User:JZambrano/WhyILeftWikipedia

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This was previously at Blogger.com[1] and still appears in Google search results[2], but apparently Google took it down for some reason. Therefore, I'll just put it back up here. It shows the level of bias ongoing at the page for Obama, and how intent Wikipedia is on suppressing the evidence and sources I provided at the Obama page (see section First: 17 Sources, Proposed Changes). The same content I provided here I was willing to have summarized in just a few well-sourced sentences on the Obama page, and not even in the Lede, yet editors there fought this tooth and nail, and did not even want it discussed; doing all they could to get me banned. How Google is involved with the Barack Obama campaign I'm not sure but it's growing apparent they too want the information suppressed, and actually tampered with my ability to access Google News results - I had to alter individual results to prevent them from changing my access to the search feature for it in recent months. Here's the former entry I had on Blogger - I'm adding subsections for comments 1-10, 11-20, etc., for ease in editing:

Contents

Wikipedia Controversy: Bias on Born Alive Bills with Obama

The following is to be a (long) chronological list of the comments and edits made by myself and others, with complete documentation, that led to my leave from Wikipedia, in order.

The following will be primary sources of evidence cited:

Lesser sources include:

The conversations can be seen in full, though they were closed/collapsed in hab tags to prevent their being easily seen by the biased editors, here. Admin Frank archived them in multiple areas to prevent their being easily viewed.

I am confident these sources clearly show the level of liberal bias to be seen on Wikipedia, in preventing mention of even a major controversy surrounding Obama like his opposition to medical care for newborn children fully outside the womb -- his opposition to the famously popular Born Alive Infants Protection Act in 2002 that became U.S. Law with public approval upwards of 90% which passed the U.S. Senate unanimously. Despite the considerable news coverage of the subject in both 2004 and 2008, Wikipedia as an institution refused to give so much as a one-sentence mention to the subject, betraying all its hypocritical claims of impartiality and objectivity.

Also, for the record, 'Infanticide' is not a political term, it is actually used twice in the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, also passed into law (within a year of the BAIPA, 2003), to refer to children being left to die after these botched abortions rather than being given medical attention. See 14(G) and 14(O) in the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act for use of the term within current U.S. Law to refer to the same now-illegal practice Obama repeatedly fought to protect, leaving newborn children to die unattended after botched, late-term abortions - something that was occurring regularly in Illinois as testified before Congress by nurses Stanek and Baker for the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.

I will be updating this periodically (last update 4/21/2012). I am attempting to mention all evidence, including edit comments/titles. Bolding is removed from quotes even if it was used at the time to better track chronology (relying as it does on bolded time stamps). Sources for each quote are given at the end as 'Source 1', 'Source 2', etc. Key quotes by myself and others at the time will be highlighted in Red. Key comments by myself about what happened are shown in Green:

1-10

1 - 2009, 12/17, 15:01-36: I made the following edits to the Barack Obama page, striving to simply report the hard facts while keeping opinionated adjectives out of the edits. The edits rested upon 8 major sources, 3 from the Illinois General Assembly (senate transcripts) and one each from the Associated Press (quoted on MSNBC), FactCheck.org, the Chicago Tribune, the Houston Press, and Time Magazine, not exactly conservatively biased news sources. This was just an initial proposal, the later one included over 40 prominent sources, as will be shown:

POLITICAL CONTROVERSIES
Support for 'Infanticide'
Former 2004 Senate opponent Alan Keyes, who entered the 2004 Senate race after Obama's original opponent, Jack Ryan, dropped out due to a sex scandal, began accusing Obama just one day after entering the race of taking the 'slaveholder's position' because Obama termed children surviving late-term abortions "fetus]es]" and supported the right of hospitals to let them die of abandonment 166. Obama in 2003, before the Illinois Senate, questioned whether a bill known as the Born Alive Infants Protection Act could be summarized as follows:167
"Senator O’Malley, the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was – is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the — the fetus or child, as – as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb. And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living. Is that correct? Is that an accurate sort of descriptions of one of the key concerns of the bill?"
After Senator O'Malley answered in the affirmative, Senator Obama's reply included the following:
"Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose I think it would probably be found unconstitutional. The second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we're placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as -- as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we're probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality."
During his time in the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama would vote against other bills addressing this subject of 'live birth abortion', including the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act (which included statements by Senator Cullerton that closely mirrored the aforementioned and later arguments of Obama)168 and the Induced Birth Infants Liability Act (with both Senators Obama and Cullerton speaking, Obama elaborating).169
In August of 2008, Factcheck.org officially recognized some truth to the claims of infanticide, stating "We find that, as the NRLC said in a recent statement, Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported. Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus, according to an undisputed summary written immediately after the committee's 2003 mark-up session."170
Chicago Politics
As reported on by the Chicago Tribune198 and later the Houston Press' Todd Spivak199, Obama defeated early political opponents by challenging their petition signatures. In this way he was able to defeat activist and popular incumbent Alice Palmer, who had earlier supported him, when she was forced to hurriedly collect petition signatures before the filing deadline.
As Spivak points out about the legislative record of Senator Obama, "It's a lengthy record filled with core liberal issues. But what's interesting, and almost never discussed, is that he built his entire legislative record in Illinois in a single year." Then Senate Majority Leader Emil Jones was approached by young Senator Barack Obama, who told him "You have the power to make a United States Senator."200
During his last year in the Illinois Senate Obama sponsored 26 bills that were passed into law. Jones had Obama craft legislation dealing with key issues in the news. But what is more, as reported on by Spivak, "Jones appointed Obama sponsor of virtually every high-profile piece of legislation, angering many rank-and-file state legislators who had more seniority than Obama and had spent years championing the bills. 'I took all the beatings and insults and endured all the racist comments over the years from nasty Republican committee chairmen,' State Senator Rickey Hendon, the original sponsor of landmark racial profiling and videotaped confession legislation yanked away by Jones and given to Obama, complained to me at the time. 'Barack didn't have to endure any of it, yet, in the end, he got all the credit.'"
Source 1

2. 2009, 12/17, 15:24: Scjessey posted on my Talk page: His comment, which I naturally didn't take too kindly to, was:

Just saw these edits while browsing RecentChanges. Excuse my bad language, but you've got to be f***ing kidding, right? I suggest you self-revert that stuff post haste! --Scjessey (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Source 2

3 - 2009, 12/17, 15:41: Frank reverted these edits with a comment of "This requires discussion on the talk page before being added":

Source 3

4 - 2009, 12/17, 15:45: GoodDay posted on my user talk page in Scjessey's new section:

Your additions have been reverted. Recommend using the related talkpage, before making such additions. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Source 4

5 - 2009, 12/17, 15:47: I was still editing the page and hadn't yet checked the history or my talk page, all I knew was my changes had been reverted (See 9 for more detail). So I made a new edit without the Chicago Politics section to see if this would be okay, since I considered The Born Alive one exceptionally well sourced as controversial given its prominence in the 2004 elections, major media controversy in 2008, and sourcing from Illinois Senate transcripts:

Source 5

6 - 2009, 12/17, 15:49: Frank reverted the edit again with an edit comment of "(Undid revision 332376252 by Jzyehoshua (talk))", giving a link to the Talk page.

Source 6

7 - 2009, 12/17, 15:50: Frank posted on my Talk page with a comment of

Please read the edit notice at the top of the edit page for Barack Obama. You've now reinserted material that was specifically removed with request to go to Talk:Barack Obama to discuss potential addition of the material. As the article is highly watched and under probation, further insertion of the same or similar material will earn you a block very quickly. Frank | talk 21:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Source 7

8 - 2009, 12/17, 15:55-16:28: I posted on GoodDay's Talk page in response to his comment on mine, thinking he'd been the one who had reverted my edits, because I hadn't yet checked the Obama page's history to see who had (something of a newbie mistake I'll admit). Scjessey, Frank, and GoodDay all responded there as well:

I saw you recently removed my new section on political controversies surrounding Barack Obama, which was very well sourced and kept neutral in stating only POVs from major media organizations. I ironically made that section only after noticing that other politicians who are conservative had politically conservative have such sections, but not Obama. I think it ironic that liberals seek to silence free speech when it is critical of them. This began with someone swearing at me on my profile which I would calmly suggest may indicate a lack of unbiased neutrality upon the reporting party's part. Please explain to me how I overstepped any boundaries with my post before I take this to a higher level.
Sincerely,
Jz --Jzyehoshua (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Blah blah blah free speech blah blah censorship blah blah baby killers... -- Scjessey (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Jz, I was the one who reverted your addition twice, and I left a message on your talk page about it. The revert of your edits has nothing to do with bias of any type. It's just that we need to develop a WP:CONSENSUS before putting a whole new section in an article, especially one as highly-watched as Barack Obama. Frank | talk 21:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Jz, you need your eyesighte tested, giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
If you didn't revert my additions, then why post on my talk page saying they were reverted? -.^ --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Something to do, I suppose. GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Source 8

9 - 2009, 12/17, 16:00-18: I and Frank had a discussion on his Talk page in which I explained I'd still been editing the page and had only made my 2nd edit (See 5) because I hadn't seen his comments yet. He re-emphasized the discussion should occur on the Obama Talk page:

Liberal Bias?
I recently made the following comment in regards to the moderator who removed my comment, once I got their message. The reason it was re-posted was I was still editing and hadn't yet seen the messages.
"I saw you recently removed my new section on political controversies surrounding Barack Obama, which was very well sourced and kept neutral in stating only POVs from major media organizations. I ironically made that section only after noticing that other politicians who are conservative had politically conservative have such sections, but not Obama. I think it ironic that liberals seek to silence free speech when it is critical of them. This began with someone swearing at me on my profile which I would calmly suggest may indicate a lack of unbiased neutrality upon the reporting party's part. Please explain to me how I overstepped any boundaries with my post before I take this to a higher level.
Sincerely,
Jz --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)"
However, to elaborate further, other politicians have political controversy sections. This to me seems a stalling tactic to eliminate any possibility of public criticism of Barack Obama. I have noticed this done in the media as well, an unusually discriminatory form of bias attempting to silence all speech that is critical of him. I have no problem with the section being changed, but if you are going to disallow any discussion of the controversy surrounding him, however unbiased or neutral it may be in tone, then please at least avoid the hypocrisy evident here, and remove similar sections from the profiles of all other politicians.
Joshua
The correct venue for this discussion, as I have already written in three places (including your own talk page), is Talk:Barack Obama. Frank | talk 22:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Source 9

10 - 2009, 12/17, 17:12: I made the following comment on the Talk page for Barack Obama, in "Coverage of Controversies" section, per Frank's request, emphasizing that I was willing to forego a controversies section and simply mention the controversies within the article elsewhere, per newer Wikipedia preferences:

Coverage of Controversies?
I notice that conservative political profiles have mentioned on them scandals and public criticisms such as Palin's (McCain's this time last year was noticeably critical, unlike Obama's) yet not liberals. I imagine this to be because of the disproportionate impact liberals have on the internet, a fact, by the way, which is statistically provable. According to the 2009 political typology report by the Pew Research Center, there are 9 different profiles of voters, 3 Republican, 3 Democrat, and 3 Moderate. The 17% that are overwhelmingly socially liberal (19% of registered voters), and the only wealthy one of the 3 Democrat groups, are also the group of all 9 to go online most frequently for their news (37%, with no other group but the Moderate Upbeats, at 34%, close - no other group but the Republican Enterprisers is at even 26%). http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=945
At any rate, I am proposing the following section, although, I notice that Wikipedia is now changing to avoid sections labeled 'Political Controversies' even though I noticed another politician with just such a section just today, so perhaps it would be best to not label it that, but instead make it merely historical referenced, as part of his senate career:
POLITICAL CONTROVERSIES
Support for 'Infanticide'
Former 2004 Senate opponent Alan Keyes, who entered the 2004 Senate race after Obama's original opponent, Jack Ryan, dropped out due to a sex scandal, began accusing Obama just one day after entering the race of taking the 'slaveholder's position' because Obama termed children surviving late-term abortions "fetus]es]" and supported the right of hospitals to let them die of abandonment 166. Obama in 2003, before the Illinois Senate, questioned whether a bill known as the Born Alive Infants Protection Act could be summarized as follows:167
"Senator O’Malley, the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was – is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the — the fetus or child, as – as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb. And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living. Is that correct? Is that an accurate sort of descriptions of one of the key concerns of the bill?"
After Senator O'Malley answered in the affirmative, Senator Obama's reply included the following:
"Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose I think it would probably be found unconstitutional. The second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we're placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as -- as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we're probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality."
During his time in the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama would vote against other bills addressing this subject of 'live birth abortion', including the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act (which included statements by Senator Cullerton that closely mirrored the aforementioned and later arguments of Obama)168 and the Induced Birth Infants Liability Act (with both Senators Obama and Cullerton speaking, Obama elaborating).169
In August of 2008, Factcheck.org officially recognized some truth to the claims of infanticide, stating "We find that, as the NRLC said in a recent statement, Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported. Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus, according to an undisputed summary written immediately after the committee's 2003 mark-up session."170
Chicago Politics
As reported on by the Chicago Tribune198 and later the Houston Press' Todd Spivak199, Obama defeated early political opponents by challenging their petition signatures. In this way he was able to defeat activist and popular incumbent Alice Palmer, who had earlier supported him, when she was forced to hurriedly collect petition signatures before the filing deadline.
As Spivak points out about the legislative record of Senator Obama, "It's a lengthy record filled with core liberal issues. But what's interesting, and almost never discussed, is that he built his entire legislative record in Illinois in a single year." Then Senate Majority Leader Emil Jones was approached by young Senator Barack Obama, who told him "You have the power to make a United States Senator."200
During his last year in the Illinois Senate Obama sponsored 26 bills that were passed into law. Jones had Obama craft legislation dealing with key issues in the news. But what is more, as reported on by Spivak, "Jones appointed Obama sponsor of virtually every high-profile piece of legislation, angering many rank-and-file state legislators who had more seniority than Obama and had spent years championing the bills. 'I took all the beatings and insults and endured all the racist comments over the years from nasty Republican committee chairmen,' State Senator Rickey Hendon, the original sponsor of landmark racial profiling and videotaped confession legislation yanked away by Jones and given to Obama, complained to me at the time. 'Barack didn't have to endure any of it, yet, in the end, he got all the credit.'"
==
Now, all of those are mainstream criticisms of Barack Obama. I would like to see the reasoning behind those who would deny the inclusion of them. I would also ask, if there is a consensus to be achieved on whether to put this in, how long will it take, and how will it be decided? After all, if hypothetically, liberals were more obtuse in refusing to allow criticisms of Obama yet conservatives were able to agree to allow valid criticisms of conservative candidates, would that mean that just because one side is hypocritically unjust in disallowing a consensus that variable and discriminatory means should be permitted to coexist? --Jzyehoshua (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Source 10

