Talk:Barack Obama 2008 presidential campaign and Tantoo Cardinal: Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
 
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Tantoo Cardinal''' (born [[July 20]], [[1950]] in [[Anzac, Alberta]]) is a [[Canada|Canadian]] film and television actress.
{{talkpage}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Elections and Referenda|class=Start|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject United States presidential elections|class=Start|nested=yes}}
{{ChicagoWikiProject|class=Start|importance=Low|nested=yes}}
}}
== Moving Stuff Over ==


Cardinal, who is [[Métis people (Canada)|Métis]] of [[Cree]] descent, has played roles in many notable films and television series, including ''[[Spirit Bay (tv series)|Spirit Bay]]'', ''[[Dances with Wolves]]'', ''[[Black Robe (film)|Black Robe]]'', ''[[Legends of the Fall]]'', ''[[Smoke Signals (film)|Smoke Signals]]'' and ''[[North of 60]]''. She was cast in the [[Disney Channel]] mini-series ''By Way of the Stars'' with [[Gordon Tootoosis]] as The Cree Chief and [[Eric Schweig]] as Black Thunder. It was shot in [[Uxbridge, Ontario (town)|Uxbridge, Ontario]].
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. [[User:Gilbertine goldmark|Gilbertine goldmark]] ([[User talk:Gilbertine goldmark|talk]]) 22:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


==Filmography==
== Opting out of Financing ==
*''He Comes Without Calling''
*''Marie-Anne''
*''Death Hunt''
*''New Day - New Horizon''
*''Running Brave''
*''Loyalties''
*''Candy Mountain''
*''[[Dances with Wolves]]'' (1990) - Black Shawl
*''[[Black Robe (film)|Black Robe]]'' (1991) - Chomina's wife
*''The Lightning Field''
*''Where The Rivers Flow North''
*''Spirit Rider''
*''[[Silent Tongue]]''
*''Mustard Bath''
*''Sioux City''
*''[[Legends of the Fall]]'' - Pet Decker
*''Lakota Woman, Siege at Wounded Knee''
*''Tecumseh: The Last Warrior''
*''Grand Avenue''
*''Silence'' (from 1997)
*''The Education of Little Tree''
*''[[Smoke Signals (film)|Smoke Signals]]'' (1998) - Arlene Joseph
*''In Jest''
*''[[Hi-Line (film)|The Hi-Line]]''
*''[[Navigating the Heart]]''
*''Postmark Paradise''
*''The Lost Child''
*''Dodson's Journey''
*''Edge of Madness''
*''A Thief of Time''
*''The Space Between All Things''
*[http://www.nativespiritinfo.com Native Spirit and The Sun Dance Way 2-DVD Set] (2007)


==Television==
A POV mention of Obama's financing opt out was recently removed. An NPOV mention would be great here... [[User:Gilbertine goldmark|Gilbertine goldmark]] ([[User talk:Gilbertine goldmark|talk]]) 22:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
*''By Way of the Stars''
*Done. --[[User:Clubjuggle|Clubjuggle]] [[User_Talk:Clubjuggle|<font color="#0047AB"><sup><small>'''T'''</small></sup></font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Clubjuggle|<font color="#0047AB"><small>'''C'''</small></font>]] 23:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
*''[[North of 60]]''
*''[[Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman]]''
*''[[500 Nations]]''
*''Lewis & Clark: The Journey of the Corps of Discovery'' (voice)
*''Big Bear''
*''Dream Keeper''
*''Windy Acres''
*''[[Moccasin Flats]]''
*''[[Spirit Bay (tv series)|Spirit Bay]]''
*''[[H2O (film)|H<sub>2</sub>O]]''


==External links==
== Title/Restructure ==
*[http://www.filmreferencelibrary.ca/index.asp?layid=46&csid1=982&navid=87 Canadian Film Encyclopedia] [A publication of The Film Reference Library/a division of the Toronto International Film Festival Group]


