Changes

::::::Look, I already quoted verbatim from the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV NPOV] guidelines, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP WP:BLP] guidelines, and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section Wikipedia:Lead section] guidelines.  At some point I expect those criticizing me of violating the guidelines to actually use this as more than just an attack, and actually give examples of what parts of the guidelines are being violated, and give examples of what parts of my works are violating them.  I mean, I've been doing all the work citing this stuff.  I can't be expected to be hypersensitively defending myself against every little accusation of violating a guideline with lengthy essays quoting from said guidelines if the accuser is too lazy to even give examples and cite what part of the guidelines and my writing is at issue.  --[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jzyehoshua Jzyehoshua] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jzyehoshua talk])06:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

::::::Look, I already quoted verbatim from the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV NPOV] guidelines, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP WP:BLP] guidelines, and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section Wikipedia:Lead section] guidelines.  At some point I expect those criticizing me of violating the guidelines to actually use this as more than just an attack, and actually give examples of what parts of the guidelines are being violated, and give examples of what parts of my works are violating them.  I mean, I've been doing all the work citing this stuff.  I can't be expected to be hypersensitively defending myself against every little accusation of violating a guideline with lengthy essays quoting from said guidelines if the accuser is too lazy to even give examples and cite what part of the guidelines and my writing is at issue.  --[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jzyehoshua Jzyehoshua] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jzyehoshua talk])06:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::::Bottom line: can you show where there is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CONSENSUS WP:CONSENSUS] ''for'' the change(s) you are thinking about? I say there is not, for two reasons: 1) I don't see it on this talk page, and 2) I don't even see a specific change request. This is not just any article on Wikipedia - it's one of the most watched, with [http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/watcher.py?db=enwiki_p&titles=Barack_Obama over 1800 watchers]. I understand that consensus is generally not a reason to revert a change, but for such a highly-visited (and watched) page which is on probation, things are different. Nobody's saying you can't edit the article. What's being said is that changes of a controversial nature on a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP WP:BLP] article that is highly-visited and highly-watched and is on probation should be discussed ''first''. I still don't see any specific proposals for changes to the article. What I see is a bunch of accusations and references and [[WP:OR|original research]] - but no specific changes being requested. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Frank Frank] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Frank talk]) 14:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::::Bottom line: can you show where there is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CONSENSUS WP:CONSENSUS] ''for'' the change(s) you are thinking about? I say there is not, for two reasons: 1) I don't see it on this talk page, and 2) I don't even see a specific change request. This is not just any article on Wikipedia - it's one of the most watched, with [http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/watcher.py?db=enwiki_p&titles=Barack_Obama over 1800 watchers]. I understand that consensus is generally not a reason to revert a change, but for such a highly-visited (and watched) page which is on probation, things are different. Nobody's saying you can't edit the article. What's being said is that changes of a controversial nature on a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP WP:BLP] article that is highly-visited and highly-watched and is on probation should be discussed ''first''. I still don't see any specific proposals for changes to the article. What I see is a bunch of accusations and references and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OR original research] - but no specific changes being requested. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Frank Frank] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Frank talk]) 14:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

:Please. If you don't have consensus - I don't care how many policies you cite - you cannot make these types of additions to the article. It can't get much simpler than that. Since you ''clearly'' do not have consensus, drop it. There have been a dozen or more of us who have given you quite clear-cut reasons why we cannot include multiple insignificant controversies, fringe theories, or the comparatively insignificant views of others about Obama. By the way, you are not helping your case by accusing us of being liberal, or accusing us of not providing tangible evidence against. [[User:WHSL|WHSL]] [[User_talk:WHSL|^(Talk)]] 06:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

:Please. If you don't have consensus - I don't care how many policies you cite - you cannot make these types of additions to the article. It can't get much simpler than that. Since you ''clearly'' do not have consensus, drop it. There have been a dozen or more of us who have given you quite clear-cut reasons why we cannot include multiple insignificant controversies, fringe theories, or the comparatively insignificant views of others about Obama. By the way, you are not helping your case by accusing us of being liberal, or accusing us of not providing tangible evidence against. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WHSL WHSL] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WHSL Talk]) 06:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

::According to the Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DRNC Don't revert due to "no consensus"] page, "Sometimes editors will undo a change, justifying their revert merely by saying that there is "no consensus" for the change, or by simply asking the original editor to "first discuss". Except possibly on pages that describe settled Wikipedia policy, this is not very helpful. After all, '''that you reverted the edit already shows that there is no consensus. But you neglected to explain why you personally disagree with the edit''', so you haven't given people a handle on how to build the consensus with you that you desire.

