Talk:Barack Obama 2012 presidential campaign/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Untitled section
Why is there nothing about Jim Messina heading the campaign? This page lacks key facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.89.40.232 (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Merge discussion
Fundraising of Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 is an inappropriate content fork with little context for the readers and no few sources, many of a speculative nature. There is no page for Fundraising of Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 and there is no need for a 2012 page. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- I completely agree. I also think the same about List of Barack Obama presidential campaign staff members, 2012 which consists mostly of duplicate content and empty sections. —Diiscool (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
- You are right. That's another content fork created by the same user without any prior discussion (that I can find). I'll tag that page as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Resource regarding Occupy Wall Street and the tea party movement
Why 'Populism' Shouldn't Be Obama's Battle Cry; A leftward tack could appeal to protesters but leave voters cold in Politics & Policy BusinessWeek October 13, 2011, 5:00 PM EDT by Devin Leonard 99.190.82.204 (talk) 03:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Questionable NPOV
The introduction with a list of "accomplishments" in the Pre-announcement section completely breaks with the NPOV. These are written from a narrative viewpoint for historical documentation of term, but most all are listed as what would be only positive achievements. For example, it could alternatively include Solyndra scandal, the Fast and Furious guns fiasco, etc. but instead only documents what a supporter would desire to see. It's therefore biased and thus doesn't meet NPOV. It's also questionable what the list of achievements adds to the subject of the article when presented in this way. It be better to present this possibly as a section focused on what achievements the campaign would like to use as propaganda and promote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.55.111 (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Running mate?
Is it known at the time, who is going to be Obamas running-mate? There are no statements that claim, that Biden is going to run with Obama, I think he he chooses another vice-presidential candidate, such as NY Governor Andrew Cuomo. Biden could succeed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. Jerchel (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Co-chairs
Should the Co-chairs, which have articles, have Category:Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 added to their articles? i started, but thats a lot of categorization, and i dont see their co-chair status mentioned yet in the first few articles. I think they should all have that category.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Campaign Event Photo
What is up with the top April 2011 campaign event photo? It's a gawdawful picture, clearly taken from the inside of a car. Moreover, it's a photo of a single person, seemingly implying that Obama now lacks supporters. Regardless of whether that was the intent, this photo has gotta go, IMO.JoelWhy (talk)
Nonsense about slogan / article probation
Just because something is sourced does not mean it is automatically notable for inclusion in our articles. And that we are being "hit in the news" for not including biased political attack material is even less of a reason to include it. This is fringe nonsense, and including it is POV, and out of proportion to its actual (lack of) importance. "Discuss" actually means that - this article is under the Obama article probation, so please don't continue to add contentious material that is being challenged as POV. Tvoz/talk 07:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- WP:YESPOV "the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all notable and verifiable points of view." We don't determine its importance - reliable sources do. What basis do you have to call this "fringe" and not notable? We have tons of reliable sources. The controversy was even covered on MSNBC.[1] We can't have a one sentence, or even half a sentence to note the criticism? I agree with WP:NOT#NEWS, but this is extreme. We can't have a encyclopedic record of his slogan without at least noting it received criticism for its political history. The criticism almost got as much press as the actual announcement. Maybe the media is right about the scrubbing, and I thought they just misunderstood our policies. Morphh (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- I tend to agree. Yes, it's a patently silly line of attack by the GOP. So what? Just another day in American politics. Now, if 2 weeks from now the right has dropped this line of attack completely and moved on to the next point of silliness, then maybe I'd agree that a few days of coverage doesn't even warrant mentioning on the page. However, we can't exclude the criticisms just because we agree the criticisms on this point are outrageously stupid.JoelWhy (talk) 12:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Let me also note that this has been discussed for an AFD on Talk:Forward (Obama–Biden campaign slogan) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forward (Obama–Biden campaign slogan). While a deletion of the article is not yet determined for it's own notability, it's apparent we will need to include something and a short entry here looks like the most likely outcome. I don't think the criticism merits more than a sentence, but it needs to be mentioned. Morphh (talk) 13:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, to be clear, I also was only thinking a single sentence as it was previously (although, without the half-dozen sources; one or two good sources for this is plenty.)JoelWhy (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Agree, I only piled on the sources because I figured someone would argue that it was not sufficiently covered to be noteworthy. Morphh (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that a single sentence on the attacks is warranted given the coverage it has received in multiple reliable sources. Only one sentence, though, unless continued press coverage reaches a point that mandates further content. Also, if a statement from the Obama campaign in response to the attacks can be found, that should be included as well.