11-20

11 - 2009, 12/17, 17:49: User NoHitHair responded to my new post with a new section titled "NPOV" expressing frustration that my edits had been reverted, and that controversy was being kept out of the Obama page: NPOV

This article is blatantly in favor of Obama. There isn't even a criticisms area. In the economic section, not a word is devoted to any of the bailouts made available to Wall Street or foreign banks. Nothing is stated about the trillions the Fed handed over to recipients they refuse to disclose. The AIG scandal is left completely out. There is nothing in this article that lends any opposing voice to Obama's presidency.
I believe I'm done editing Wikipedia articles. Places have turned into travel brochures instead of accurate representations of the areas (Downtown Eastside is an excellent example of this propagandizing) and living persons are often idolized. When an individual steps up to fix the article, it is often removed by rabidly partisan Wiki-ers. Wikipedia is nothing like it was in years past. What began as an honest attempt is now a mouthpiece in a popularity contest.
NoHitHair (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Source 11

12 - 2009, 12/17, 17:49-18:20: Users DD2K and Ouroboros Cobra responded with blatant hostility, DD2K responding to my "Coverage of Controversies" section, and Cobra to NoHitHair's "NPOV" section:

Are you kidding? This isn't a political advertisement website that has a place for one side or the other to post their political adds against political figures. If you want to go around Wikipedia and accuse WP:BLP of killing children, you're not going to last very long. My suggestion for you is to either drastically reduce the size of your last edit here(there is a 500 word limit) and strike the portions that are purposely inflammatory, or just revert the whole thing. DD2K (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Probably because you are looking in the wrong article. Most of those things would be in the Presidency of Barack Obama, not this, which is a biography of the man, not a play by play of his presidency. Have fun leaving though, it's always great to work with people who shout a lot and then say they hate you. Don't let the Internet ports slam in your a** as you close them. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Source 12

13 - 2009, 12/17, 18:23: User JzG removed my entire Coverage of Controversies edit section from the Talk Page with a revision comment of "(removing blatantly inappropriate material}" Source 13a

This was then reversed by Queen of Battle with an edit comment of

"(Undid revision 332403367 by JzG (talk)This is a content dispute, please do not revert others' comments)" Source 13b

Grsz then removed the section again with an edit comment of

"(Undid revision 332438724 by QueenofBattle (talk) it is inappropriate, and on a talk page, not a content dispute)" Source 13c

Needless to say, some of the page's primary editors, Scjessey, Grsz, and JzG, were not interested from the start in even allowing my edits consideration, but were trying to censor them from the beginning, while others like GoodDay and OuroborosCobra showed initial hostility. It became very clear just within the first few hours how blatantly biased some of the editors would prove to be. All of this was just over trying to have a conversation about submission of the material! They did not even want to allow the conversation to begin, let alone hear it out with objective consideration.

While in retrospect I can now see that some like Frank, as well as Abrazame and WikiDemon (mentioned later) were more level-headed, at the time everything was happening so fast, with attacks coming from so many different sides, it was tough to recognize which were willing to at least have a discussion, and which were doing all they could to silence it and engage in personal attacks. I'm ordinarily pretty good at keeping a level head, but even I had trouble not reacting to such blatant bias and incendiary personal attacks/namecalling at the time.

14 - 2009, 12/17-18, 23:47-00:18: I posted on Grsz's page asking why he was trying to censor the discussion on the Obama Talk page.

No Discussion?
Alright, so now you're saying the material can not even be discussed in the talk pages? I am sourcing this, am asking for an explanation of how the material is inappropriate, and nobody to date has provided ANYTHING in reference to this. If you are going to remove it, at least do me the courtesy of stating WHY it is inappropriate.
First you guys say I can't post it because it must be discussed on the talk pages first. Then when I try to talk about it there you are now saying it can't be posted about there? How am I supposed to address it there if the subject matter can't even be brought up there? You seem to be trying to silence alternate points of view at this point, rather than providing any basis of reason.
--Jzyehoshua (talk) 05:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 14a

Grsz replied as follows:

I did not say it cannot be discussed. As already pointed out to you, the text is inappropriate. That is why it was removed from the article. Copying and pasting it on the talk page is even moreso inappropriate and certainly will not help your cause. You have been told the reasons, and feiging ignorance won't help. Grsz11 05:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 14b

15 - 2009, 12/17, 23:52: I undid the revision by Grsz removing my Coverage of Controversies section (did not make edit comments) and replied to DD2K's comment with the following:

Hey, hey, hey, keep the ad hominems to yourself. If you want to accuse me of using political ads then why don't you say what part of the heavily sourced facts you disagree with? Those are major sources I'm using to back up every little statement, even the inflections and tones of voice, when referring to Obama. The least you can do is state what you disagree with.
I am not sure if those citations I gave are easily clicked on, I was trying to figure out how, so they may not work here in the discussion, but I will post them out.
  • 1. Keyes assails Obama's abortion views, August 9, 2004, 13, Associated Press.
  • 2. State of Illinois General Assembly 92nd General Assembly Regular Session Senate Transcript, Illinois General Assembly, March 30, 2001, 14, pages=85-87 2009.
  • 3. State of Illinois General Assembly 90th General Assembly Regular Session Senate Transcript, Illinois General Assembly, March 18, 1997, 15, pages=61-63.
  • 4. Obama and 'Infanticide', FactCheck.org, August 25, 2008, 16.
  • 5. Barack Obama knows his way around a ballot, Chicago Tribune, April 3, 2007, 17.
  • 6. Barack Obama and Me, Houston News, February 26, 2008, 18.
  • 7. Obama: How He Learned to Win, Time Magazine, May 8, 2008, 19.
Look, I could play you and take the other side and say you shouldn't have the negative stuff about the Bridge to Nowhere or her governorship stuff on Sarah Palin's website because this isn't a place for 'political ads'. Just because it's politically controversial does not mean it is untrue, un-historical, factually inaccurate, or defamatory. It's only defamatory if not very clearly true and unsourced. Which is why I challenge you to back up your accusations against me and show even one word I said that is a matter of opinion rather than simply covering the subjects.
It's because I don't think Wikipedia should treat itself like a political campaign website that I am opposing you on this. You're treating Obama's page here like a glorified billboard praising his beautiful attributes while avoiding anything critical of him, and denying the very different manner of approach used elsewhere for politicians on Wikipedia. I am saying that you should do one or the other. Either be willing to show the factual criticisms of him, or remove the criticisms for all other politicians.
And again, if you think I am being opinionated or not backing up any statements in any way - then show how. Say it. Where's the beef? I wrote a well-sourced article and if you're going to throw around attacks like that against it and against me, then at least show the courtesy of saying why you disagree with them. Anyone can accuse an article or article writer. It's a whole other thing to actually provide reasoned arguments and logic-based critiques.
As soon as I wrote this, I had someone come on my page and tell me I had to be [censored] kidding. :
Another one who wasn't even a moderator came and told me the post was reverted and then laughed when
I asked them why it was reverted, told me I needed to get my eyes checked. There is a liberal community on the web that composes less than 20% of the American populace but will exert their influence over the rest of society whenever they can to further their agendas by silencing free speech through whatever means necessary.
We saw that in the large scale with the leaking of the climate change emails, which showed the liberal members of the scientific community were willing to go so far as bias in peer review and discrimination to remove or disallow all alternate points of view - and any evidence that did not fit their beliefs.
Bottom line - I quoted from Obama's own words off the senate floor and major news articles from the Chicago Tribune, Time Magazine, and the Associated Press. FactCheck.org was referenced as well. Whether you like the POV or not is irrelevant here. If it is a major issue than it should be covered, and the fact that you are trying to silence it without being able to provide any reasonable basis shows something here. I noticed a recent user tried to remove this part of the discussion and all my comments. The attempts by the Wikipedia community to prevent this from even being discussed are shameful and disgusting.--Jzyehoshua (talk) 05:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Source 15

16 - 2009, 12/17, 23:52-57: Tarc and I discussed the matter in the Coverage of Controversies section. He made his initial edit with an edit comment of "(not really worth the time to rebut, but...)", I made no edit comments:

Ideological disagreement is not encyclopedic material. None of this has the slightest chance of appearing in a biographical article on the Wikipedia. Tarc (talk) 05:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree. But what part of my post resorted to 'ideological disagreement'? I merely reported the facts and points of view of major news outlets in covering this, and stuck entirely to the facts. If I did otherwise, then show it. And if I did so, and this is still inappropriate, then state WHY.
--Jzyehoshua (talk) 05:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Source 16

17 - 2009, 12/17-18, 23:59-00:07: Grsz continued with his attempts to start an edit war by collapsing my proposed changes using hab tags with an edit comment of "(clean up so its readable)" and a title of "Template:Hat" Source 17a

I reverted Grsz's edit without making an edit comment of my own. Source 17b

Grsz collapsed it again, this time with a reply to my Coverage of Controversies section of:

Then you're doing yourself a disservice in not becoming familiar with the policies and guidelines that have been pointed out to you. Here's another:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Nobody here is saying keep criticism in other articles, and you claiming that is false. Grsz11 Source 17c

Tarc put the replies in the "Coverage of Controversies" section in a new subsection called "Further Commentary". Source 17d

He also replied to my previous comment in Coverage of Controversies with:

In answer to "what part", I would respond "all of it". The Obama article isn't a soapbox for your anti-abortionist propaganda, nor is it for delving into minutiae about Chicago politics. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog. Tarc (talk) 06:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 17e

18 - 2009, 12/18, 00:17: I replied to Tarc's new comment with the following:

Way to be specific. If it's "all of it" then surely you can provide even ONE example, right? Because I've been challenging anyone to provide one the last several hours and still have yet to see anything tangible.
As for 'minutiae' about Chicago politics, we're talking minutiae being reported on by the Associated Press, Chicago Tribune, Time Magazine, Washington Post, New York Times, and FactCheck.org. Among others. That's some pretty substantial minutiae.
You have needed far less excuse to report negative stories about politicians or organizations elsewhere on Wikipedia. For example, the article on Microsoft needs very few or no sources to accuse the global corporate giant of different things. The article on Alan Keyes, the 2004 Senate opponent of Obama, mentions the media attacks on him at the time of carpet-bagging and 'selfish hedonism'. I don't see you standing up to say that is too negative of him. You want to be able to put the negative stuff about him but balk at anything critical of his opponent being put on Wikipedia.
As I have said, double standard. If you are going to make claims, back them up from now on. I am getting tired of the mudslinging done here with no accountability for attacks on others and their posts.
--Jzyehoshua (talk) 06:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Source 18

19 - 2009, 12/18, 00:29-03:04: Tarc replied to the Coverage of Controversies section as follows:

You only have 2 sections, one is "Support for 'Infanticide'", the other "Chicago politics". Let's not play coy about what we're talking here; your material, while wordy, is not terribly complicated. There is absolutely nothing worthwhile, encyclopedic, or relevant in the "Infanticide" section. Alan Keyes is a marginal politician who holds a decidedly fringe view regarding abortion the details of his infanticide charges have no bearing on a biographical article on the president. The other is a simplistic treatise on the rough and tumble style of politics that Chicagoans are infamous for. Nothing really special about Obama being another in a long line of them. No offennse, but all of this text is just a big pile of "meh", more suited to the freerepublic or the Conservopedia. Tarc (talk) 06:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 19a

JzG chipped in for the first time with the following comment:

Since Jzyehoshua seems to be having serious difficulty understanding this, it seems we have to point it out in very simple terms. There are absolutely on circumstances whatsoever under which any biography will assert that a view on abortion equates to support for infanticide. None. If you want to write cr** like that, go to Conservapedia or Free Republic. Any editor who tries to do this in an article will almost certainly be blocked if not banned, and any editor who edit wars to include such ridiculously loaded terms on a talk page will also very likely end up blocked. I hope this is sufficiently clear that the fools edit warring over this idiocy will now understand. Guy (Help!) 09:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 19b