{{DEFAULTSORT:Cardinal, Tantoo}}
Now that the primaries are past, the general election campaign will be more historically important. With that in mind, I suggest the following:
[[Category:1950 births]]
* Rename [[Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008]] to [[Barack Obama presidential primary election campaign, 2008]]
[[Category:Living people]]
* Include a short summary of the primary election campaign in this article, and link to the primary election article as "full article"
[[Category:Canadian television actors]]
* Rename this article to [[Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008]]
[[Category:Canadian film actors]]
Given the potential impact of these moves I will not proceed without consensus. Thoughts? --[[User:Clubjuggle|Clubjuggle]] [[User_Talk:Clubjuggle|<font color="#0047AB"><sup><small>'''T'''</small></sup></font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Clubjuggle|<font color="#0047AB"><small>'''C'''</small></font>]] 23:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
[[Category:Cree people]]
: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.--[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] <sup>[[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]]</sup> 00:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
[[Category:First Nations actors]]
::Either of these ideas would be an improvement, IMO. [[User:Gilbertine goldmark|Gilbertine goldmark]] ([[User talk:Gilbertine goldmark|talk]]) 00:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
[[Category:People from Wood Buffalo, Alberta]]
:'''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). [[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/72.0.180.2|72.0.180.2]] ([[User talk:72.0.180.2|talk]]) 22:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


:{{Canada-screen-actor-stub}}
== Contentious editing ==


[[de:Tantoo Cardinal]]
There is already some edit warring and borderline incivility going on here, e.g. this edit[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign%2C_2008%2C_General_Election&diff=220693221&oldid=220684872]. 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, [[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk: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.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign%2C_2008%2C_General_Election&diff=220471949&oldid=220465002][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign%2C_2008%2C_General_Election&diff=220681659&oldid=220680392] I trimmed it per [[WP:WEIGHT]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign%2C_2008%2C_General_Election&diff=220684194&oldid=220681659] ("we don't repeat every criticism"), eliciting an [[WP:CIVIL|uncivil]] reversion / [[WP:AGF | AGF violation]] by one of the editors[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign%2C_2008%2C_General_Election&diff=220693221&oldid=220684872] ("rv blanking please do not seek to push your pov by removing paragraphs you don't like"). A second editor removed the material again,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign%2C_2008%2C_General_Election&diff=220748130&oldid=220693221] citing a statement[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blaxthos&diff=prev&oldid=220696296] 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[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign%2C_2008%2C_General_Election&diff=220750566&oldid=220748130]("...well-deserved criticism..."), and added on various new criticisms of the candidate[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign%2C_2008%2C_General_Election&diff=220751621&oldid=220750566].

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. [[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Geuiwogbil|Geuiwogbil]] ([[User talk:Geuiwogbil|Talk]]) 12:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC) (Update: Thanks Wikidemo! You fixed it. [[User:Geuiwogbil|Geuiwogbil]] ([[User talk:Geuiwogbil|Talk]]) 13:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC))
::While I was writing this a bunch of new content was added[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign%2C_2008%2C_General_Election&diff=220757433&oldid=220751621] - 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. [[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Geuiwogbil|Geuiwogbil]] ([[User talk: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''. [[User:Geuiwogbil|Geuiwogbil]] ([[User talk:Geuiwogbil|Talk]]) 13:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
:I like your edits, WikiDemo! You see, when we work together, ''it's much better''. [[User:Geuiwogbil|Geuiwogbil]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Clubjuggle|Clubjuggle]] [[User_Talk:Clubjuggle|<font color="#0047AB"><sup><small>'''T'''</small></sup></font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Clubjuggle|<font color="#0047AB"><small>'''C'''</small></font>]] 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. [[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk:Wikidemo|talk]]) 13:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