--JayJasper (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Agree, I only piled on the sources because I figured someone would argue that it was not sufficiently covered to be noteworthy. Morphh (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, to be clear, I also was only thinking a single sentence as it was previously (although, without the half-dozen sources; one or two good sources for this is plenty.)JoelWhy (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Let me also note that this has been discussed for an AFD on Talk:Forward (Obama–Biden campaign slogan) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forward (Obama–Biden campaign slogan). While a deletion of the article is not yet determined for it's own notability, it's apparent we will need to include something and a short entry here looks like the most likely outcome. I don't think the criticism merits more than a sentence, but it needs to be mentioned. Morphh (talk) 13:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- I tend to agree. Yes, it's a patently silly line of attack by the GOP. So what? Just another day in American politics. Now, if 2 weeks from now the right has dropped this line of attack completely and moved on to the next point of silliness, then maybe I'd agree that a few days of coverage doesn't even warrant mentioning on the page. However, we can't exclude the criticisms just because we agree the criticisms on this point are outrageously stupid.JoelWhy (talk) 12:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
This kind of issue is the reason for WP:NOTNEWS. In the case of a major disaster, say an earthquake, it is appropriate to update the article as new information becomes available (number of casualties, responses, etc.). However, there is no urgent reason to update an article on a presidential campaign with every outbreak of ephemeral nonsense. Just wait and decide after a month (based on secondary sources) what coverage is appropriate. This article is not List of every attack made in 2012 presidential campaign. Johnuniq (talk) 23:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Face it: Forward is a common slogan used by socialists around the world. It might be uncommon in the English language but in languages like Dutch, German and Italian it is associated with Socialism. --Saint-Louis (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, by notorious socialists like Richard M. Nixon, for example, whose campaign slogan was "Forward together". Face it: your argument is a non sequitur. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- WP:NOTFORUM - It would seem that our opinion is somewhat irrelevant. Our job is to present what the sources report in a balanced way. There were many reliable sources that reported on the criticism, so it would seem our job to note it. Morphh (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- No, our job is to report on notable issues. It was widely reported, but found to not be sufficiently notable to warrants its own page (a fact which is painfully obvious to any objective Wiki editor.) Does it warrant mention here? Perhaps -- a passing mention (at most.) Even that may be too much, but I'm certainly open to the possibility.JoelWhy (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see anything notable about a bunch of professional political blowhards blowing hard. They would have made similar snipes at whatever slogan Obama would have chosen. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- Notability is for a topic having its own article, which I agree in this case was not warranted for the slogan. What dictates content here is not notability, but WP:V and WP:NPOV. I agree that such a mention of the criticism should be brief and probably doesn't merit more than one sentence. Morphh (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, you are correct, Morph, thanks! JoelWhy (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree with the ridiculous notion that Forward is a socialist slogan, but that has nothing to do with whether or not I believe that it's notable, which I do, if only just. I agree with the proposition that there be one sentence mentioning the criticsms, which should be assessed in a few weeks time. If it becomes a sustained part of the Republican campaign, maybe it could be expanded upon then.Euchrid (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, you are correct, Morph, thanks! JoelWhy (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- Notability is for a topic having its own article, which I agree in this case was not warranted for the slogan. What dictates content here is not notability, but WP:V and WP:NPOV. I agree that such a mention of the criticism should be brief and probably doesn't merit more than one sentence. Morphh (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see anything notable about a bunch of professional political blowhards blowing hard. They would have made similar snipes at whatever slogan Obama would have chosen. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- No, our job is to report on notable issues. It was widely reported, but found to not be sufficiently notable to warrants its own page (a fact which is painfully obvious to any objective Wiki editor.) Does it warrant mention here? Perhaps -- a passing mention (at most.) Even that may be too much, but I'm certainly open to the possibility.JoelWhy (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- WP:NOTFORUM - It would seem that our opinion is somewhat irrelevant. Our job is to present what the sources report in a balanced way. There were many reliable sources that reported on the criticism, so it would seem our job to note it. Morphh (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, by notorious socialists like Richard M. Nixon, for example, whose campaign slogan was "Forward together". Face it: your argument is a non sequitur. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Dominus Vobisdu noted above that (in essence) the discussion of socialist links to the "forward" slogan was unimportant because it was nothing more than " ... professional political blowhards blowing hard ... " Were we talking about anything else I might agree, but this is a political campaign. Politics, talking points, nuance, The Message, strategies, and sound bites are what a campaign is all about. If a candidate hires a platoon of seasoned campaign strategists to come up with a slogan, it is impossible to then assert that they didn't consider alternate and associated meanings. My assertion, then, is that the observations of political pundits on a political campaign rises to the level of expert opinion, and that their observations should be acknowledged with fairly wide latitude. This is not to say that the article or any one section should be allowed to become a runaway train, but rather that the criteria for notability must be viewed with the understanding that in this instance "fringe" opinions may very well be the mainstream opinions of a base voting block. TreacherousWays (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- So we've given this more than a week. We have the sourcing and additional ones are available if needed which have come out more recently. The consensus appears to be 1 sentence to state this criticism. Do we have any succinct suggestions? Morphh (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Has there been any continued coverage of this "controversy." It seemed to last for like 3 days on the right-wing blogosphere and then summarily forgotten about. If that's the case, I now see no reason to bother including it here.JoelWhy (talk) 12:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- There has been some continued coverage, but like the slogan itself, it was covered for a period of time. I don't see how that decreased the weight, unless we have massive amounts of coverage regarding the slogan, with little mention of the controversy. The two are tied together and the weight is relative to the other. If you mention the slogan, then their is enough sources and weight to mention the criticism. Morphh (talk) 12:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- The criticism is ridiculous, trivial, political bullshit. To mention it makes those who made the criticism look like idiots. That's not our job. HiLo48 (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Nice opinion, but our job is laid out in the policies for the encyclopedia that require that we include it. Anything less is pure whitewashing for political reasons - that's not our job. To be honest, I don't care that much about it, but I do care that the encyclopedia is being twisted for political purposed against our policies. We need to include a brief mention of it per WP:NPOV. Morphh (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- It is not Wikipedia's role to permanently record every ephemeral attack, and this page is not even intended to list every blowup in the campaign. If a secondary source writes an analysis of the campaign with someone's opinion that the issue in question led to a tangible result, then it would have encyclopedic value (a result like a significant change in polls). There is no policy that material must be included. Johnuniq (talk) 11:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Precisely my point. It's trivial. Pathetically trivial. And stupid. And I'm wondering what political whitewashing Morph thinks I'm trying to achieve. I can't tell which side would be hurt or aided by including this trash. HiLo48 (talk) 11:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Let me ask this... is there any other controversy of the campaign that has got as much press as the choice of slogan? We have people saying it's trivial, but look at the content of the article. Relative to the publication in reliable sources regarding the campaign, the slogan discussion and criticism has received significant coverage. Again, I personally think one sentence or even half a sentence should be sufficient, but we need to follow policy and include something. Morphh (talk) 12:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- You're not responding to what I'm saying. I think this material makes Obama's critics look like idiots. Suggesting the name is communist is nonsensical. It's just part of the daily ever-onward search for new mud to hurl at an opponent. All sides are doing it. This was a pretty crappy effort. Probably made the news because it was so extremely silly. Discard it. HiLo48 (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't care which side it reflects poorly on. That's not the basis for including content, nor is it our opinion of what is silly or nonsensical. We don't just get to pick and choose and discard it. I agree that it's mud - campaigns have lots of mud, but what determines what mud we need to include and what mud we leave out - prominence in reliable sources relative to the overall content of the article. Based on that, we must include this bit of mud. We can also include a rebuttal if you like to show how stupid the argument is.. I think that probably got enough coverage. Morphh (talk) 12:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, we do get to pick and choose; it is is called "giving undue weight to a fringe criticism". Some OpEds and blogs made political hay out of it for a few days until they were distracted by the next shiny thing. An encyclopedia article is not a clearing-house for every scrip and scrap of every political spat of the campaign trail. Some things unfortunately do bubble to the surface of the media gestalt and the coverage becomes too broad and sustained to ignore, e.g. the Seamus dog thing or the Air Force One flyover incident of a few years back. A few talking heads whining about OMG SOCIALISM did not hit that peak. Tarc (talk) 12:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't care which side it reflects poorly on. That's not the basis for including content, nor is it our opinion of what is silly or nonsensical. We don't just get to pick and choose and discard it. I agree that it's mud - campaigns have lots of mud, but what determines what mud we need to include and what mud we leave out - prominence in reliable sources relative to the overall content of the article. Based on that, we must include this bit of mud. We can also include a rebuttal if you like to show how stupid the argument is.. I think that probably got enough coverage. Morphh (talk) 12:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- You're not responding to what I'm saying. I think this material makes Obama's critics look like idiots. Suggesting the name is communist is nonsensical. It's just part of the daily ever-onward search for new mud to hurl at an opponent. All sides are doing it. This was a pretty crappy effort. Probably made the news because it was so extremely silly. Discard it. HiLo48 (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Let me ask this... is there any other controversy of the campaign that has got as much press as the choice of slogan? We have people saying it's trivial, but look at the content of the article. Relative to the publication in reliable sources regarding the campaign, the slogan discussion and criticism has received significant coverage. Again, I personally think one sentence or even half a sentence should be sufficient, but we need to follow policy and include something. Morphh (talk) 12:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Precisely my point. It's trivial. Pathetically trivial. And stupid. And I'm wondering what political whitewashing Morph thinks I'm trying to achieve. I can't tell which side would be hurt or aided by including this trash. HiLo48 (talk) 11:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- It is not Wikipedia's role to permanently record every ephemeral attack, and this page is not even intended to list every blowup in the campaign. If a secondary source writes an analysis of the campaign with someone's opinion that the issue in question led to a tangible result, then it would have encyclopedic value (a result like a significant change in polls). There is no policy that material must be included. Johnuniq (talk) 11:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Nice opinion, but our job is laid out in the policies for the encyclopedia that require that we include it. Anything less is pure whitewashing for political reasons - that's not our job. To be honest, I don't care that much about it, but I do care that the encyclopedia is being twisted for political purposed against our policies. We need to include a brief mention of it per WP:NPOV. Morphh (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- The criticism is ridiculous, trivial, political bullshit. To mention it makes those who made the criticism look like idiots. That's not our job. HiLo48 (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- There has been some continued coverage, but like the slogan itself, it was covered for a period of time. I don't see how that decreased the weight, unless we have massive amounts of coverage regarding the slogan, with little mention of the controversy. The two are tied together and the weight is relative to the other. If you mention the slogan, then their is enough sources and weight to mention the criticism. Morphh (talk) 12:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Has there been any continued coverage of this "controversy." It seemed to last for like 3 days on the right-wing blogosphere and then summarily forgotten about. If that's the case, I now see no reason to bother including it here.JoelWhy (talk) 12:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
It's obviously not a fringe criticism. The criticism got about as much coverage as the announcement. But whatever, I done with this whitewashing. The bias and pov is evident and it's not worth the fight. Morphh (talk) 15:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- The only notability this issue has is for its stupidity. We shouldn't include it for that that reason either. And if, in that post, you're accusing me of bias and POV, you have no fucking idea. (The Romney haters think I'm on HIS side!) HiLo48 (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Despite your grandstanding here, it is obviously quite a fringe criticism. A brief blip on a slow news day is all this amounted to. Tarc (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Some Sources
Here are some sources that reflect the criticism collected during the AFD and article talk page:
- Morton, Victor (April 30, 2012). "New Obama slogan has long ties to Marxism, socialism". Washington Times. Retrieved May 02, 2012.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=(help) - Salzman, Jason (May 02, 2012). "ALEC Co-Director: The Marxists Are Coming After Us!". The Huffington Post. Retrieved May 02, 2012.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=and|date=(help) - Galupo, Scott (May 2, 2012). "What Barack Obama's 'Forward' Slogan Really Means". U.S.News & World Report. Retrieved May 2, 2012.