20 - 2009, 12/18, 03:31-57: I had been working on a reply to Tarc, and posted another to JzG as well, in the Coverage of Controversies section. My reply to Tarc was as follows:

Both of which deal with 2 major parts of his entire history. To deny them is to deny all of the facts about his past. People don't know much about Obama or his past in general. I live in Illinois. I followed the events of these elections. I went to one of his town hall meetings back in 2004. These are not being reported by Wikipedia because they are attacks on Obama. They are not being reported because, despite being major historical aspects of the real Barack Obama, the only Obama Wikipedia wants presented is a rosy picture with major pieces of that picture missing.
Of his early political career in 2004 nothing is mentioned negatively. Not that he used these tactics to defeat Palmer. Not that the racial profiling bill he sponsored was originally the work of a guy who is still so sore about it (Hendon) that they had a physical confrontation in the last 2 years. Any other politician and this stuff would be put in right away. You are deliberately keeping out all critical aspects of his career in a way that no other politician on Wikipedia is treated.
As for the infanticide, that has been pointed out by almost every major news publication you could name at one point or another. It's been picked up on heavily across the web. FactCheck.org, who has a better reputation for fact-checking than Wikipedia, admitted it had merit. That is a part of his career that Alan Keyes, Jill Stanek, and others have criticized him publicly over for years. You just want it covered up so that nobody can even consider that it might be an issue - though it is, clearly.
I made only 2 sections because I only wanted to deal with the content I was most familiar with and knew was indisputable. I wanted to avoid controversial facts when posting to Wikipedia so everyone could agree they were facts, since there is still no denying any of the things I said.
As I said before, I don't support the exact wording being put in. But it should be mentioned at points in the article that Palmer was treated as she was, and that Alan Keyes prominently opposed him for the reasons he did. And concerning Keyes, he ran a campaign against Obama primarily on that one issue alone with less than 3 months in the election and no built-up campaign structure whatsoever, yet still managed almost 30% of the vote. When he came in, Obama had been campaigning for months and the press attacked Keyes from the beginning, and did not give him equivalent time in debates or in the newspapers, and many took time to even learn Keyes was running at all.
As for those 'fringe views', the majority of Americans for the first time were pro-life as opposed to pro-choice, according to Gallup. What is more, only 23% say abortion should be legal under any circumstances, and never has that percentage been higher than 34% - meaning the majority of Americans overwhelmingly say abortion should be legal only in cases where the mother's life is in danger or rape/incest has occurred.20
As for your excuse that this is just another part of Chicago politics and thus not worth reporting on, that does not prevent Wikipedia from having a big long 'Controversies' section for Mayor Richard M. Daley and ex-Governor Rod Blagojevich. But of course I'm sure you'd say those are different, right? -.^--Jzyehoshua (talk) 09:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I replied to JzG's comment with two of my own, and my growing annoyance evident in my use of the term 'evil' in the initial response. However, I made it very clear here that I was willing to avoid use of the term 'Infanticide' if other editors viewed it as objectionable, I simply wanted the controversies reported on in accordance with their prominent media coverage.

Even use of the term, though it is being used widely by the pro-life movement including the NRLC, and referred to by FactCheck.org, as well as major publications, can not be used? You are not even allowing the issue to be broached, no matter how major an issue it is. At this point it has reached the same level of liberal bias evident in NBC and reported on by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism, a study revealing the press provided levels of bias not only in how much extra air time they gave to Obama as opposed to McCain, but also the levels of favorability. It found considerable bias by all major news channels but Fox News in favor of Democrats.21
This is also shown by the levels of industry donations for the media. 70% historically of all donations go to Democrats, and just 29% to Republicans. For 2010, it was 76% for Democrats.22
Therefore, you can call names all you want, using the ad hominem tactics all you want, and I'd imagine you'll have a few straw men to throw into the mix as well, but that doesn't negate the fact that you are wrong, you know you're wrong, I know you're wrong, and whatever the decision reached here becomes, that does not make the record of your evil any less.--Jzyehoshua (talk) 09:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
BOTTOM LINE: As I said before, I recognize now that Wikipedia is trying to get away from such 'controversies' sections, even though I think it odd that such sections still exist for the other aforementioned Illinois politicians like Rod Blagojevich and Mayor Richard M. Daley. However, while I would NO LONGER support the inclusion of my original section with its lengthy discourse on infanticide, I still state that it should be mentioned that certain points in Obama's past had negative aspects, to avoid liberal bias. These should include:
- Early political tactics. When mentioning Alison Palmer, it should be noted that she and the other 3 early opponents of Obama were knocked off by ballots rather than beaten in political races as a result of him challenging their petition signatures. If there is going to a 1996-2004 section mentioning Palmer, it might as well mention this valid historical aspect of what happened.
-Details about the Keyes race. If it is going to be mentioned like that, it might as well be mentioned that Keyes had just 3 months left before the elections when entering, and was challenging Obama primarily on the issue of late-term abortions. If people don't want to see the term 'infanticide' used I am fine with that, although it was one used heavily by Keyes and others. It could also be mentioned that the media played a part in deciding the race's outcome, first by attacking Keyes as a carpetbagger and later for his daughter Maya Keyes being gay (both of which were major aspects of the race).
-It could also be mentioned what Obama's role was with Senator Emil Jones in gaining his U.S. Senate seat, and how he is recorded as asking for that seat, an unusual step. However, I know this will take talking about as it will need to be heavily sourced. Nevertheless, I am confident the sources can be brought forth. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Source 20

21-30

21 - 2009, 12/18, 04:16-21: Hoary entered the conversation, providing a voice of reason to the increasingly heated discussion. He suggested that I focus on whatever argument was strongest of the 3 suggested additions proposed, and also rebuked Ouroboros Cobra's snide remark earlier. His response to me in the Coverage of Controversies section was:

You want the article to have three additions. One of these you say needs better sourcing, and another in part concerns reasons why another candidate failed (reasons that you haven't linked above to Obama at all). Perhaps you should concentrate on whatever you think is your strongest point. Phrase it persuasively, and it might persuade. -- Hoary (talk) 10:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

In response to Ouroboros Cobra's rude comment to NoHitHair in the NPOV section, Hoary replied:

I don't understand how the second half of that could be imagined to be helpful. -- Hoary (talk) 10:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Source 21

22 - 2009, 12/18, 05:14: I replied to Hoary in the Coverage of Controversies section, reiterating that the Obama page displayed a noticeable absence of controversies, even those that had figured prominently in the news media:

Well, in the article itself, it states about the 2004 Senate Campaign, "Two months later, Alan Keyes accepted the Illinois Republican Party's nomination to replace Ryan. A long-time resident of Maryland, Keyes established legal residency in Illinois with the nomination. In the November 2004 general election, Obama received 70% of the vote to Keyes' 27%, the largest victory margin for a statewide race in Illinois history." For so major an event in Obama's life, the election to the U.S. Senate, this race is effectively covered in about 3 sentences, and glosses over the reasons why Keyes came to Illinois and the fact that the election was virtually over, seemingly to portray Keyes as negatively as possible. In essence, it is bringing up the carpetbagging stuff again and the concept that Obama won in a landslide, without mentioning anything about why Keyes came or why Obama won that way. There are no details given, it is vague, and again that's a major election in his history being glossed over with a few sentences. I don't see why adding a few more paragraphs about the election circumstances would be a bad thing.
As for the sourcing, I think I provided adequate sourcing (earlier articles by the Chicago Tribune and Houston News both provide evidence) but expect one or 2 more major sources might be ideal given that this was a less-reported-on issue. I still think all 3 should make it into the article.
Also, I notice that the information about the 2008 Presidential Campaign on John McCain's page is more detailed and mentions lobbyist criticisms, but here avoids mentions of the much more prominent fiscal issue in Obama's campaign, public financing. Again, reading different pages for candidates on both sides one can see very different treatment, whether comparing Bush:Obama, McCain:Obama, Palin:Obama, Keyes:Obama, etc. Noticeable negatives are stated on the other pages, but never on Obama's, quite noticeably. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 11:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Source 22

23 - 2009, 12/18, 06:36: Tarc in a comment to the Coverage of Controversies section revealed why he was so opposed to the edits, apparently he had made a hasty and incorrect assumption that the discussion was about abortion, rather than bothering to read what I was actually saying.

In response to the earlier "Both of which deal with 2 major parts of his entire history", I will say that, no, they really don't. "Abortion as infanticide" is a fringe opinion, and will not be given equal weight alongside mainstream POV. The other part is, astill, just a criticism of being a Chicago politician. Nothing special. As to comparisons with other articles, perhaps you could head on out there and improve those if you feel they are flawed, rather than making this article worse so they will all match. Tarc (talk) 12:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Source 23

24 - 2009, 12/18, 06:38: I replied to Grsz, pointing out that Wikipedia's BLP (Biographies of Living Persons) policy is no excuse for omitting factual information regarding them, just that it has to be factual and well-sourced; properly presented:

So then, you are saying Wikipedia would support my removing anything negative about a person, regardless of its factual basis? So the fact that George Bush started a false war over WOMD, I could remove all reference to that on his page? Because it is the same scenario here. There is factual, well-sourced basis for historical criticism of Barack Obama that can be stated objectively in a reasonable manner. Just because the Republicans use mudslinging all the time against him, doesn't mean there are no criticisms of Obama. It's just that so much of their junk is flying around that their stuff gets discredited and when they actually find something that is valid, it's like the boy that cries wolf, and nobody listens. Anyway, I just don't like it that Obama's being treated specially here and anything negative of him can't be written. I hardly think Wikipedia intends to allow a policy where anything written negative about anyone can be deleted for no other reason than making everything positive about everyone. And no, I'm not saying I want to remove all negative stuff about everyone, just pointing out that it seems ridiculous such a standard is being applied here. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 12:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Source 24

25 - 2009, 12/18, 06:40: Naturally I reacted in outrage at Tarc's distortion of my points, and careless reading comprehension. Anyone paying any attention at all to what I was writing should have been able to recognize the issue had nothing to do with the general abortion debate, but dealt solely with newborn children born after botched abortions who had been left to die without medical care. After all, the reason the BAIPA which Obama had voted against had passed overwhelmingly was precisely because it was not part of the usual pro-choice/pro-life abortion debate, but dealt with something EVERYBODY recognized was wrong, newborn children being left to die as testified before Congress by nurses Jill Stanek and Allison Baker.

Umm... what are you talking about? I never said abortion was infanticide. We're not talking about babies INSIDE the mother's body here. The reason it's controversial with Obama is he supported the killing of children who survive abortions and are OUTSIDE the mother's body. Didn't you read what I wrote? --Jzyehoshua (talk) 12:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Source 25

26 - 2009, 12/18, 07:35-38: Tarc replied with a comment of "Time to move on", and continued to misrepresent one of the major bills over the past century, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, as being cared about only by fringe groups, apparently not having paid any attention to the media publicity it had gotten years earlier which had led to the sweeping public outrage which led to its unanimous passage through the U.S. Senate including votes by such noted "anti-abortionist[s]" as Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, and Ted Kennedy. This was of course not something I appreciated.

Yes, I did, but that is what we call a distinction without a difference. This is not the proper venue to discuss anti-abortionist rhetoric though, this is to discuss the article of Barack. This sort of material is certain;y of pressing significance to Alan Keys, Operation Rescue and the like. But it has no bearing here. Tarc (talk) 13:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Source 26

27 - 2009, 12/18, 07:40: Shortly afterward, WHSL replied in the NPOV discussion as follows:

As OuroborosCobra correctly states, most information about Obama's presidency is contained in Presidency of Barack Obama. Since this article is supposed to be a biography that is intended to provide a brief look at his entire life, it doesn't make sense to put more about the presidency than is already there. Also, Wikipedia discourages criticism sections. They do not provide for neutral articles, and criticisms (cited of course) should be incoporated into the rest of the article. WHSL (Talk)13:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Source 27

28 - 2009, 12/18, 08:00: I quickly addressed Tarc's assertions in Coverage of Controversies that this was not a major issue, pointing out that the bill had passed precisely because it was not typical of the usual abortion debate since it dealt with children outside the womb, not inside, fully capable of surviving if medically attended. I emphasized that it was for this reason Obama had been lying about his voting record on the issue since 2004, trying to cover up his activism in opposing the Born Alive bills, because of how ridiculously popular they'd been with the American public.

