| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Obama Nation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Isn't this term also used by some of Obama's detractors? Orenthal Jus ad Vincula (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's just my browser, but the categories don't show up on the page... yet the book is visible on the category page. Is there some format fixing to do? Wikidemon (talk) 05:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this edit[1] I think the comment is best put in the "disputed accuracy" section and not in the lede. Per WP:LEDE the lede is a concise summary of the body of the article. It is not a place to house judgments by third parties about the article subject. That should be detailed in the body instead. It is perhaps true that one of the most notable things about the book is that other people have criticized it for inaccuracy and bias. If well sourced and if that overcomes WP:WEIGHT concerns that could be mentioned in the lede, probably in a more general sense and not a specific statement of what opinion FactCheck happens to have. So in short, I support the move. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wikidemon. I understand your point, and respectfully disagree, although I think there is a good solution here. I see a potential undue weight issue if the lede were just to say that "the book has been criticized" without putting into context that the condemnation has been near-universal among mainstream sources. Not to do that would give undue weight to the Corsi accusations. I'm not flacking for FactCheck, though, so if there's a better way to make this point that moves the material down to the "d a" section, then that's cool by me. Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I support this move. I felt the lede was very overstated, giving FactCheck some sort of authority on whether the book was accurate, when it has none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yezzerat (talk • contribs) 20:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 7 external links on The Obama Nation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Obama Nation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Obama Nation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