{{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=(help) - Delamaide, Darrell (May 1, 2012). "Obama's new slogan raises issue of the 'S word'". Wall Street Journal - Market Watch. Retrieved May 02, 2012.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=(help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=(help) - Wingfield, Kyle (May 01, 2012). "2012 Tuesday: Team Obama moves 'Forward' by dredging up, distorting Romney's words from 2007". Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Retrieved May 02, 2012.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=and|date=(help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=(help) - Wilkie, Christina (May 03, 2012). "Mitt Romney Mocks Obama's 'Forward' Campaign Slogan". The Huffington Post. Retrieved May 04, 2012.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|accessdate=and|date=(help) - Kirell, Andrew (May 1st, 2012). "Does President Obama's New 'Forward' Slogan Prove He's A Marxist?". Mediaite. Retrieved May 8, 2012.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=(help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=(help) - Edwards, David (May 2, 2012). "Lou Dobbs: Obama slogan tied to 'Marxists and socialists and communists'". The Raw Story. Retrieved May 8, 2012.
{{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=(help) - Orr, Michael (May 3, 2012). "Lou Dobbs ties Obama's campaign slogan to Marxists, socialists and communists". MSNBC. Retrieved May 8, 2012.
{{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=(help) - Gabbay, Tiffany (May 3, 2012). "'Forward for Communism!': Is Obama's New 'Forward' Slogan Really a Coincidence?". The Blaze. Retrieved May 8, 2012.
{{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=(help) - Jaworski, Jim. "No backing away now from 'forward'". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved May 9, 2012.
Incoming redirect created pursuant to AfD discussion.
Pursuant to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forward (Obama–Biden campaign slogan), the title Forward (Obama–Biden campaign slogan) has been redirected to this page. Please use this talk page to discuss what information is appropriate to present in connection with that slogan. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks bd, I think that's what we're attempting in the section immediately above. As you noted at the AfD (masterfully closed, by the way), there already was a mention of the slogan here which is appropriate. I continue to object to including the nonsense about it being a socialist slogan - the last list of sources that I saw all pointed to the same opinion piece in the Washington Times, which is not significant or worthy of inclusion. This is just political silliness, and not notable. Tvoz/talk 23:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- Agree that the AFD was well closed, wish Neutrality would been as careful as bd2412. His closing and deleting of Forward (generic name of socialist publications) could be perceived like a partisan arbitrator and it got some press attention that even quoted his closing,[2] which doesn't help our image that we're being unbias. But again, well done BD2412 for the professional job. Morphh (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
« Wisconsin: Forward: Walker. »
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Extended content
|
|---|
|
I just saw a new socialist motto: « Wisconsin: Forward: Walker. »
hopiakuta Please do sign your communiqué .~~Thank You, DonFphrnqTaub Persina. 14:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC) |