You may not consider it immoral that Obama supported leaving newborn children to die on hospital beds. But it resulted, as he said on the Illinois senate floor, in a situation where even normally pro-choice members of the Illinois legislature supporting the bill to stop such a heinous practices. :
It is why the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act passed, not even normally pro-choice Congressmen could conscientiously support such a form of 'rights' where newborn babies are considered fetuses. It is why Obama has had to hide this aspect of his voting record from people many, many times. He has tried various defenses, including:
  • A) I would have voted for the Federal version of the bill but the Illinois version lacked the same language. FactCheck.org addressed this distortion by agreeing that the NRLC was right - Bart Stupak introduced an amendment to make the Illinois version word for word identical with the federal one, but Obama never let it get in. He brought it up in the Health and Human Services Committee, that he chaired, and voted against it. Thus Obama was lying about that.
  • B) The current Illinois laws already prevented such a practice. However, nurses Jill Stanek and Allison Baker both worked in an Illinois hospital, and were the key witnesses for the federal case - meaning this dealt with Illinois law first and foremost. This was pointed out in one of the earlier senate transcripts I provided, either the 2001 or 1997 one.
  • C) We shouldn't be talking about divisive subjects and focusing on what unifies us, the issue is unimportant. This despite the fact that he consistently speaks much differently about it on the senate floor, addresses it before Planned Parenthood unabashedly, and is just unwilling to show himself about it to the general public.
Many of his other defenses are detailed here by Jill Stanek.23
It is dishonest of you to try mentioning a lesser known group in conjunction with former U.N. Ambassador Alan Keyes in an attempt to continue your campaign to paint him as a fringe unknown, while avoiding the fact that the National Right to Life Committee, the primary pro-life group in the United States, has been tirelessly criticizing Barack Obama for years on this issue. You should be more forthright and forthcoming about this issue, rather than trying to deny the clear facts about this case. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 13:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Source 28

29 - 2009, 12/18, 08:09: Tarc continued to misrepresent this issue as being a fringe one despite having been one of the major political events in the first half of the 2000s, and having figured prominently in the news. He disliked the Jill Stanek source because it was from WorldNetDaily, leading to the numerous mainstream sources I would soon bring in:

All of which bears the stamp of a singular point of view and, as noted before, a decidedly fringe one at that. Anyone that approaches any wikipedia article on a living person with the intent to insert charges of "infanticide" into it in reference to the abortion debate is already starting off with two strikes against them, IMO. By the way, worldnetdaily is a sterling exmaple of an unreliable source. Anything "detailed" by WND cannot be used as a citation in a Wikipedia article, apart for basic factual statements about themselves. I think this is at a dead-end. Tarc (talk) 14:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 29a

Abrazame also replied for the first time, in response to WHSL's earlier comment, but in the NPOV section, not the Coverage of Controversies section:

I wouldn't be surprised if it weren't mentioned in this response if three more editors had already posted here, because the economic literacy in this world is not the greatest, but this is a simple issue of recent memory of timelines: the AIG "scandal" is the result of a "bailout" that began in the late summer of 2008, before the 2008 election and during the Presidency of George W. Bush, and that—and not the Presidency of Barack Obama article—would be where this "scandal" bears mentioning. Whether someone who would suggest it be added here will actually go through with adding it there or not remains to be seen, but as with every subject raised at this page, I would highly recommend actually reading an article on the subject before suggesting its addition here.
Wikipedia, in fact, has an article about AIG to remind readers such as yourself of this timeline, and it notes that AIG disclosed "a list of major recipients of collateral postings and payments under credit default swaps, guaranteed investment plans, and securities lending agreements" including Goldman Sachs and Société Générale, again, something that transpired in 2008, prior to the presidency of Barack Obama.
Finally, the upper amount involved in the AIG "bailout" is $182.5 Billion, some of which actually purchased mortgage-based assets (thereby not technically part of a "bailout", but instead a "buyout", the sort of investment it's not unheard of for the government to make) and some of which is an as-yet unused credit line (and so still actually in the hands of the U.S. government and not AIG). So it is some fraction less than one-twentieth of the "trillions" that you characterize it as being. Again, getting your facts somewhere within the ballpark before making an editorial suggestion would vastly improve your chances of not being considered an uninformed ideologue simply out to smear someone with revisionist history.
To the contrary of your accusation of POV in favor of Obama, I would say is there not a negative POV advanced by failing to mention in this article that the major banks have now all paid back their TARP "bailout" money to the government ("taxpayer") with interest? I would ask is there not a pessimistic or negative POV advanced by failing to mention in this article that the DOW has risen almost 4,000 points since March lows? Is there not a negative POV advanced by simply noting an unemployment number, yet failing to explain that new job losses, which had risen throughout the last couple years of the Bush administration to 700,000 a month by the time Obama took office, have decreased profoundly ever since? It's no surprise that the sort of people suggesting negative POV at this article miss the negative POV already there, but it's a disappointment that those battling the negative POV are so unaware or ambivalent about the imbalanced negativity in the article.
Recently, I substantively responded, with references, to erroneous comments in a conversation about the Stimulus, yet not a single editor here commented and after 14 days it was archived. The true POV is against adding positive facts, not the resistance to the sort of vague, unreferenced hearsay grudges that dominate these pages. Just every once in a while, we need to wrap our minds around an issue and respond with more than the stock "take it to Presidency" answer. I'd point out that nobody's really discussing anything at Presidency lately. The entire talk page there is two sections, with only a single, unresponded-to comment in the past month. Sometimes a thread can seem to include elements of specific responses to other editors, but when substantive, supported statements salient to a point of contention and relevant for article consideration are made, editors are more than welcome to weigh in with their acknowledgement of their veracity and relevancy to the article. When there was nothing going on but delinquency at both of these pages, it was hard to keep up with more substantive editorial discussions; now that there is so much less heat, let's acknowledge the light every once in awhile. Abrazame (talk) 14:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Source 29b

30 - 2009, 12/18, 08:32: In the NPOV section, I agree with Abrazame that the bailouts were something to criticize Bush over, but pointed out that a Democrat-run Congress at the time also played a role, and that Obama himself shared a large number of similarities with Bush. I probably shouldn't have taken the bait, as it got off-topic, but I've always been interested in politics.

All of which is true. Nevertheless, it was a Democrat-run Congress those last few years of the Bush presidency. And Obama voted in favor of the Bush tax cuts and TARP. He also voted in favor of ALL Bush's war funding requests.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/22/obama_defends_votes_in_favor_of_iraq_funding/
In July of 2008 the Wall Street Journal even ran an article pointing out the similarities and suggesting Obama was Bush's third term.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121495450490321133.html
CNN meanwhile ran an article pointing out 20 similarities between Bush and Obama on policy issues
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/13/wall.bush-obama/index.html
Many people do not realize that Obama even copied Bush's state of the union address from 2000, when he said 'Juntos Pudemos' or 'Together We Can'. If you look into their backgrounds and personality types, you might find more similar than you'd think.
PolitiFact also labeled as 'True' the statement by the McCain campaign that Obama supported the Bush campaign half the time.24 It was noted in 2005 that Obama supported attacking Iran with missile strikes to stop their nuclear program.25 --Jzyehoshua (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Source 30

31-40

31 - 2009, 12/18, 08:49-09:54: DD2K started screaming about my first introduction into the NPOV thread and posting on a tangent that Abrazame started, making a new section titled "Absurd Propaganda". I'd simply mentioned some finer points, to emphasize that both major parties were to blame, for balance in Abrazame's points, and he took it as "littering this talk page with your propaganda". What a nut. I should've just stuck to the original topic however without getting sidetracked. Frank and DD2K then had a discussion about this:

Absurd propaganda
For Pete's sake, quit littering this talk page with your propaganda. It has nothing to do with the biography of Barack Obama. These are political attacks made by his opponents during elections. I don't know how many times I've seen "Well, there was a Democratic Congress the last few years of the Bush Administration", which is an insinuation of blame put out by people either totally unfamiliar with the electoral process or how Legislation works or people who do not care. Democrats gained control of the Congress in both Houses in January of 2007, which gave them limited power with a Republican President. And two years, not 'a few', much of which was taken up by the Democratic/Republican Primaries for President and the General election(January 2008-November 2008). There was no way to override a Veto for those 2 years, and the situation was a check and balance. I really wish people would look into your agenda here and do something. It's blatantly obvious you do not wish to improve this article, or the Wikipedia project. You agenda is to disrupt and battle. DD2K (talk) 14:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Jzyehoshua has been instructed to achieve [3] WP:CONSENSUS on this talk page before adding the material to the article. The process is running its course. Name-calling and calls for admins to "do something" (previous thread) won't help at this point. Whether or not any of the material can be added will be decided by consensus. Whether or not a user will be blocked will depend on adherence to policy. I don't see a need for any more consideration than that. Frank | talk 15:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
So the addition of Jzyehoshua asking if Barack Obama supports killing infants is ok? That is allowed, even on the talk page? Don't get me wrong, if members of Code Pink were on the George W Bush article pushing their agenda(accusations of murder and such), I think the same warnings should apply. The user in question is obviously not trying to 'achieve WP:CONSENSUS and is using the talk page as a soapbox to push an agenda. I don't see how anyone can see it differently. How can his edits be described as coming from a WP:NPOV? In any way? DD2K (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
When a relatively new user (under 200 total edits, along with only three this year before edits to Barack Obama) comes in, guns blazing, and is told the right way to do things around here, and then complies, I think the process is working. That's not the same as saying I think any particular edit is OK, nor is it the same as asserting that the user's edits come from a neutral point of view, which they clearly do not. And, in fact, the implications (which are WP:OR anyway) are inappropriate. But we cannot expect new users to understand all the vast workings of Wikipedia instantly. Frank | talk 15:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I understand, and think your suggestions were very appropriate when the user tried to add the text to the article. My problem lays with the wording on the Talk page, not the procedure. The accusations of murder should not have any place here, on articles or talk pages. And that what is being accused here, the definition of the word is clear, 1, 2, 3. Allowing those accusations to stand, even on the talk page, should obviously be against the rules. DD2K (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Source 31

32 - 2009, 12/18, 09:47: This was where I revealed what I'd been working on the past few hours that had kept me mostly quiet, a rebuttal to Tarc's claim in the Coverage of Controversies section showing that the term Infanticide had figured prominently in the news, the claim had been made by the left as well as the right concerning Obama (National Organization of Women), and that Tarc's attempt to paint this as a fringe issue reflected poorly on him, not me. These are NOT the 40 sources to be later mentioned, although some may be similar.

Considering that the term infanticide has now been used in reference to Obama by:
  • -the National Right to Life Committee24
  • -CBS/The Associated Press25
  • -The Washington Post26
  • -Chicago Tribune2728
  • -Time Magazine's Real Clear Politics2930
  • -FactCheck.org31
  • -The New York Times32
  • -Newsweek33 (the FactCheck article)
  • -Newsbusters.org34
  • -U.S. Senator Rick Santorum35
  • -U.S. Senator Pat Moynihan36
  • -Sean Hannity37
  • -Rush Limbaugh38
  • -Ann Coulter39
  • -National Review40
  • -TownHall.com41
  • -Jill Stanek42
  • -HumanEvents.com43
  • -World Net Daily44
Obama even felt enough heat on the issue to address the Chicago Tribune about it directly with his website FightTheSmears.4546
That is not even including those like John McCain47, Sarah Palin48, and the National Organization of Women (Clinton supporters)49 who accused Obama of it but did not specifically use the word 'infanticide'.
Therefore, if you want to consider me discredited for using the word 'infanticide' in reference to Obama, I consider myself in good company, and find no problem with having done so, since I was merely following precedent in using a common term to refer to his voting record that has been frequently applied to him in the media and by national figures. As far as I am concerned, it is you who have long since been discredited for suggesting opposition to infanticide does not matter and is a fringe view, while considering discredited many major news organizations in the U.S.
--Jzyehoshua (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
P.S. It should further be pointed out that there is ALREADY a Wikipedia article addressing Jill Stanek's claims of Obama's infanticide (and yes, it uses that term).[4]
Source 32

33 - 2009, 12/18, 10:04: I noticed DD2K's new thread and responded to his comment in the NPOV section, pointing out that, given my newest edit, there was considerable evidence of the term 'Infanticide' having been used in relation to Obama by the mainstream press, and that this was not a partisan issue. I emphasized I was not Republican (I'm actually solidly 3rd party and support the Pro-Life Democrats, DFLA, more than any Republicans) and that my side comments criticizing Democrats were intended as fairness to ensure blame was not overlooked for either side as necessary. As an aside, I criticized McCain's similarity to Bush in the process.

So, those articles by CNN, the Wall Street Journal, and PolitiFact were nothing more than "political attacks made by his opponents during elections"? Interesting, I'm sure such news organizations would be very interested in hearing that you have such an opinion of them. Of course it couldn't be that maybe they just recognized there was validity to the points, enough so to compose major news releases on them.
McCain and company weren't the ones pushing this stuff. McCain was too busy buddying up to George W. and trying to look the part of Mr. National Security, the perfect 'W' predecessor.
And strong as the Republican presence in Congress was, they did not have filibuster power like the Democrats do now. Meaning some Democrats were involved too, probably ones not held accountable either. You want to make this a partisan issue even though I'm not a Republican. I just don't like it when people like you want to hold one side accountable and not the other. I'm all for criticizing Bush and the Republicans, I just wish you'd cut the hypocrisy and look at your side too.
--Jzyehoshua (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 33

34 - 2009, 12/18, 10:05: Frank probably hadn't noticed my new sources yet, and continued to obliviously carry on in the Absurd Propaganda thread, seemingly unaware that I'd just decisively shown this was not the fringe issue Tarc and DD2K wanted to portray it, but one which had received serious media scrutiny in the past. Looking back, I realize how objective and reasonable he appeared in what was a very heated discussion.

