Changes

Andy, thank you for unlocking the page - I fixed the broken link, so if you'd like to re-lock, it should be fine now. I'm going to go ahead and check all the other links on the page, and if they're not working, find replacements.  If I find anything, I'll post here. [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 17:20, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

Andy, thank you for unlocking the page - I fixed the broken link, so if you'd like to re-lock, it should be fine now. I'm going to go ahead and check all the other links on the page, and if they're not working, find replacements.  If I find anything, I'll post here. [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 17:20, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

:The first link in (5) doesn't seem to be working for me, but it might just be me.  This link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2104131/posts would provide a reference for the same statement.

OK, this deserves its own section.  There are many broken reference links, which I'm trying to find replacements for.

:Link (9) is broken, the page no longer exists.  This link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6051268.ece would provide a reference for the same statement.

The first link in reference (5) doesn't seem to be working for me, but it might just be me.  This link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2104131/posts would provide a reference for the same statement.

:Link (12) is broken, the page no longer exists.  This link: http://news.chennaionline.com/newsitem.aspx?NEWSID=9fab8324-a1a1-4ad6-840f-76b04a405a65&CATEGORYNAME=INTER would provie a reference for the same statement.

Reference (9) is broken, the page no longer exists.  This link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6051268.ece would provide a reference for the same statement.

:Reference (19) has the same link listed twice. Nothing wrong with that, but it seems kind of sloppy to me.

Reference (12) is broken, the page no longer exists.  This link: http://news.chennaionline.com/newsitem.aspx?NEWSID=9fab8324-a1a1-4ad6-840f-76b04a405a65&CATEGORYNAME=INTER would provie a reference for the same statement.

:Link (23) is broken, the page no longer exists.  This is my fault, since I just added it, but (22) is just fine as a single reference.  So we can eliminate this broken link without replacement, especially for a statement that returns as many google hits as this one does.

Reference (19) has the same link listed twice.  Nothing wrong with that, but it seems kind of sloppy to me.

:I'll keep going, but I wanted to post this stuff up now, so my screen doesn't get cluttered with tabs and such. [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 17:33, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

Reference (23) is broken, the page no longer exists.  This is my fault, since I just added it, but (22) is just fine as a single reference.  So we can eliminate this broken link without replacement, especially for a statement that returns as many google hits as this one does.

::I realized I might have been confusing before - when I say, "link #", I'm not refferring to the numbered links but rather the list at the bottom of the page.  So from now on, I'll say reference #, and if multiple links are included in a reference, ref #, first/second/etc. link. 

Reference (26) is broken.  This is a toughie - most online references are copy-paste of the Wikipedia article, which itself sites these books:  

:A Brief History of The Fourteen Infallibles. Qum: Ansariyan Publications. 2004.

I don't have these books, and I haven't read them, so I don't know if they back up the reference.

::Anyways, on with the show:

Reference (28) links to a video which, by the decription provided by the uploader, attempts to discredit the quote being referenced.  A shorter video which arrives at the quote in question faster is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKGdkqfBICw 

::Reference (26) is broken.  This is a toughie - most online references are copy-paste of the Wikipedia article, which itself sites these books:

Reference (49) redirects to the blog's main page, and blog does not have a search feature.  Regardless of whether link is broken or not, we should replace with http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0409/White_House_No_bow_to_Saudi.html which is more to the point.

::A Brief History of The Fourteen Infallibles. Qum: Ansariyan Publications. 2004.  

::I don't have these books, and I haven't read them, so I don't know if they back up the reference.

::Reference (28) links to a video which, by the decription provided by the uploader, attempts to discredit the quote being referenced.  A shorter video which arrives at the quote in question faster is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKGdkqfBICw 

References (56) and (57) are the same link, we can delete one for neatness.

::Reference (49) redirects to the blog's main page, and blog does not have a search feature.  Regardless of whether link is broken or not, we should replace with http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0409/White_House_No_bow_to_Saudi.html which is more to the point.

Reference (61) isn't even a reference.  Suggest instead using http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26101

::References (56) and (57) are the same link, we can delete one for neatness.

References (72), (73), and (75) are all broken.  Suggest replacing all three with http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html

::Reference (61) isn't even a reference. Suggest instead using http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26101

Reference (89) is broken, but we can just link to Conservapedia's own [[Atheism and Uncharitableness]].

::References (72), (73), and (75) are all broken.  Suggest replacing all three with http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html

Reference (91) is broken, suggest replacement with http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/11/01/obama_campaign_to_return_aunts.html

::OK, dumping again so my screen doesn't get too crowded. [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 17:58, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

References (97), (98), and (100) are broken.  These were the same as (72), (73), (75), so we should have a single reference http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html and have all 6 of these citations be to this one article.

 

Reference (115) is broken, replace with http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-2433

 

Reference (128) is broken, suggest replacement with http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/05/obamas-in-control-no-more_n_105407.html and rewrite of sentence which cites this reference.

 

 

Reference (132) is broken, but will be difficult to replace.  Citation is a direct reference to the reference and the authors of the reference.  I'll work on this.

 

Reference (140) is broken, replace with http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/11/john-lewis-warns-mccain-y_n_133903.html

 

More to come! [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 18:20, 11 July 2009 (EDT)