Changes

'''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:

'''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)   

:Absurd propaganda  

Jzyehoshua has been instructed to achieve 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)  

:For Pete's sake, quit littering this talk page with your propaganda. It has nothing to do with the biography of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia Wikipedia] project. You agenda is to disrupt and battle. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DD2K DD2K] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DD2K talk]) 14:49, 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)

::Jzyehoshua has been instructed to achieve [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CONSENSUS] 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.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Frank Frank] |  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Frank talk] 15:18, 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)  

:::So the addition of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jzyehoshua Jzyehoshua] asking if [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=332444882&oldid=332439690 Barack Obama supports killing infants] is ok? That is allowed, even on the talk page? Don't get me wrong, if members of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_Pink Code Pink] were on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W_Bush 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV WP:NPOV]? In any way? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DD2K DD2K] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DD2K talk]) 15:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)   

Source 31

::::When a relatively new user ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jzyehoshua 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OR WP:OR] anyway) are inappropriate. But we cannot expect new users to understand all the vast workings of Wikipedia instantly.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Frank Frank] |  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk: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, [http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=infanticide 1], [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infanticide 2], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide 3]. Allowing those accusations to stand, even on the talk page, should obviously be against the rules. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DD2K DD2K] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DD2K talk]) 15:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)  

 

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=332504982&oldid=332494774#Absurd_propaganda 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.  

'''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:

:Considering that the term infanticide has now been used in reference to Obama by:

-the National Right to Life Committee[[24]]

:*-the National Right to Life Committee[http://www.nrlc.org/news_and_Views/July08/nv0708b08.html 24]

-CBS/The Associated Press[[25]]

:*-CBS/The Associated Press[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml 25]

-The Washington Post[[26]]

:*-The Washington Post[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/01/AR2008040102197.html 26]

-Chicago Tribune[[27]][[28]]

:*-Chicago Tribune[http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/aug/20/nation/chi-abortion-obama_20aug20 27][http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/aug/21/local/chi-zorn_21aug21 28]

-Time Magazine's Real Clear Politics[[29]][[30]]

:*-Time Magazine's Real Clear Politics[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/the_swiftboating_of_obama.html 29][http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/a_catholic_case_against_barack.html 30]

-FactCheck.org[[31]]

:*-FactCheck.org[http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html 31]

-The New York Times[[32]]

:*-The New York Times[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E7DC173CF934A3575BC0A96E9C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2 32]

-Newsweek[[33]] (the FactCheck article)

:*-Newsweek[http://www.newsweek.com/id/155560 33] (the FactCheck article)

-Newsbusters.org[[34]]

:*-Newsbusters.org[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/erick-erickson/2008/08/29/david-brody-fails-integrity-test 34]

-U.S. Senator Rick Santorum[[35]]

:*-U.S. Senator Rick Santorum[http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=28732 35]

-U.S. Senator Pat Moynihan[[36]]

:*-U.S. Senator Pat Moynihan[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/a_catholic_case_against_barack.html 36]

-Sean Hannity[[37]]

:*-Sean Hannity[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xVYW-_0jVU 37]

-Rush Limbaugh[[38]]

:*-Rush Limbaugh[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_081808/content/01125112.guest.html 38]

-Ann Coulter[[39]]

:*-Ann Coulter[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xVYW-_0jVU 39]

-National Review[[40]]

:*-National Review[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzRhZTgzNmRlZWE0MTA1YTM4NWMxN2UxMjA5YjBkZTE= 40]

-TownHall.com[[41]]

:*-TownHall.com[http://townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2008/08/22/the_swiftboating_charge_and_infanticide_a_guilty_diversion 41]

-Jill Stanek[[42]]

:*-Jill Stanek[http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/02/links_to_barack.html 42]

-HumanEvents.com[[43]]

:*-HumanEvents.com[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28089 43]

-World Net Daily[[44]]

:*-World Net Daily[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73040 44]

Obama even felt enough heat on the issue to address the Chicago Tribune about it directly with his website FightTheSmears.[[45]][[46]]

:Obama even felt enough heat on the issue to address the Chicago Tribune about it directly with his website FightTheSmears.[http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/08/obama-answers-t.html 45][http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/15/wildaccusations.html 46]

That is not even including those like John McCain[[47]], Sarah Palin[[48]], and the National Organization of Women (Clinton supporters)[[49]] who accused Obama of it but did not specifically use the word 'infanticide'.

That is not even including those like John McCain[http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/115563.php 47], Sarah Palin[http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2008/10/20/palin-obamas-abortion-stance-is-so-extreme.aspx 48], and the National Organization of Women (Clinton supporters)[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/04/AR2008020402980.html 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)

: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.

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).[[50]] Source 32

--[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jzyehoshua Jzyehoshua] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk: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).[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Stanek#Obama_infanticide_accusations50]

 

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=332505331&oldid=332504982 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.

'''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.

: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.

 

: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.

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

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

'''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

: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. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CONSENSUS WP:CONSENSUS], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V WP:V], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV 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.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Frank Frank] |  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Frank talk] 16:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)  

 

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=332508212&oldid=332508102#Absurd_propaganda 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".

'''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

: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS 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.

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

Fightthesmears.com was setup for the precise purpose of shooting down conspiracy-tinged idiocy such as this. This is why we have a separate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BATTLE battle]. I think that is about my last word on this subject, as it is beginning to get circular. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tarc Tarc] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tarc talk]) 16:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=332510930&oldid=332508212 Source 35a]

At 10:54, Tarc made another edit to fix some minor typos he'd made. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=332515497&oldid=332513906 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:

'''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

 

: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia Wikipedia] guidelines. I just do not believe that you really are trying to accomplish that. As much as we are supposed to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AGF 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. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DD2K DD2K] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DD2K talk]) 16:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=332515497&oldid=332508212#Absurd_propaganda 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):

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

 

: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. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=332512715&oldid=332510930 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.

'''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?

: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 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 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)

 

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

'''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)

 

: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. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Abrazame&action=edit&redlink=1 Abrazame] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Abrazame talk]) 17:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

 

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

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

== To Be Discussed Later When I Reach Them: ==

== To Be Discussed Later When I Reach Them: ==