::::Nice work guys. I love it when a plan comes together! --[[User:Clubjuggle|Clubjuggle]] [[User_Talk:Clubjuggle|<font color="#0047AB"><sup><small>'''T'''</small></sup></font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Clubjuggle|<font color="#0047AB"><small>'''C'''</small></font>]] 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". [[User:Geuiwogbil|Geuiwogbil]] ([[User talk:Geuiwogbil|Talk]]) 13:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
::::::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign%2C_2008%2C_General_Election&curid=17881122&diff=220767037&oldid=220763009 Thanks!] [[User:Geuiwogbil|Geuiwogbil]] ([[User talk:Geuiwogbil|Talk]]) 13:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
:::::Also: You need citations for "Opinion Polling". Thanks! [[User:Geuiwogbil|Geuiwogbil]] ([[User talk:Geuiwogbil|Talk]]) 13:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
::::::Done - group effort. [[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk:Wikidemo|talk]]) 14:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
:::::::We still need citations for the "Opinion polling". [[User:Geuiwogbil|Geuiwogbil]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Trilemma|Trilemma]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Trilemma|Trilemma]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Geuiwogbil|Geuiwogbil]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Trilemma|Trilemma]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gilbertine goldmark|Gilbertine goldmark]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Loonymonkey|Loonymonkey]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gilbertine goldmark|Gilbertine goldmark]] ([[User talk: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). --[[User:Loonymonkey|Loonymonkey]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:Gilbertine goldmark|Gilbertine goldmark]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gilbertine goldmark|Gilbertine goldmark]] ([[User talk:Gilbertine goldmark|talk]]) 19:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

:I left a reply at[[User 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. --[[User:Floridianed|Floridianed]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Bigvinu|Bigvinu]] ([[User talk: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 --[[User:Floridianed|Floridianed]] ([[User talk: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. <small>— [[User:KgKris|KgKris]] ([[User talk:KgKris|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/KgKris|contribs]]) 09:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: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? --[[User:Clubjuggle|Clubjuggle]] [[User_Talk:Clubjuggle|<font color="#0047AB"><sup><small>'''T'''</small></sup></font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Clubjuggle|<font color="#0047AB"><small>'''C'''</small></font>]] 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 [[User:Gilbertine goldmark|Gilbertine goldmark]] ([[User talk:Gilbertine goldmark|talk]]) 16:51, 29 June 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)? [[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Trilemma|Trilemma]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Trilemma|Trilemma]] ([[User talk:Trilemma|talk]]) 21:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

== This article has officially become a content fork ==

The entire section has become a [[WP:CFORK|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. --[[User:Loonymonkey|Loonymonkey]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:CFORK|content forking]], especially the section on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CFORK#Article_spinouts_-_.22Summary_style.22_articles article spinouts]. What we have here is kind of a reverse spinout. The entire Issues section needs to be [[WP:BOLD|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? --[[User:Loonymonkey|Loonymonkey]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Floridianed|Floridianed]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Gilbertine goldmark|Gilbertine goldmark]] ([[User talk: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? --[[User:Loonymonkey|Loonymonkey]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Flatterworld|Flatterworld]] ([[User talk:Flatterworld|talk]]) 13:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

::::::Alright, I'm going to make the change. --[[User:Loonymonkey|Loonymonkey]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Grundle2600|Grundle2600]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Grundle2600|Grundle2600]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Trilemma|Trilemma]] ([[User talk:Trilemma|talk]]) 23:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

