Changes

: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.  

: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.

: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.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NoHitHair NoHitHair] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NoHitHair talk]) 23:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)  

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NoHitHair NoHitHair] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NoHitHair talk]) 23:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)  

:

:

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=332398401&oldid=332391965 Source 11]

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=332398401&oldid=332391965 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:

'''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. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DD2K DD2K] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk: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)  

Grsz then removed the section again with an edit comment of  

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]

:"([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=332438724 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.

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.

: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.

: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.

::1. Keyes assails Obama's abortion views, August 9, 2004, [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5654128/ 13], Associated Press.

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

::2. State of Illinois General Assembly 92nd General Assembly Regular Session Senate Transcript, Illinois General Assembly, March 30, 2001, [http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf 14], pages=85-87 2009.

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

::3. State of Illinois General Assembly 90th General Assembly Regular Session Senate Transcript, Illinois General Assembly, March 18, 1997, [http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans90/ST031897.pdf 15], pages=61-63.

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

::4. Obama and 'Infanticide', FactCheck.org, August 25, 2008, [http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html 16].

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

::5. Barack Obama knows his way around a ballot, Chicago Tribune, April 3, 2007, [http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-070403obama-ballot-archive,0,5297304,full.story 17].

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

::6. Barack Obama and Me, Houston News, February 26, 2008, [http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/full 18].

::7. Obama: How He Learned to Win, Time Magazine, May 8, 2008, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1738494-2,00.html 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.  

: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.  

:

:

::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.

::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)  

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

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

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

: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.  

: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.

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

   

   

: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.  

: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.[http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx 20]  

: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]  

: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:  

: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.  

:- 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).  

:-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)  

:-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]

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