Changes

'''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:

'''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

:'''POLITICAL CONTROVERSIES'''

:

:

:'''Support for 'Infanticide''''

:'''Support for 'Infanticide''''

: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cullerton Senator Cullerton] that closely mirrored the aforementioned and later arguments of Obama)[http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans90/ST031897.pdf 168] and the Induced Birth Infants [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liability Liability] Act (with both Senators Obama and Cullerton speaking, Obama elaborating).[http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST040402.pdf 169]

: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cullerton Senator Cullerton] that closely mirrored the aforementioned and later arguments of Obama)[http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans90/ST031897.pdf 168] and the Induced Birth Infants [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liability Liability] Act (with both Senators Obama and Cullerton speaking, Obama elaborating).[http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST040402.pdf 169]

:

:

:In August of 2008, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FactCheck Factcheck.org] officially recognized some truth to the claims of infanticide, stating "We find that, as the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/NRLC 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."[http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html 170]

:In August of 2008, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FactCheck Factcheck.org] officially recognized some truth to the claims of infanticide, stating "We find that, as the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/NRLC 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."[http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html 170]

:

:

:'''Chicago Politics'''

:'''Chicago Politics'''

:Your additions have been reverted. Recommend using the related talkpage, before making such additions. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GoodDay GoodDay] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GoodDay talk]) 21:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

:Your additions have been reverted. Recommend using the related talkpage, before making such additions. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GoodDay GoodDay] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GoodDay talk]) 21:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

:

:

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jzyehoshua&diff=next&oldid=332371811 Source 4]}}

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jzyehoshua&diff=next&oldid=332371811 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:  

'''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:  

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

'''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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama Barack Obama]. You've now reinserted material that was specifically removed with request to go to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama 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. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Frank Frank]  |  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Frank talk]  21:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jzyehoshua&diff=prev&oldid=332376837  

:Please read the edit notice at the top of the edit page for [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama Barack Obama]. You've now reinserted material that was specifically removed with request to go to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama 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. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Frank Frank]  |  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Frank talk]  21:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)  

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jzyehoshua&diff=prev&oldid=332376837 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:

'''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.

: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,

:Sincerely,

Jz --[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jzyehoshua Jzyehoshua] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jzyehoshua talk]) 21:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

:Jz --[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jzyehoshua Jzyehoshua] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk: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)

::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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CONSENSUS WP:CONSENSUS] before putting a whole new section in an article, especially one as highly-watched as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama Barack Obama]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Frank Frank]  |  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Frank talk]  21:58, 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CONSENSUS WP:CONSENSUS] before putting a whole new section in an article, especially one as highly-watched as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama Barack Obama]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Frank Frank]  |  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Frank talk]  21:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)  

::::::Something to do, I suppose. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GoodDay GoodDay] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GoodDay#top talk]) 22:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)  

::::::Something to do, I suppose. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GoodDay GoodDay] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GoodDay#top talk]) 22:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)  

:

:

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GoodDay/Archive_17#Liberal_Bias.3F Source 8]}}

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GoodDay/Archive_17#Liberal_Bias.3F 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:

'''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?'''  

:'''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 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.

::"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,

::Sincerely,

Jz --[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jzyehoshua Jzyehoshua] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jzyehoshua talk]) 22:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)"  

::Jz --[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jzyehoshua Jzyehoshua] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk: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.

: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  

:Joshua  

: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:

: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

:'''POLITICAL CONTROVERSIES'''

:

:

:'''Support for 'Infanticide''''

:'''Support for 'Infanticide''''