:::Well, as long as it gets moved, and not erased, that sounds reasonable. [[User:Grundle2600|Grundle2600]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gilbertine goldmark|Gilbertine goldmark]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Grundle2600|Grundle2600]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Loonymonkey|Loonymonkey]] ([[User talk: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 "[[Barack_Obama_presidential_primary_campaign%2C_2008#Fundraising|Fundraising]]" is kept separate from "[[Barack_Obama_presidential_primary_campaign%2C_2008#Political_positions|Political positions]]". Hope I'm not stepping on any toes here. [[User:Geuiwogbil|Geuiwogbil]] ([[User talk: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!) [[User:Geuiwogbil|Geuiwogbil]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:Loonymonkey|Loonymonkey]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Geuiwogbil|Geuiwogbil]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Trilemma|Trilemma]] ([[User talk:Trilemma|talk]]) 23:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Here are additional cites for criticism of Obama's ads: [http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/30/obamas_working_class_pitch.html][http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-obama-adwatch,0,2674337.story][http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/dignity_airs_in_18_states.php]. [[User:Trilemma|Trilemma]] ([[User talk: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 a''bout 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). --[[User:Loonymonkey|Loonymonkey]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Trilemma|Trilemma]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Floridianed|Floridianed]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Trilemma|Trilemma]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Trilemma|Trilemma]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Trilemma|Trilemma]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:CFORK|content fork]] of [[Political positions of Barack Obama]].) See above talk section. --[[User:Loonymonkey|Loonymonkey]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Trilemma|Trilemma]] ([[User talk:Trilemma|talk]]) 21:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
:I've changed "Critics" to "Critics of the decision". That should eliminate confusion. --[[User:Clubjuggle|Clubjuggle]] [[User_Talk:Clubjuggle|<font color="#0047AB"><sup><small>'''T'''</small></sup></font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Clubjuggle|<font color="#0047AB"><small>'''C'''</small></font>]] 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. [[User:Trilemma|Trilemma]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Clubjuggle|Clubjuggle]] [[User_Talk:Clubjuggle|<font color="#0047AB"><sup><small>'''T'''</small></sup></font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Clubjuggle|<font color="#0047AB"><small>'''C'''</small></font>]] 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.[[User:Trilemma|Trilemma]] ([[User talk: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. <ref>[http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/06/obama-shifts-on.html Obama Shifts on Welfare Reform], ABC News, July 1, 2008</ref>"

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.

[[User:Grundle2600|Grundle2600]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gilbertine goldmark|Gilbertine goldmark]] ([[User talk: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]].<ref>{{cite news | first = Salant | last = Jonathan D. | title = Obama Won't Accept Public Money in Election Campaign | url = http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aNi.G0PhWnFw&refer=home | publisher = [[Bloomberg]] | date = [[2008-06-19]] | accessdate = 2008-06-19}}</ref><ref name="WAPOF">{{cite news | author= Murray, Shailagh |coauthor=Bacon Jr., Perry | title = Obama to Reject Public Funds for Election | url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/19/AR2008061900914.html | work = [[Washington Post]] | date = [[2008-06-20]] | accessdate = 2008-06-19}}</ref> Obama was expected to raise $265 million between the time of the announcement and election day.<ref name="GOB">{{cite news| url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/20/barackobama.johnmccain |title=US elections: Obama faces backlash for refusing public campaign funding |first=Ewen |last=MacAskill |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=[[2008-06-20]] | accessdate = 2008-06-21}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-06-19-opt-out-qa_N.htm |title=Q & A: Obama's public funding opt-out |first=Emily |last=Cadei |work=[[USA Today]] |date=[[2008-06-20]] | accessdate = 2008-06-21}}</ref>

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." <ref name="WAPOF"/> 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.”<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11242_Page2.html</ref>, 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.<ref name="POL">{{cite news| url=http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11217.html |title=Obama move irks reform allies |first=Kenneth P. |last=Vogel |work=[[The Politico]] |date=[[2008-06-19]] | accessdate = 2008-06-21}}</ref><ref name="APF">{{cite news | first =Liz | last =Sidoti | title =With money, Obama to try to widen the battleground | url =http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ghb-cUeWpvC77LS_S8tI4aB7ENIQD91DVMOO0 | publisher =[[Associated Press]] | date = [[2008-06-20]] | accessdate = 2008-06-21}}</ref><ref name="GOB">{{cite news| url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/20/barackobama.johnmccain |title=US elections: Obama faces backlash for refusing public campaign funding |first=Ewen |last=MacAskill |work=[[The Guardian]] |date=[[2008-06-20]] | accessdate = 2008-06-21}}</ref> Critics also said that Obama's campaign was receiving as much support from unregulated [[527 group]]s as McCain's.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.slate.com/id/2194083/ |title=The Flip-Flop Brothers |first=John |last=Dickerson |work=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]] |date=[[2008-06-20]] | accessdate = 2008-06-21}}</ref>