We must have a place for some amount of discussion, even if the entire thrust of the conversation is to point out that a particular view is unsupportable, at least in a Wikipedia article. At some point - possibly following the list added above which includes the assertion that (late) Senator Moynihan has commented on Obama - editors with views which are considered fringe (whether sources exist or not) will "get it". One way or another. But if we just say "go away, we don't like you", we're not doing the project any good and indeed are supporting the (incorrect) view that only certain points of view are allowed. WP:CONSENSUS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV are actually somewhat tricky concepts, I think...and that has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Add to that the fact that this is an online-only medium, and it becomes trickier still. Frank | talk 16:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Source 34

35 - 2009, 12/18, 10:23-24: Tarc in the NPOV thread now tried to downplay the newest 26 sources even though they showed the term 'Infanticide' he was trying to criticize had been substantially used by prominent sources including the New York Times, Time Magazine, CBS News/The Associated Press, The Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, FactCheck.org, Newsweek, and his opponents such as John McCain, Sarah Palin, and the National Organization for Women (NOW). (Coverage of Controversies section) He made an edit comment of "exiting before this circles the drain any further".

You are intermingling coverage of the charges with advocacy of the charges, which I'm sorry to say is a rather intellectually dishonest approach to the matter. Half of that list consists of unreliable sources, then a pair of opinion pieces by Senators, and the rest a handful of reliable sources. The CBS citation for example notes "Abortion opponents see Obama's vote on medical care for aborted fetuses as a refusal to protect the helpless. Some have even accused him of supporting infanticide". That doesn't give weight or credence to the allegations, it simply reports that political opponents have said it, as does the passage in Stanek's wiki-article. No in-depth analysis or coverage, because it is a trivial and dismissible charge, much as "baby killer" would be in reference to Bush in regards to the Iraq invasion.
Fightthesmears.com was setup for the precise purpose of shooting down conspiracy-tinged idiocy such as this. This is why we have a separate Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article to cover the Birthers and there Certifi-gate campaign; it has no real bearing on the biographical article of Obama, as it is a criticism so far out of the mainstream as to be almost laughable. I'm sorry that a favored cause of yours...induced abortion == murder...isn't gaining the traction that you'd like it to. But you're in the wrong place in attempting to fight that battle. I think that is about my last word on this subject, as it is beginning to get circular. Tarc (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 35a

At 10:54, Tarc made another edit to fix some minor typos he'd made. Source 35b

36 - 2009, 12/18, 10:36-44: DD2K responded to the NPOV discussion with continued claims that this was a "fringe view" even though it was clearly addressed through major news coverage:

Whether you do not understand that citing outlets that report on the accusations made by fringe groups is not proof that the accusations are true or not, I don't really care. Citing Pat Buchanan-quoting Patrick Moynihan on a RealClearPolitics blog and claiming that it was Moynihan accusing Barack Obama shows that you either have an agenda that cannot be reasoned with, or that you just don't care. There are plenty of conservatives and Republicans on Wikipedia that strive to make the project as balanced as possible, with the goals of having articles adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines. I just do not believe that you really are trying to accomplish that. As much as we are supposed to WP:AGF, you make that almost impossible for me. So I will now withdraw for this portion of the discussion and leave my obvious vote on the record. No. DD2K (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 36a

DD2K had also included in his original edit (10:36) the following asserting I was a Republican, which I ended up writing a response to, not realizing he'd deleted it with his second edit (10:44):

As for your claims that you are not a Republican, dude...one only has to search your profiles(including the profile at the Republican Action Network that proclaims you are: "A pro-life activist who first voted in 2004 for Alan Keyes and continues to oppose Obama" to find that that's not altogether factual. Source 36b

37 - 2009, 12/18, 10:58: I responded with annoyance in the NPOV thread that DD2K was missing the point, although perhaps my use of the term "Strawman Fallacy" was excessive. I pointed out my citation of major news sources was intended to show this wasn't a fringe issue, and that the site he'd mentioned actually showed me criticizing the GOP and suggesting they ally with the pro-life Democrats (DFLA). I also pointed out to DD2K that I face opposition from both sides of the political spectrum. However, by this point I was losing my cool and calling attention to the logical fallacies being committed, evidence that I was tired of my carefully researched citations being ignored and wanted to see discussion of the sources and claims themselves.

I never said it was proof the accusations were true, but nice use of the strawman fallacy. I cited them to prove that it's not a matter of fringe groups. If national media figures and organizations are addressing them, maybe it's time you rethought whether this is just a 'fringe' movement. After all, it's less than 25% of the U.S. that supports abortion under all circumstances according to Gallup, as I earlier mentioned. How much less so you think when it involves something so clearly wrong as live birth abortion?
And no, I'm not a Republican. Keyes is not a Republican any more either. He became part of the Constitution Party following my recommendation to him on his forums. I have never voted for a major party candidate in a presidential election, only 3rd party candidates. And I most closely affiliate myself with DFLA, the Democrats For Life of America. I simply have been hammering the GOP to make changes the last few months since I know they're getting desperate to find something that works. Thus why the profile never said I was Republican. And if you read anything I write over there, you'll see I criticize the GOP very heavily and suggest they should partner with DFLA in working together by dropping partisanship.
And I realize btw what you're doing. First tactic of any ad hominem proponent wanting to attack their adversary to distract from a losing argument is to bring up personal issues, get them talking, and then find material to attack them on. Not that I care at this point. I made my points.
And I don't expect people to agree with me. Not trying to please everyone. I am trying to adhere to the guidelines, and I have run into a lot of people in my time who can't put aside their biases to look objectively at the logic of other's views. I don't think this is about whether I can back up any points on the article objectively or with sources, or whether it's Wikipedia-permissible to do so under the rules. I think this is just about some liberals wanting to stonewall anything critical of Obama, who is idolized beyond reason by them. I run into the same thing with Republicans when I criticize stuff like free trade, Iraq, George Bush, and tax cuts. Each side has their articles of faith it seems. For liberals it's abortion, evolution, etc. For Republicans it's deregulation, capital punishment, and might makes right. Everybody on both sides has trouble thinking for themselves and I get people on BOTH sides trying to pigeonhole me to make themselves feel comfortable as the other side. If you agree completely with one side or the other, I would politely suggest that one is not thinking for themselves. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

38 - 2009, 12/18, 11:06: Abrazame accused me in the NPOV thread of pushing the issue and talking about myself, completely ignoring that it was because of the personal attacks and criticisms made by DD2K and Tarc that I had to defend myself in the first place.

Please cease from pushing this issue at this page; in any event, stop talking about it and yourself in this particular thread, which is about AIG et al. Abrazame (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Abrazame also began name-calling in the Absurd Propaganda thread and attacking the sources as propaganda.

Frank, nobody's expected to read all the links from an ideologue pest hopping from thread to thread pushing the same strident issue like this, but Moynihan—who died in 2001—obviously did not comment on Obama. Moynihan probably never heard of Obama. This editor is simply reaching back into history to note that Moynihan made a general characterization about partial-birth abortion. When a relatively new user dredges up all his favorite comments about abortion even when they're unrelated to the subject of this article, simply to push a point about abortion, he shouldn't be allowed to post his treatise and pursue it all over the page, he should be directed to the abortion article. This is a real and difficult issue, and I respect what I presume is the editor's position on the issue, but it is clear that it is not one with particular relevance to the biography of Barack Obama. Parading issues like this one through BLPs and their talk pages is editorially irresponsible campaigning. You seem to have a misunderstanding of the concept of consensus. Consensus is not about a gang (or a gang of one) to win the exclusion of relevant, salient, properly-weighted, balanced, encyclopedic and contextual facts, in favor of some mistaken POV, nor is it about allowing activists to trot out patently unacceptable, irrelevant propaganda in an effort to draw smeary connections to an individual that aren't really there and create a controversy where there isn't one. Moynihan's non-Obama-related quote is repeated in another of his refs, which he erroneously calls "Time Magazine's Real Clear Politics" but which in fact is an opinion piece by Pat Buchanan; the other ref there is an opinion piece by Rush Limbaugh's little brother. As if somebody even has to click on any of the refs when the final one is World Net Daily. Abrazame (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 38

To Be Discussed Later When I Reach Them:

Until I can get to them for their own sections, the following are key proposed edits and discussions, first providing four proposed edits with 17 sources (which was closed so Wikipedia editors couldn't see the sourcing provided), the second providing 40+ sources (which was also closed). Here's the Source where both these discussions can be seen in one place, archived, though the discussions are collapsed:

Source

First: 17 Sources, Proposed Changes

Proposed Changes

hat|1=Consensus is against these changes as a whole, and specifically #4 which was also discussed separately. Discussion continues in other venues, but this particular thread is not covering new ground. --  Frank  |  talk  22:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
!--user:JzG/Uninformed wingnut drivel}} (commented out by Wikidemon (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC) - cute template but I think this could escalate any dispute here --
The following are my proposed edits to the Barack Obama page, with the intent being to make it more objective and comprehensive, rather than painting a deceivingly rosy picture of him.
1. Proposed Edit to introduction section.
Original: "Obama is the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize laureate.[4]"
Proposed: "Obama is the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize laureate[4], an honor which accompanied widespread criticism about his lack of accomplishment[5][6] and confessed surprise by Barack Obama.[7][8],
2. Proposed Edit to 'State legislator: 1997–2004' section.
Original: "Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996, succeeding State Senator Alice Palmer as Senator from Illinois's 13th District, which at that time spanned Chicago South Side neighborhoods from Hyde Park-Kenwood south to South Shore and west to Chicago Lawn.[42]"
Proposed: "Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996, succeeding State Senator Alice Palmer as Senator from Illinois's 13th District, which at that time spanned Chicago South Side neighborhoods from Hyde Park-Kenwood south to South Shore and west to Chicago Lawn.[42] Obama won the election through use of lawyers to subsequently disqualify the petition signatures of Alice Palmer and 3 other opponents after the filing deadline.[9][10]"
3. Proposed Edit to 'State legislator: 1997-2004' section.
Original: "In January 2003, Obama became chairman of the Illinois Senate's Health and Human Services Committee when Democrats, after a decade in the minority, regained a majority.[48] He sponsored and led unanimous, bipartisan passage of legislation to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they detained, and legislation making Illinois the first state to mandate videotaping of homicide interrogations.[44][49]"
Proposed: "In January 2003, Obama became chairman of the Illinois Senate's Health and Human Services Committee when Democrats, after a decade in the minority, regained a majority.[48] He sponsored and led unanimous, bipartisan passage of legislation to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they detained, and legislation making Illinois the first state to mandate videotaping of homicide interrogations.[44][49] This legislation was originally worked on by Senator Rickey Hendon[11][12], and was among numerous pieces of legislation given to Obama as part of a requested deal with his political mentor[13][14], Senator Emil Jones.[15][16]"
4. Proposed Edit to '2004 U.S. Senate campaign'.
Original: "Obama's expected opponent in the general election, Republican primary winner Jack Ryan, withdrew from the race in June 2004.[58] Two months later, Alan Keyes accepted the Illinois Republican Party's nomination to replace Ryan.[59] A long-time resident of Maryland, Keyes established legal residency in Illinois with the nomination.[60] In the November 2004 general election, Obama received 70% of the vote to Keyes' 27%, the largest victory margin for a statewide race in Illinois history.[61]"
Proposed: "Obama's expected opponent in the general election, Republican primary winner Jack Ryan, withdrew from the race in June 2004[58] following a widely-reported sex scandal.[17] 2 months later, and with less than 3 months remaining in the election[[18], former Ambassador to the United Nations' Social and Economic Council[19], Alan Keyes, accepted the Illinois Republican Party's nomination to replace Ryan.[59] A long-time resident of Maryland, Keyes established legal residency in Illinois with the nomination.[60] Following a race in which Keyes was heavily criticized as a 'carpetbagger'[20] by the press, and with Keyes running a negative campaign criticizing Obama on the issue of late-term abortions[21], Obama in the November 2004 general election received 70% of the vote to Keyes' 27%, the largest victory margin for a statewide race in Illinois history.[61]"


