Changes

:

:

'''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:

'''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)   

: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. --[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:OuroborosCobra OuroborosCobra] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:OuroborosCobra talk]) 00:20, 18 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. --[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:OuroborosCobra OuroborosCobra] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:OuroborosCobra talk]) 00:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)  

:

:

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=332402943&oldid=332398401#.3D.3D Source 12]

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=332402943&oldid=332398401#.3D.3D 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}" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=332402943 Source 13a]

'''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}" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=332402943 Source 13a]

This was then reversed by Queen of Battle with an edit comment of "([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UNDO Undid] revision 332403367 by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/JzG JzG] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG talk])This is a content dispute, please do not revert others' comments)" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=332403367 Source 13b]

 

Grsz then removed the section again with an edit comment of "([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UNDO Undid] revision 332438724 by QueenofBattle (talk) it is inappropriate, and on a talk page, not a content dispute)" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=332439690&oldid=332438724Source 13c]

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

:"([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UNDO Undid] revision 332403367 by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/JzG JzG] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG talk])This is a content dispute, please do not revert others' comments)" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=332403367 Source 13b]

 

Grsz then removed the section again with an edit comment of  

:"([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UNDO Undid] revision 332438724 by QueenofBattle (talk) it is inappropriate, and on a talk page, not a content dispute)" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=332439690&oldid=332438724Source 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.

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.

'''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.

'''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?  

:'''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.  

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

: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.

--[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jzyehoshua Jzyehoshua] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jzyehoshua talk]) 05:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Grsz11&diff=prev&oldid=332445876 Source 14a]

 

Grsz replied as follows:

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

: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. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Grsz11 Grsz11] 05:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGrsz11&diff=332448081&oldid=332445876 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:

'''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.

: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.  

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.

: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.

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].

:1. Keyes assails Obama's abortion views, August 9, 2004, [13], Associated Press.

5. Barack Obama knows his way around a ballot, Chicago Tribune, April 3, 2007, [17].

:2. State of Illinois General Assembly 92nd General Assembly Regular Session Senate Transcript, Illinois General Assembly, March 30, 2001, [14], pages=85-87 2009.

6. Barack Obama and Me, Houston News, February 26, 2008, [18].

:3. State of Illinois General Assembly 90th General Assembly Regular Session Senate Transcript, Illinois General Assembly, March 18, 1997, [15], pages=61-63.

7. Obama: How He Learned to Win, Time Magazine, May 8, 2008, [19].  

:4. Obama and 'Infanticide', FactCheck.org, August 25, 2008, [16].

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.  

:5. Barack Obama knows his way around a ballot, Chicago Tribune, April 3, 2007, [17].

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.  

:6. Barack Obama and Me, Houston News, February 26, 2008, [18].

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.  

:7. Obama: How He Learned to Win, Time Magazine, May 8, 2008, [19].  

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.  

: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.  

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

: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.--[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jzyehoshua Jzyehoshua] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jzyehoshua talk]) 05:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)  

 

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=332446310&oldid=332439690#Coverage_of_Controversies.3F 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:

'''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.

:Ideological disagreement is not encyclopedic material. None of this has the slightest chance of appearing in a biographical article on the Wikipedia. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarc Tarc] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tarc talk]) 05:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

--Jzyehoshua (talk) 05:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 16

::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.

--[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jzyehoshua Jzyehoshua] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jzyehoshua talk]) 05:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)  

'''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 "{{hat|Proposed text collapsed for readability.}}" Source 17a

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=332446781&oldid=332446310 Source 16]

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

 

I reverted Grsz's edit without making an edit comment of my own. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=332447005&oldid=332446781 Source 17b]

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

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

: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:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]. Nobody here is saying keep criticism in other articles, and you claiming that is false. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Grsz11 Grsz11] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=332447133 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

Tarc put the replies in the "Coverage of Controversies" section in a new subsection called "Further Commentary". [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=332447424 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOAP soapbox] for your anti-abortionist propaganda, nor is it for delving into minutiae about Chicago politics. This is an encyclopedia, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#BLOG not a blog]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarc Tarc] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk: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:

'''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.  

: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 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.

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

:--[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jzyehoshua Jzyehoshua] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jzyehoshua talk]) 06:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)  

 

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=332447696 Source 18]

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

'''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

: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. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarc Tarc] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tarc talk]) 06:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=332449763&oldid=332448607#Further_commentary Source 19a]

 

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

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 crap 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

: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP 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. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG Guy] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG/help Help!]) 09:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=332449763#Further_commentary 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:

'''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.  

: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.  

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.  

 

: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 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)

: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.[http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx 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? -.^--[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jzyehoshua Jzyehoshua] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk: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.

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]]

: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.[http://www.journalism.org/node/13437 21]  

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:  

: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.[http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=B02 22]  

- 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).  

: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.--[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jzyehoshua Jzyehoshua] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jzyehoshua talk]) 09:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)  

-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

 

: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)  

 

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=332466645&oldid=332461851#Further_commentary Source 20]

== 21-30 ==

== 21-30 ==