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.[[User:Trilemma|Trilemma]] ([[User talk: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. &mdash; [[User:Goethean|goethean]] [[User_talk:Goethean|&#2384;]] 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. [[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Trilemma|Trilemma]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gilbertine goldmark|Gilbertine goldmark]] ([[User talk: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. [http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/goodbyemrcranky/60.html List of sources] Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? [[User:Grundle2600|Grundle2600]] ([[User talk:Grundle2600|talk]]) 20:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
:The direct observation that he has done so is [[WP:SYNTH | 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.[[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Trilemma|Trilemma]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Loonymonkey|Loonymonkey]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Trilemma|Trilemma]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Gilbertine goldmark|Gilbertine goldmark]] ([[User talk:Gilbertine goldmark|talk]]) 15:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
::::::Something like this should <b>only</b> be added if accompanied by citations from reputable, neutral sources. Opinion is not NPOV.

== 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%2C_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.--[[User:Robapalooza|Robapalooza]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Johnpseudo|'''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. [[User:Gilbertine goldmark|Gilbertine goldmark]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Trilemma|Trilemma]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Clubjuggle|Clubjuggle]] [[User_Talk:Clubjuggle|<font color="#0047AB"><sup><small>'''T'''</small></sup></font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Clubjuggle|<font color="#0047AB"><small>'''C'''</small></font>]] 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: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election%2C_2008#Maps_of_most_recent_polling_data]. --[[User:Robapalooza|Robapalooza]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:VERIFY|unverifiable]] and based on [[WP:OR|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. --[[User:Loonymonkey|Loonymonkey]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Trilemma|Trilemma]] ([[User talk: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 [[Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election%2C_2008#Charts_of_polling_data_in_battleground_states|the Wiki article containing the Charts of polling data in battleground states]].--[[User:Robapalooza|Robapalooza]] ([[User talk:Robapalooza|talk]]) 02:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::(2) '''Verifiability'''. The entire content is carefully and thoroughly verified through the polling data summarized at [[Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election%2C_2008|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.[[User:Robapalooza|Robapalooza]] ([[User talk: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 ;) [[User:Trilemma|Trilemma]] ([[User talk:Trilemma|talk]]) 22:20, 15 July 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 ([[WP:SYNTH|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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_wikis_reliable_sources.3F 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. --[[User:Loonymonkey|Loonymonkey]] ([[User talk:Loonymonkey|talk]]) 23:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
:Would citations to the original polls be sufficient?--[[User:Robapalooza|Robapalooza]] ([[User talk: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.) [[User:Geuiwogbil|Geuiwogbil]] ([[User talk: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 [http://www.electoral-vote.com/]. 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., [http://www.electoral-vote.com/]). 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. --[[User:Robapalooza|Robapalooza]] ([[User talk: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 [[Statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008|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?) [[User:Geuiwogbil|Geuiwogbil]] ([[User talk: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: [http://home.comcast.net/~rpilaud/ObamaMcCain.xls]. Please feel free to tinker and improve.--[[User:Robapalooza|Robapalooza]] ([[User talk: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: [http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Info/polling-faq.html]. 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.--[[User:Robapalooza|Robapalooza]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Trilemma|Trilemma]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Floridianed|Floridianed]] ([[User talk:Floridianed|talk]]) 00:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