Ultimately I may add more suggestions later but this I think is a good start and comprises the bulk of the elaborations about his past I would like to see. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 05:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
In other news, an amputee has recalled that losing his legs "stings a little bit". Sceptre (talk) 05:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll review them seriously when I have a chance. Whether we agree or not in the end, I appreciate your taking the invitation to start a new section and propose them straight, one at a time. I hope we can all keep up a dignified, collegial, supportive spirit discussing them (kicking several editors, and myself, under the table... ahem!). Thanks! - Wikidemon (Wikidemon) 05:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I look forward to talking about this objectively, thanks for the offer! --Jzyehoshua (talk) 06:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I haven't taken the time to study the other suggestions yet, but the first one, I think, has immediately obvious problems. The introduction should not be longer than is necessary. The mention that he is the laureate merely acknowledges that he did receive the prize. It does not, in any way, project any position on whether he deserved that prize or not. You are proposing a change that changes that statement from being purely NPOV to one that could be called POV. We haven't even had enough time to see how history has judged the 2009 prize, so why are we mentioning this in an article that is supposed to provide an accurate overview of his entire life? WHSL (WHSL) 05:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, just to play Devil's Advocate here, if George Bush received a Nobel Peace Prize and got criticized for it, and we put that in the intro paragraph, people would be up in arms that it was merely mentioned without the opposition factor being mentioned as well. On Bush's page, for example, it spends many sentences discussing the issues of criticism and popularity loss just in the introduction. When an award receives as much criticism and controversy as Obama's Nobel Prize did, to not mention this even in passing in the prominent introduction is to essentially frame the fact in a positive and deceivingly so light. I do think the criticism/controversy should be mentioned at least in passing, or else not mention the award at all, or it is appearing to only provide positive details in the introduction section, in contrast to other profiles (such as George Bush's).
As for the 16 additional words used in the introduction, I think they are worthwhile for balancing out an introduction section that otherwise fails to mention ANY negative or critical aspect whatsoever. This is in sharp contrast to other political profiles which carry no such qualms about mentioning a critical fact or mention in the introduction to provide a more accurate and two-sided summary.
--Jzyehoshua (talk) 06:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Bush's page does discuss issues relating to his declining popularity. However, consider when Bush was president. His presidency is now over. It is history. We have had more time to consider the finer points of his presidency. However, Obama's winning of the Nobel Prize is in the recent past. We have not had the time to consider the historical implications of the 2009 prize. You cannot judge how historically controversial something actually was this early.
Also, your statement regarding "positive details" is not one I would agree with at all. I can't see anywhere statements like "he is rated a very popular president". How can something be overly positive if you cannot find obviously positive statements? Could you point me to the specific places where you think the introduction is apparently POV? WHSL (WHSL) 06:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I very much disagree. I see no difference. For one thing, Hurricane Katrina happened pretty recently too and there is criticism of Bush about that on his profile. If the Iraq War was happening right now, criticism of him about that would be warranted as well. There were protests about that and it was clearly controversial just as there are clearly controversial issues surrounding Obama right now as well. Controversy can be assessed at any time. If numerous news outlets are reporting on it or there are mass protests going on, then it makes sense to mention this in passing.
As for examples of the positive details, it is more what it does mention in contrast to what it does not. It mentions he was president of the Harvard Law Review, but does not mention he published only one article while there.[[22]] It mentions he won the Nobel Peace Prize but none of the controversy that surrounded this, and led to criticism of the committee responsible for awarding the prize. It skims over all his accomplishments while never mentioning anything involving controversy or criticism. If one did not know better, you would think he had no controversy at all surrounding him who makes no waves and not the polarizing figure his presidency is showing him to be. It could mention his excessively liberal voting record or the protests against his lack of a birth certificate. Or that the stimulus and health care bills he made primary talking points are facing skepticism by the American people and delays in Congress, and he has taken criticism from his own party for backing off of his earlier promises on withdrawing troops and continuing the Guantanamo military commissions. Maybe his record drop off in public support, which set a record low for any president at that point in their presidency[[23]]. Again though, from Wikipeda, you would never even consider it from reading the intro. As far as the intro makes it look, everything is just peachy. Palin has faced less controversy and her profile makes it a point to mention ethics complaints. All I am saying is it is not an accurate portrayal of how he appears to the American people. Just something to show that controversy would be accurate, but there is nothing. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 07:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Using Hurricane Katrina and George Bush as an comparative example of controversy is not very good. Hurricane Katrina occurred five years ago, and killed a lot of people, and caused millions of dollars worth of damage. Barack Obama winning the Nobel Prize occurred very recently, and certainly hasn't killed anyone. How can you compare them?
Your examples still do not point to me how the article specifically portrays Obama in a positive light. I have no idea how one can say this article is "peachy". The article only talks about what Obama has or has not done, and what he believes or does not believe in. A person reading this article should have no higher or lower opinion of Obama after finishing it. Nowhere does it say that he was immensely popular etc. In turn:
  • Only one article as president of Harvard Law Review - how is this notable at all?
  • Nobel Peace Prize - controversy is mentioned, last section of article.
  • Controversies - one about Nobel Peace Prize is mentioned, rest are irrelevant to his overall biography and belong to the presidency article.
  • Polarising figure - source?
  • Excessively liberal voting record - "Excessive" is a POV term. Obama has a strong history though of being considered a liberal; this is mentioned.
  • Basically can't prove he is born in US - fringe theory at best.
  • Stimulus health bills - Don't judge how history will treat this while it is still happening.
  • Public support - Drop in popularity is mentioned.
  • Palin has less controversy - Once again, you cannot quantify controversy like this. Palin was a Vice Presidential candidate; Obama is the current President.
  • Not "accurate portrayal of how he appears to the American people" - Wikipedia is worldwide, and suggesting that we all put articles from the American perspective can be quite offensive.
Controversy is not easy to measure, and certainly cannot be assessed "at any time". The reason is that people will generally think and talk about the latest and greatest ones. Therefore, it is difficult - and not a good idea to attempt - to measure the effect of a particular controversy on history just months after it has happened. Just having multiple reputable news outlets reporting on it is nowhere near enough - they release news every day, covering new and old controversies. Just having protests is not enough either - there are protests all the time. One must wait for the weight of history to truly judge whether a controversy really had historical effect. There are controversies every day, but only a few survive in memories and become truly important. WHSL (WHSL) 13:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm... as a side note, would you then say you have no problem at all with my other additions, since all of them have proved controversial over the years concerning Obama and are by no means recent? Furthermore, shouldn't Wikipedia report recent events as well as old ones? If there is a recent scandal, I have seen numerous Wikipedia articles mention this, or other controversies relating to a person or business. It would make no sense to do otherwise. Also, is there any Wikipedia policy stating that controversial events must pass a certain time limit before they can be addressed in an article? --Jzyehoshua (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Second: Notable Controversies, 48 Sources

