama (you want the link to the page stats?) - so if you meant that last comment to me you are quite mistaken. Tvoz | talk 17:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And I agree with the removal of the "see also" pointing to the speech as it is appropriately and properly wikilinked in the text. Tvoz | talk 17:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, should have left a message here. If a link is included in the section, then it shouldn't be linked as a "See also" per WP:OVERLINK.  I also applied the same logic in removing the link to the Wright controversy article from the text of section as the article is already identified as being the "Main article" directly above the link, so the body link was redundant. --Bobblehead (rants) 17:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, right. Tvoz | talk 18:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This article isn't about "CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND" of Wright's history or traditions. This article is about Barack Obama's presidential campaign, 2008.  Grsz  talk  18:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That is right - this campaign article is not the place for it. Another editor just re-added it,  after having been directed to Talk - saying that the "argument is clearly in favor" of including this hatnote here - I don't know what he's reading, but it doesn't seem to be this section of Talk where only one editor has spoken in favor of that hat on this page, and several have agreed that it is not appropriate for this article.  Once again, this article is about the totality of Obama's presidential campaign, and the section on Wright is just a short summary to a longer article where a link to Black sermonic tradition does appear.   Tvoz | talk 20:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've just removed the link again because it isn't appropriate. At the same time, I've updated the text to mirror the version on Barack Obama (which has been pored over in excruciating detail), since that was where it was originally culled from. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That was a good edit - we've been through many rounds at Barack Obama on this and came up with this relatively stable compromise wording for the relevant section, so it makes sense to use the same wording here. Tvoz | talk 20:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * TY. It seems a bit redundant to have the same text in two related articles, but with the sub-article I don't see any choice. Just to be clear, I have no problem with these two versions diverging - I just thought it made sense given that it was getting recent editor attention. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind if the link is just at the controversy article. it's just that the same people have removed it from there too! Ewenss (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can't get a consensus to add it to that page, you have to accept that. Spamming inappropriate articles with the content is being disruptive to make a point. johnpseudo 20:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know who you mean by "the same people", Ewenss, but I did not remove it from the controversy article. In fact yesterday I thought I made an edit which only moved the wikilink that already was in the section to a place higher up in the section to the words "rhetorical tradition" which seems to be the best placement for it, but I just went to look and I don't see the move (although the link was still there, a few lines lower), so I don't know what happened. I made the edit again just now.  There is a wikilink to Black sermonic tradition at "rhetorical tradition".  By the way, it also is a wikilink in Jeremiah Wright.  Since it is a wikilink,, we do not add a "see also" hatnote - that's wikipedia style.   Tvoz | talk 20:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Subsequent to my last edit there it was, however, removed from the intro of Jeremiah Wright sermon controversy   where it had been awkwardly placed.  I did not make that edit, but I agree with it - the phrase did not belong there, but does belong in the "Theological justfications" section of that article where it has been and still is.  Tvoz | talk 21:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 *  I see four favoring inclusing and two faviring exclusion (from recent edit summary)
 * Eh? I see one favoring inclusion and everybody else favoring exclusion. Is there some other place where this is being discussed? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I see the same thing you see, SCj - only Ewenss here in this discussion, plus CyberAnth who keeps re-adding the hatnote without discussing it as requested. I didn't go any further than the recent flurry of edits - I think rather than edit warring it would behoove any people in addition to Ewenss to come here and  respond to what the people opposed to including it here have said.  Tvoz | talk 20:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)