==Vice President==
There's no information about any contenders for his running mate. <s>[[Special:Contributions/87.194.131.188|87.194.131.188]] ([[User talk:87.194.131.188|talk]]) </s> [[User:Jooler|Jooler]] ([[User 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. [[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Loonymonkey|Loonymonkey]] ([[User talk: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 ;). [[User:Trilemma|Trilemma]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Jooler|Jooler]] ([[User talk:Jooler|talk]]) 07:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

== Vote: Which chart is better? ==
<s>
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%2C_2008#Florida]] without any of the trendlines noted above.--[[User:Robapalooza|Robapalooza]] ([[User talk:Robapalooza|talk]]) 21:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
<br>Here's a compromise position, which might be easier to read than the chart above, at left.--[[User:Robapalooza|Robapalooza]] ([[User talk:Robapalooza|talk]]) 21:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)<br></s>
:Ahem. [[Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion|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? [[User:Geuiwogbil|Geuiwogbil]] ([[User talk:Geuiwogbil|Talk]]) 00:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
::<s>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: [http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Graphs/florida.html]. Pollster.com and realclearpolitics.com use a moving average: [http://www.pollster.com/08-FL-Pres-GE-MvO.php] [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html]. 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). --[[User:Robapalooza|Robapalooza]] ([[User talk:Robapalooza|talk]]) 22:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
</s>
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:<br>
[[Image:Florida_Obama_versus_McCain_Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election_2008.jpg‎|500px]]This size is used in this and other articles.<br>
[[Image:Florida_Obama_versus_McCain_Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election_2008.jpg‎|400px]]A compromise size?<br>
[[Image:Florida_Obama_versus_McCain_Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_United_States_presidential_election_2008.jpg‎|300px]]Hmmm, small but still legible by my eyes.<br>
--[[User:Robapalooza|Robapalooza]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Floridianed|Floridianed]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Geuiwogbil|Geuiwogbil]] ([[User talk: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.) [[User:Geuiwogbil|Geuiwogbil]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Geuiwogbil|Geuiwogbil]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Johnpseudo|'''johnpseudo''']] 14:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

== visit to Iraq/Middle East ==

shouldnt there be a page on his visits?[[User:Tehw1k1|Tehw1k1]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Floridianed|Floridianed]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:OR | original research]] question but more of a [[WP:PSTS | 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[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=qUJ&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=%22the+burdens+of+global+citizenship+continue+to+bind+us+together%22&spell=1]). 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. [[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_on_Terrorism&diff=prev&oldid=228446182] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_on_Terrorism&diff=prev&oldid=228445680] --[[User:Loonymonkey|Loonymonkey]] ([[User talk:Loonymonkey|talk]]) 14:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

::''Yawn''. Agree. I've cut the quotation. [[User:Geuiwogbil|Geuiwogbil]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Geuiwogbil|Geuiwogbil]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User 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. [[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:SOFIXIT|fix it]]. The sources are accurately, IMO, represented here.[[User:CENSEI|CENSEI]] ([[User talk: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 bard rumors about OBbama's wife. That's not a mistake, and it's nothing but spin to carry Rush's spin on this here in the Obama article. [[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk:Wikidemo|talk]]) 22:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:54, 2 October 2008

Tantoo Cardinal (born July 20, 1950 in Anzac, Alberta) is a Canadian film and television actress.

Cardinal, who is Métis of Cree descent, has played roles in many notable films and television series, including Spirit Bay, Dances with Wolves, Black Robe, Legends of the Fall, Smoke Signals and North of 60. She was cast in the Disney Channel mini-series By Way of the Stars with Gordon Tootoosis as The Cree Chief and Eric Schweig as Black Thunder. It was shot in Uxbridge, Ontario.

Filmography

Television

External links

  • Canadian Film Encyclopedia [A publication of The Film Reference Library/a division of the Toronto International Film Festival Group]
Stub icon

This article about a Canadian film and television actor is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama_2008_presidential_campaign&oldid=242495268"