Notable Controversies

hat|Moving on...
In the 'Proposed Changes' section I mentioned that I found this in the Wikipedia rules for the Wikipedia:Lead section guidelines:
"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence."
Now, my question is, what should be the 'notable controversies' surrounding Barack Obama to be included in his introduction/lede?
Prominence/notability, as well as available reliable sources will play into this. I am interested in seeing what people think should be mentioned as 'notable controversies' in the lede. Again, what controversies are mentioned should then be compared by their prominence and sourcing. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I am not aware of any controversy that would be considered notable, let alone notable enough for the article lede. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, that is a bit of a misstatement, as notability is a test of article suitability, not whether something is of due weight, relevance, and encyclopedic quality to be in the lede. It's not saying that we must include controversies in the lede, only that we include them if they're noteworthy enough, and don't avoid them. A better statement would be that controversies that are significant enough to be a major part of the article are not excluded from the lede simply because they are controversies. I'll probably propose a minor change to WP:LEDE to avoid confusion (in case you notice the obvious, over there). - Wikidemon (Wikidemon) 00:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Interesting. I've been reviewing the Wikipedia guidelines a lot lately and can find nothing saying that controversial content may not be included, which I think fits your statement of "A better statement would be that controversies that are significant enough to be a major part of the article are not excluded from the lede simply because they are controversies." I agree that it needs to fit the test of notability.
However, looking at the Notability guidelines showed me something else - the earlier controversial subject that started all of this, Obama's controversy with live birth abortion, may not only meet the standards of notability, but since notability is defined as "notability determines whether a topic merits its own article" and the sourcing on this issue is so unusually strong for an Obama-related topic, the topic may even merit its own page.
As the notability page states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." And, "Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines."
Now, take this commentary on Obama's history on live birth abortion:
  • Background: Barack Obama beginning from his time in the Illinois Senate opposed numerous bills that would have stopped a practice where children surviving late-term abortions could be left to die. He considered them, though completely outside the womb and breathing, 'fetuses'.[24] (pp. 85-86) Bills included the 2001 Born Alive Infants Protection Act[25][26](pp. 85-88), the 2001 SB 1661 Induced Birth Infant Liability Act[27][28](pp. 88-89), the 2001 SB 1095 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act[29][30][31] (pp. 50-66), and the 1997 SB 230 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act[32][33]
  • Notability: Alan Keyes, Obama's general election opponent for the 2004 U.S. Senate, made the issue his primary talking point.[34][35] At the time, activists such as Jill Stanek][36] and Phyllis Schlafly[37] also opposed Obama on such grounds. Keyes to this day continues opposing Obama on what he calls 'infanticide'.[38][39] During the 2008 elections, both Sarah Palin[40] and John McCain[41][42] criticized Obama over the 'Born Alive' controversy as well.
  • Prominence: There has been no shortage of mainstream media coverage on this issue. During the 2008 Primary Election, Hillary Clinton and the National Organization of Women[43][44], as well as other Congressmen[45][46], accused Obama of voting 'Present' instead of 'No' on abortion bills. The Washington Post's "Fact Checker" also addressed the issue, noting his very lengthy voting history on the subject, but also pointing out that it was an agreed-upon strategy between pro-choice politicians and Planned Parenthood as a way to avoid public attention on controversial abortion bills.[47][48] Obama defended himself by saying it was an agreed-upon strategy with Planned Parenthood.[49] In 2007 ABC News[50] and the NY Times addressed this Planned Parenthood-Obama-present votes connection [51][52] and both FactCheck[53] and PolitiFact[54][55], as well as Time Magazine[56], Fox News[57], the Boston Globe[58], MediaMatters.org[59], the Huffington Post[60][61], and NPR[62], all chimed in referencing the connection as well. In August 2008 there was also a lengthy back and forth between Obama, David Brody of CBN[63], and the National Right to Life Committee[64][65] concerning his record on live birth abortion. Another exchange occurred between Obama's campaign, Jill Stanek, and Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune.[66] As covered by the NY Sun, Obama was facing attacks from all sides, and had first erroneously claimed he would have voted for the federal bill, but then upon confrontation with senate records dug up by the NRLC, his campaign admitted he'd voted against an Illinois bill with similar language.[67] FactCheck shortly thereafter supported this claim, and upon examination of the claims by both Obama's campaign and the NRLC wrote a widely covered[68] article called "Obama and 'Infanticide'" stating that Obama was misrepresenting his record on the issue, though it thought the term 'infanticide' open to interpretation.[69] David Freddoso, who also covered the born alive issue in his best-selling book, 'The Case Against Barack Obama' in August 2008, wrote in an article for the National Review that Stanek and O'Malley (primary sponsor of the born alive legislation previously mentioned) had teamed up on legislation such as the 1095 bill, and notes that Obama was the only legislator to speak against it on the senate floor.[70]
  • Other Notable Coverage: The Huffington Post in April of 2008 attacked Deal Hudson for criticizing Obama on the issue of infanticide.[71]
I would posit that few other controversies are going to be as comparably notable as this. Or that few could rival the depth of sourcing (I deliberately included a few liberal and conservative secondary sources, though most were meant to be neutral ones). At any rate, as I read the guidelines more and more, the more I am convinced that the subject of controversy surrounding Obama's history on live birth abortion can meet the Wikipedia guidelines for notability, neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiability. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 01:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I strongly recommend that this is the last time you use this talk page as a dumping ground for this perversion of the facts. Frankly, this claptrap about infanticide that you keep peddling absolutely disgusts me. This BLP-violating abomination should be eradicated from this talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
It only violates the BLP, as I've said before, if the sources are wrong. Which is why I went out of my way to provide numerous accredited sources. And as has been pointed out, it is not biased to simply report that the accusation has been made. Everything I stated was sourced. If you think it violates the BLP, please state how. I see nothing wrong with the sourcing, the prominence, notability, relevance, etc. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 05:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Jzyehoshua - your attempts to find any consensus for these items have not met any success so far. That's an indication that they cannot meet guidlines for notability, neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiability. You continue to plaster "when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife" statements but few proposed changes to the article itself. The "infanticide" issue is a total non-starter. Keyes is unimportant in a biographical article about Obama. The list goes on. I suggest you put individual proposed changes in separate sections and attempt to gain consensus on each one separately. You can see from this page that there is little or no support for what you've tried thus far. Frank (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
But the problem is, those who are disagreeing are not disagreeing with whether the material meets the guidelines or not. They are disagreeing because it is opposed to their worldviews and opinions, which is why they refuse to consider consensus. As I've showed, many of the major newspapers and neutral fact-checking organizations on the web, as well as even TV news agencies, have covered this issue. That suggests the objections raised here are ideological, not substantial, in nature. After all, the sourcing, relevance, and prominence are all undeniable. The issue is whether people on here like it or not, and they don't, because many of those here are liberal. I expected that. Again, consensus is not reached solely because nobody likes the views. Otherwise, I would expect to see more statements about why my sourcing fails to measure up or does not meet the guidelines. There is difference between lack of consensus because of bias and lack of consensus because of objective reasoning.
P.S. I have challenged perhaps half a dozen times now those suggesting I violated guidelines to state how and give specific examples. Only Wikidemon has provided tangible constructive criticism and examples. The fact is that those guidelines do not prevent controversy or negative statements being reported on (so long as it's done objectively). They only require exceptional sourcing for exceptional remarks. The controversies surrounding conservative politicians are reported on their pages and there is far less opposition to doing so than is seen here. What is more, I am sure many of them have less sourcing or even available sourcing than what is used here. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 05:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Look, I already quoted verbatim from the NPOV guidelines, the WP:BLP guidelines, and the Wikipedia:Lead section guidelines. At some point I expect those criticizing me of violating the guidelines to actually use this as more than just an attack, and actually give examples of what parts of the guidelines are being violated, and give examples of what parts of my works are violating them. I mean, I've been doing all the work citing this stuff. I can't be expected to be hypersensitively defending myself against every little accusation of violating a guideline with lengthy essays quoting from said guidelines if the accuser is too lazy to even give examples and cite what part of the guidelines and my writing is at issue. --Jzyehoshua (talk)06:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Bottom line: can you show where there is WP:CONSENSUS for the change(s) you are thinking about? I say there is not, for two reasons: 1) I don't see it on this talk page, and 2) I don't even see a specific change request. This is not just any article on Wikipedia - it's one of the most watched, with over 1800 watchers. I understand that consensus is generally not a reason to revert a change, but for such a highly-visited (and watched) page which is on probation, things are different. Nobody's saying you can't edit the article. What's being said is that changes of a controversial nature on a WP:BLP article that is highly-visited and highly-watched and is on probation should be discussed first. I still don't see any specific proposals for changes to the article. What I see is a bunch of accusations and references and original research - but no specific changes being requested. Frank (talk) 14:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Please. If you don't have consensus - I don't care how many policies you cite - you cannot make these types of additions to the article. It can't get much simpler than that. Since you clearly do not have consensus, drop it. There have been a dozen or more of us who have given you quite clear-cut reasons why we cannot include multiple insignificant controversies, fringe theories, or the comparatively insignificant views of others about Obama. By the way, you are not helping your case by accusing us of being liberal, or accusing us of not providing tangible evidence against. WHSL (Talk) 06:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
According to the Wikipedia Don't revert due to "no consensus" page, "Sometimes editors will undo a change, justifying their revert merely by saying that there is "no consensus" for the change, or by simply asking the original editor to "first discuss". Except possibly on pages that describe settled Wikipedia policy, this is not very helpful. After all, that you reverted the edit already shows that there is no consensus. But you neglected to explain why you personally disagree with the edit, so you haven't given people a handle on how to build the consensus with you that you desire.
Next to that, the behaviour discourages bold contributions, which are essential to building Wikipedia. Moreover, if you can't point out an underlying problem with an edit, there is no good reason to immediately revert it. Finally, there may in fact exist silent consensus to keep the change. Consensus is not unanimity, and is thus not canceled by one editor's objection."
Wikipedia encourages contributors to be bold in editing articles. Reverting a bold contribution solely on the basis of "no consensus" is a sign that the reverter simply did not like the edit. Keep in mind that no one can own an article. Moreover, if one editor favors a new addition (i.e. its contributor), and another opposes it (i.e. the potential reverter), consensus is no closer to being against it than for it until more editors comment or edit, or until the two editors in question can move toward a compromise, preferably through editing.
It is best to first consider whether there is a substantive problem with the edit in question. If it added unsourced or poorly-sourced information, try to find said information yourself, or failing that, note that in the revert summary. If it made the presentation of material awkward, edit to make the presentation less awkward. If it added a biased statement, try to find a way to recast it into a neutral mode. If it added instructions on how to do something, explain that Wikipedia is not a manual. If it removed content with no explanation or an unconvincing one, note that you are restoring valid content, and why the explanation is unconvincing (if the edit summary box is too small for this, continue on the talk page).
But if you feel that an edit should not stand yet can't point to any specific reason, for heavens sake, stop and think before you act. (never make any edit without a reason!)
In general:
  • 1. Stop. Think.
  • 2. Try to edit the page to better incorporate the edit in question
  • 3. If you really can't find a way to incorporate the edit, revert it
  • 4. Explain in detail what you tried, and why it didn't work.
Even if the reason seems obvious to you, it will not always be obvious to someone else."
Also, according to the Wikipedia WP:CCC|Consensus page, "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for making or reverting an edit, or for accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action."
As shown here, Consensus is not a reason in and of itself for reverting an edit, or "accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action." And furthermore, Consensus must be REASONED Consensus. "Reverting a bold contribution solely on the basis of "no consensus" is a sign that the reverter simply did not like the edit." Ultimately the basis of "no consensus" is a straw man that is an unsuitable qualifier - ultimately it comes down to, as the article states, "whether there is a substantive problem with the edit in question". Furthermore, those involved with the Consensus argument also have a duty to be attempting to "better incorporate the edit in question" and "explain in detail what you tried, and why it didn't work."
I do not like calling people out like this, and would prefer to work towards agreement objectively, but the fact remains that over half those commenting right now on my proposed edits are not providing any of the constructive material the previously quoted page says should be involved. They are telling me to achieve Consensus without following the Consensus page guidelines themselves. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 08:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
You might want to slow down a bit on the rule interpretation but to address the points you raise: lack of consensus should not be the sole reason for opposing an edit, just as lack of a citation should not either in most cases - there has to be a good faith bona fide objection to the material, at which point it becomes the job of the person proposing the change to achieve consensus, or wanting to include the material to find appropriate sources. If people are objecting to your desire to add something to the article under claim of "no consensus" what they really mean is that the objections are stated elsewhere and to their mind you have not (yet) established that there is consensus to overcome those objections. If they feel it is against policy and guidelines you would have to demonstrate a consensus for the interpretation / analysis that the proposal actually is permissible per the policy and guidelines. Policy / guidelines are mostly exclusionary, creating thresholds to meet before things can be added. Relatively few of them demand that something be included, they just permit it. So if it's within the territory of editor discretion you would have to establish consensus not only that the content is permissible, but that it should be added. You can look at WP:BRD for a widely-followed essay on that. You're right that having too many nay-sayers on an article discourages bold edits. This is a mature, featured article so the gradualist approach is probably a good thing. Otherwise good articles start falling apart to the entropy of hasty edits. It's probably gone too far here, and definitely too far on some of the other Obama articles, which are losing ground in their efforts to stay current because it is so hard to make major additions. Cest la vie. We can't solve that problem in a day. Contrary to the language you're quoting (or is that your own analysis?) on high-traffic important articles there is a role for precedent and for deferring to past decisions. The Arbitration Committee weighed in on the issue fairly recently with respect to this particular article, and said roughly that although consensus can change, excessive and contentious rehashing of matters that have been decided can be disruptive to the editing process. The answer is somewhere in between. Proposals should have a realistic chance of success - if something has been discussed and rejected a few times already, and it wasn't long ago, and there is no change in the subject we are covering or new sources about it, and the same editors are still here, it is pointless to repeat the same discussion. It also doesn't work, you can rarely win consensus to edit the article by wearing out people's patience for discussion. I do agree that the people arguing against your proposals are not providing constructive criticism. I'll hazard a guess as to the reasons. I think you started off on the wrong foot with an overly bold edit and some aggressive comments on the talk page. Some people here are very alert to trouble and perhaps see it where none is intended. I think that is unfair to you but given the history of the article it's not surprising. And finally, these discussions have been going on a long time and gotten off track. I think people just don't feel like talking about it anymore. I'm not one to talk about brevity, but I think many of your posts - the last one a case in point - are very long and quote long stretches of policy that you could just link to, plus the extensive use of bold is distracting, people liken that to ALLCAPS or shouting!!!!! I actually think a number of your content proposals are good ones, and people would probably accept them if we could find a more effective way to discuss it. I'm still planning to propose some modest changes along those lines one at a time, so if we can all take a deep breath and try to be patient, we'll work through this. Anyone who's gotten this far, can we all chill out a little bit? Cool? Wikidemon (Wikidemon) 09:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
True, that's all I've been saying, that those accusing me of no consensus or violating a policy should state exactly what's wrong with it, and how it violates the policy. I tried numerous times now to get specific users to start a conversation over source validity, prominence of the sources, relevance to a section, neutrality of wording and how to improve it, etc. What statements on this I actually heard I actually compromised on very, very early on. For example, I agreed quickly that if the word 'infanticide' was too offensive to some then it could just not be used and an alternative like live birth abortion specified in its place. I've also tried to avoid framing and asked others how they thought sentences could be reworded to avoid violation of NPOV. I specifically brought up such high quality and high profile sources, as well as examples of mentions by all major campaigns, to combat the 'fringe' theory that keeps making the rounds. Not that it would matter either way.
According to the Wikipedia Fringe theories page it should be abundantly clear that fringe theories which are notable, well-sourced, and covered well by the mainstream media still warrant inclusion. I'll avoid posting this one out unless there continues to be disagreement over that. And also, sorry about the bolding - I've just done that primarily for quoted material to make clear what parts I most wanted read and to ensure they wouldn't get overlooked. I like to quote surrounding material as well to show context but then like the bolding so it shows exactly what I'm concentrating on, and since it's WP guidelines, didn't think it as much an issue as if I was bolding my own words, which I've mostly avoided here (the starting paragraph in the Consensus section is the one exception I can think of).
I would like to try the WP:BRD page's outline of resolving this dispute, as there seems little alternative at this point save arbitration, but since this is a protected page, am not sure I will be able to do so. And yes, all the language being quoted was from the articles except for a few points towards the end. It made it tough to tell since I left the original double quotation marks from the page in instead of changing them to single quote marks.
You're also right it may just be an instance of my using an overly bold edit at the beginning - however, to be fair I was unaware the term infanticide would be so poorly received. Here in Illinois that term has been used quite a bit in the news during the earlier Obama election involving Alan Keyes so I was, I thought, just using a popular media term to refer to the situation that would quickly ring a bell for those who'd seen it in the news. Once I realized how many people were unfamiliar with Obama's elections and the terminology, I quickly backed off from the term and began proposing alternatives. I suppose it is more widely used here in the U.S. than in other countries, and I notice many are surprisingly from the U.K. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I must ask: outside of this one editor's opinion (and yes, by an outsider's look it is an opinion) is this is a huge thing and not some rambling of a pro-lifer who really doesn't like the president. How has this made news today? Is it being carried on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc? Is it a big topic in the news papers? (excluding blogs and opinion pieces) Outside the pro-life community, is this topic really being associated with the president (I.E. the common person on the street would spout this when asked about the president?). In all honest opinion, this looks more like a big point to extreme pro-lifers then it does to the country at large. Finally, and more to the point, is this such a large issue, I mean really a glaring issue that everyone in the country recognizes it and believes it or questions it, to be included in this article? Brothejr (talk) 09:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that's the proposal on the table. Bear with this, I think we can restate the various content proposals in a focused, productive way at some point. - Wikidemon (Wikidemon) 10:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
If it involves Keyes and infanticide, it will surely be rejected. This sort of distortion must be discouraged, because it violates WP:BLP quite seriously. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is a major issue. That is why I brought up its relevance by major politicians. The fact that Alan Keyes in the 2004 senate election, Hillary Clinton in the 2008 presidential primary election, and both McCain and Palin in the 2008 general election made it a talking point against Obama should've been, I thought at least, a major red flag here. When his last 3 major opponents in elections have all brought it up, and when it's been referenced in what at least here in the U.S. are some of the major news publications - it's pretty big. Here in Illinois especially, it has been the major issue involving Obama that people will be familiar with. That is why I quoted so much from the Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times, and other Illinois newspapers - to show out of state users just how major an issue this has been here in Illinois particularly. The major newspapers and news channels have addressed it extensively, particularly during the 2004 elections. The NRLC, primary pro-life group here in the U.S., has also been pushing the issue for years, and thus it has been a back and forth between them and Obama's campaign to the extent that major fact-checking groups like the Washington Post's Fact Checker and FactCheck.org have objectively weighed both sides. I already quoted from the Fox News and MSNBC articles where the subject came up. In the Consensus section, I even noted that several Fox News anchors and guests have accused Obama of infanticide:
-Sean Hannity[72]
-Glenn Beck[73]
-Rush Limbaugh[74]
-Newt Gingrich[75]
-Ann Coulter[76]
-Dr. Jerome Corsi[77]
Also, here is another example of Fox News reporting, though in print, of coverage of the infanticide issue.[78]
Fox News in particular has allowed this issue to be brought up many times now.
I don't follow CNN as closely but found evidence it has been addressed there as well.[79]][[80] The issue has received so much coverage in fact that a CNN reporter even questioned Obama for CNN about the issue.[81]
I did some more Googling and didn't find evidence yet of it being addressed by MSNBC on public television yet. However, there is plenty of overall evidence out there. Simply google the name of a major news network and the terms Obama infanticide (possibly video as well) and you will see for yourself. There is plenty of sourcing out there that can be found at any time simply by using Google to search for it. It is why it is so easy for me to find sources on this stuff at will right now.--Jzyehoshua (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
This is beyond a joke. All the sources you have found fall into 3 distinct camps:
  1. Obama's political opponents (like Keyes) making wild unsubstantiated claims.
  2. Right-wing media pundits (the rogues gallery you list above) taking the wild unsubstantiated claims and trying to make them into a bigger deal than they are.
  3. Normal mainstream media (which does not include FOX, by the way) debunking the wild unsubstantiated claims when they are not covering runaway balloons.
If you really believe this stuff is important, you have been duped by the first 2 groups. You are doing exactly what they want you to do, which is to try to push their agenda into Wikipedia articles. In doing so, you are committing multiple violations of WP:BLP, and quite possibly defaming Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
At this point, you're going to disagree with any sources I provide. You'll just keep Moving the goalpost no matter what I do. First Brothejr said, "How has this made news today? Is it being carried on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc?" Then when I provide evidence from Fox News you say it's not a news network (contrary to the prior comment he made implying it "made news today" and when I provided evidence from CNN you threw in the "runaway balloons" comment alleging that even if it could be proven CNN had covered it, that it would just be mistaken coverage anyway. Ultimately, there's simply nothing I could do to convince users like you, so why bother? I think it better to just accept that you and I won't agree on this, so that focus may be put on areas where Consensus can be achieved. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I did not ask those questions. You are attributing statements made by others to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I recognized it and changed it almost instantaneously (same minute) that you made the comment, when I realized it was by brothejr and not you. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 16:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
If the proposal is that we make some overarching comment that there is a controversy over Obama's support for abortion, or any mention that some people accuse him of infanticide, then no - BLP problems, poor sourcing, NPOV, and undue weight. The "rogues gallery" of professional agitators mentioned above just isn't encyclopedically important, except on the rare occasion when through their outrageous prose and antics they manage their way to bootstrap their way into the national stage. Not just because they said it -- they say lots of stuff -- but because it actually creates an impact beyond their own typical audience. Keyes is particularly fringe-y here. He may not have been acknowleged as such at the time but at this point as one of the more vexatiously litigious birthers his relevance and credibility level is nill. If Keyes' primary campaign strategy in the election was to attack Obama on abortion that can be stated neutrally and is arguably worth five or six words in the section devoted to that election, more in the article on the subject. But there's a strong counter-argument that given the election margin, his ineffective election tactics made no difference to Obama or anyone else so they aren't worth covering at all. I think this is the weakest of the content proposals. Best to start with the stronger ones that have more of a chance of passing scrutiny. - Wikidemon (Wikidemon) 17:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

{hab

Result

(THIS IS NEW MATERIAL NOT PREVIOUSLY IN THE FORMER BLOG ENTRY) After the above two discussions, the discussions were closed via hab tags to prevent others from seeing them, and attempts to restore the discussions and continue them - just as they'd been beginning to bear fruit I might add - were reverted via edit wars by multiple users, including Administrator Frank. I then brought it up for AN/I dispute[[82]] and asked why the discussions were closed on the page, resulting in the following discussion (which also got closed). As seen from the following source, every single thread was getting closed to try and prevent discussion and people from seeing what the sources/evidence I was providing were. Frank as soon as he realized it was going to be seen by administration began archiving all the discussions and closing whatever else he could to try and cover up what was going on. They got me banned, and months later, when it expired, I refused to drop it, promptly bringing it up once again on the Talk Page, and asking them to ban me, since I didn't want to be a part of Wikipedia like that.

Source

Attempt to Resolve Edit War

hat|AN3 thread closed - please pursue other methods of dispute resolution, and reserve this page for discussion of improvements to the article. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)}} I just caught on to what the cohesive effort was by scjessey, Sceptre, and Unitanode was. They improperly closed an active thread without reason, 'Neutral Point of View', and then took turns reverting it to try and get me to violate a rule called the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Fortunately I caught on just in time to this sinister tactic.

I will ask those initiating this edit warring to explain their justification for closing the thread, as this action seems to be required before posting to an Administrator's noticeboard,[83] where scjessey is already facing potential discipline for a separate incident. He, I found out, has already engaged in similar cases in the past. This was just one of them.[84] He is also coming off a recent ban, and is already engaged in active attacks on other members.

This seems a serious offense for scjessey and his fellow cohorts, and thus I seek an explanation for the events occurring. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That Frank, Dayewalker, and averagejoe are involved seems clear as well, although to what extent I am still uncertain. I am sure all responsible parties will be held accountable when all of this is said and done. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

For goodness sake. There is nothing sinister about this, Jzyehoshua. The discussion was closed because you were tendentiously pushing an agenda, instead of participating in a meaningful discussion that might have actually led to something. It was overwhelmingly apparent that you had no support whatsoever for your proposed changes, yet rather than accept that you had failed to win consensus, you continued to argue and argue and argue and argue ad infinitum absurdiam. The discussion was closed to prevent you from further wasting the time of ALL the other editors participating on this talk page. Yet here you are again, wasting our time with more nonsense about "cohesive efforts" and "cohorts" and all that typical bull**** when someone cannot admit when they are wrong. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Your long history of edit warring can be seen from all the violation warnings on your talk page. I found out you have a history just on this page alone.[[85]] Tarc who filed against me recently was according to that page also found to have "engaged in incivility in comments and edit summaries". Sceptre it said, "has engaged in edit-warring and continued to revert Stevertigo outside of the Barack Obama FAQ. and engaged in edit summary attacks." Sceptre and you were subjected to editing restrictions for one year. Tarc was "reminded to be civil when dealing with hot button and controversial situations." According to your talk page, Tarc is also with you on the Climategate article, the other article you are being accused of edit-warring on. You have a long history of personal attacks and edit warring according to your profile, and I, it appears, was just another target by you and your friends in what has been a long history of Wikipedia crime.
That it was a concerted attack is evident from the revision history.[[86]] After I reverted the closed discussion, you reverted it back the same minute. Sceptre reverted after my revert within 1 minute. And Unitanode's was 3 minutes after. You were all just waiting for me to make the reverts, hoping to get me waiting. You must have been waiting and ready all morning while I unknowingly did not make the reverts, for my own reasons expecting an admin to revert the improperly closed article. To the extent that hours later you were so primed and waiting you made the reverts just minutes after mine. I'm not stupid. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Meanwhile, after all those hours of nothing happening, you, Frank, and averagejoe suddenly began commenting almost the exact minute this started happening with comments warning me not to continue edit warring. You must've had them prepared as evidence afterwards that I'd broken the rules, and were likely hoping I'd make all 3+ edits before I could notice the warnings and figure out what was going on. Since I'd already admitted on several pages this was my first time encountering this sort of situation, you must've figured I'd never figure it out in time. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, in my case, I started commenting because I noticed you were edit-warring. Nothing sinister about that. And - despite the edit-warring behavior, nobody's called for you to be blocked for it yet, either. Your previous edits were not edit-warring; previously you've been continuing to argue points that aren't gaining consensus. When you directly undo another editor's edits repeatedly, that's edit-warring. That's why you were warned for it; no other reason (at least in my case).  Frank  |  talk  22:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
And which is why I said I'm still not sure to what extent you, averagejoe, and Dayewalker are involved. It could've just been coincidence you commented so early on my page when the 3rd revert was close to happening. At the same time, it could've been a pre-prepared comment to be used as later evidence after the fact that I'd been warned at the time, and you've just been covering your tracks very, very well. Like I said, not sure. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
What you're apparently not understanding is that it is most definitely not a coincidence! The point is that the comments were made on your talk page because you were starting to edit-war. The warnings were placed so you could avoid it. In addition, it most definitely is a pre-prepared comment - see {{uw-3rr}}. There's no sinister tactic going on here; what you're seeing is the community doing what it always does, all over the 100,592 pages on the project. You have chosen one of the most highly-watched pages to jump in and "fix".  Frank  |  talk  23:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
For the umpteenth time, can we please not use this article talk page to accuse other editors of things? There's already a thread on the article probation enforcement page, which is one place to deal with editor conduct. This page is for discussions related to managing and improving the article. If everyone has read this and had their say, can we please close this and move on to actual content roposals? Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I only made this discussion because the Wikipedia administrator's noticeaboard template requires me to discuss this on the article talkpage before reporting an incident.[87] --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
(EC) A clear (near-unanimous) consensus exists that thread is resolved. The thread is so large, it's causing slowdowns when people (including me) load the page. Multiple editors have closed it in hopes of moving on, I agree with them whole-heartedly, and would have also closed the thread if I had seen you reopen it. Please accept the current consensus, as what you're doing is tenditious editing. Dayewalker (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, funny how everyone decided to close the one active discussion, the most recent and relevant one, as opposed to just archiving the old ones on the subject. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Er, Jzyehoshua, what is it exactly that I "filed against you" ? Have no idea what that refers to. As to the ArbCom case, yes, I received a relatively mild admonishment for general incivility and some rather brusque edit summary usage on this page back in the day. I make it a point to no longer engage in either, though if at any time you feel differently, the proper complaint venue is available for your usage. Tarc (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm referring to the case you, User:JzG, and User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters filed against me a week ago.[[88]] --Jzyehoshua (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I made a single comment in that very long section, that isn't "filing". And ironically enough I noted that a ban probably wasn't warranted. Are you going to have a WP:Plaxico moment here and goad me into reconsidering that? Tarc (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I thought for some reason you were one of 3 filers of it. Maybe I read too much into your having commented there by the time I found out about it. If it was just a comment and not actually filing it, I'll apologize. I thought you'd helped file it for some reason. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 08:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
If everyone can just keep still and not say anything for a week, it'll all be archived :) Anyway, thanks for the attempt to follow proper procedure but I do not foresee anything good coming out of an AN/I report, just recriminations and hurt feelings. The "I" part of AN/I, "incidents", is a signal that the administrators there generally only deal with current, active, pointed problems, not long-simmering disputes, which this one is by now. We also have a mediation cabal case afoot, and a report over there at the article probation notice board. The best way to resolve this is with a big dose of patience and goodwill on all sides. Failing that I would let the mediation and any existing reports play out, and after that, hope we can encourage a wise, impartial administrator to help play traffic cop to sort through this. I think I could make such a request, as long as nobody flames me for it. Wikidemon (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Interestingly enough, I've been on opposite sides of debate from several of my supposed "partners" here. Sometimes, Jzyehoshua, you're just wrong. UnitAnode 23:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I suppose it's best for the admins to sort it out. I tried to take it to Mediation and go through this with discussion, but it seems the opposing users wanted to move against me to such extent that both avenues have become impossible. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"The admins" don't sort things out. This is still a community, and if there's anything to be sorted out, it will be done by members of that community. The only thing an admin would be required for is if there's a reason to implement a block. As long as nobody does anything requiring a block, there's no need for any admin action.  Frank  |  talk  00:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll warn you, if you get administrators involved in this, there's a greater-than-zero chance you'll be blocked for 3RR/edit-warring. UnitAnode 23:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I know that. And if they ban me, oh well. Whether I passed the 3 reverts or not I am not sure yet. It was close. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 08:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't known what the 3 revert rule meant or that it included the talk page discussions until this, but I think I stopped at 3 reverts on the history, but they might count it as 4 since I did 2 separate edits, one to remove a hat and one to remove a hab, so am not sure. Guess we'll see. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 08:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

There's at least one admin who's already involved and I've in fact argued that it's not appropriate at this time. I will say the path is a possible one, but it's always a possibility with any editor. (And, being involved, I wouldn't do it myself, of course, except in a most egregious circumstance. We're not in that sort of situation at all.)  Frank  |  talk  00:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This issue is now being discussed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring

I will notify the users involved. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 10:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This is getting extremely disruptive. The only "edit war" I see is Jzyehoshua warring with every other editor and then feigning innocence ("apparently there's some sort of 3RR rule"). I try to assume good faith (although Jzyehoshua abandoned any such notion some time ago) but I can't help noticing something extremely familiar about the tireless battle/edit-war/point actions of this editor. And, coincidentally or not, they're editing from the Chicago suburbs.
I've mostly stayed out of these discussions because I can't keep up with the pace of them, but also because have a feeling that when this is all done, we'll be shaking our heads at the ridiculous amount of time that was wasted on this distraction yet again. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

{{hab

Summary

(does NOT indicate completion until this notice is removed, there is still far more, and will be updated with the post):

Obvious Bias: -Scjessey: A foul-mouthed, instigating con artist per 2, 8, and 13. More involvement later on will show this as well. Due to his present topic ban he couldn't leave the Talk pages early on, and preferred to message others to do his dirty work. -JzG: One of Scjessey's chief cohorts, who would try to start edit wars to get people banned and avoid conversation to reduce evidence, per 13 and 20. I suspect he's a sockpuppet of Scjessey as it's difficult to imagine two such foul-mouthed, rude, and obnoxious people on one site, who spoke rarely to avoid giving this away. -GoodDay: Sneaky, gloating collaborator who liked to mock the reversion of edits per 4 and 8 but preferred to stay in the background.

Bias: -DD2K: May have initially tried to stay level-headed but his hot temper led to him jumping repeatedly to assumptions and throwing around insults, per 12 and 31. -Grsz: Appeared to try starting edit wars at several points, but unlike JzG at least appeared to have reasons for his actions, and to be willing to talk things through, per 13, 14, and 17. -Tarc: Interesting character, prone to jumping to conclusions and didn't listen to others at all. I would need to check but his unwillingness to consider other's views at all suggests someone else was pressuring him to reach the conclusions he did, per 16, 17, 19, 23, 26, and 29. For being so willing and able to talk he showed no comprehension of what others were saying at all and would simply throw out one off-the-wall comment after another. -OuroborosCobra: Only comment early on was in 12, a rude comment towards NoHitHair.

Middle Ground: -Frank: Appears to me now very fair-minded, tried to work through a discussion. However, at one point I got a bad impression of him because his initially reverting comments were accompanied with personal attacks by Scjessey and GoodDay in Talk page discussions that he didn't discourage. -Queen of Battle: Her intervention in 13 was much appreciated in stopping abusive removals of talk page discussions and perhaps prevented an early edit war. -Abrazame: Presented his thoughts in 29 and while not in agreement with me initially did express frustration that talk page discussion had not been dealing with substantial points on policy in the past. -WHSL: Just dropped in to offer some thoughts on Wikipedia policy in 27.

Consensus With: -NoHitHair: Frustrated editor who showed up only once I believe to express frustration at the page's bias per 11. -Hoary: Would later come to consider the edits reasonable, only mention early on is in 21.

Personal tools