::According to the Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DRNC Don't revert due to "no consensus"] page, "Sometimes editors will undo a change, justifying their revert merely by saying that there is "no consensus" for the change, or by simply asking the original editor to "first discuss". Except possibly on pages that describe settled Wikipedia policy, this is not very helpful. After all, '''that you reverted the edit already shows that there is no consensus. But you neglected to explain why you personally disagree with the edit''', so you haven't given people a handle on how to build the consensus with you that you desire.

::I do not like calling people out like this, and would prefer to work towards agreement objectively, but the fact remains that over half those commenting right now on my proposed edits are not providing any of the constructive material the previously quoted page says should be involved.  They are telling me to achieve Consensus without following the Consensus page guidelines themselves.  --[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jzyehoshua Jzyehoshua] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jzyehoshua talk]) 08:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

::I do not like calling people out like this, and would prefer to work towards agreement objectively, but the fact remains that over half those commenting right now on my proposed edits are not providing any of the constructive material the previously quoted page says should be involved.  They are telling me to achieve Consensus without following the Consensus page guidelines themselves.  --[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jzyehoshua Jzyehoshua] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jzyehoshua talk]) 08:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

:::You might want to slow down a bit on the rule interpretation but to address the points you raise: lack of consensus should not be the ''sole'' reason for opposing an edit, just as lack of a citation should not either in most cases - there has to be a good faith bona fide objection to the material, at which point it becomes the job of the person proposing the change to achieve consensus, or wanting to include the material to find appropriate sources.  If people are objecting to your desire to add something to the article under claim of "no consensus" what they really mean is that the objections are stated elsewhere and to their mind you have not (yet) established that there is consensus to overcome those objections.  If they feel it is against policy and guidelines you would have to demonstrate a consensus for the interpretation / analysis that the proposal actually is permissible per the policy and guidelines.  Policy / guidelines are mostly exclusionary, creating thresholds to meet before things can be added.  Relatively few of them demand that something be included, they just permit it.  So if it's within the territory of editor discretion you would have to establish consensus not only that the content is permissible, but that it should be added.  You can look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BRD WP:BRD] for a widely-followed essay on that.  You're right that having too many nay-sayers on an article discourages bold edits.  This is a mature, featured article so the gradualist approach is probably a good thing.  Otherwise good articles start falling apart to the entropy of hasty edits.  It's probably gone too far here, and definitely too far on some of the other Obama articles, which are losing ground in their efforts to stay current because it is so hard to make major additions.  Cest la vie.  We can't solve that problem in a day.  Contrary to the language you're quoting (or is that your own analysis?) on high-traffic important articles there ''is'' a role for precedent and for deferring to past decisions.  The Arbitration Committee weighed in on the issue fairly recently with respect to this particular article, and said roughly that although consensus can change, excessive and contentious rehashing of matters that have been decided can be disruptive to the editing process.  The answer is somewhere in between.  Proposals should have a realistic chance of success - if something has been discussed and rejected a few times already, and it wasn't long ago, and there is no change in the subject we are covering or new sources about it, and the same editors are still here, it is pointless to repeat the same discussion.  It also doesn't work, you can rarely win consensus to edit the article by wearing out people's patience for discussion.  I do agree that the people arguing against your proposals are not providing constructive criticism.  I'll hazard a guess as to the reasons.  I think you started off on the wrong foot with an overly bold edit and some aggressive comments on the talk page.  Some people here are very alert to trouble and perhaps see it where none is intended.  I think that is unfair to you but given the history of the article it's not surprising.  And finally, these discussions have been going on a long time and gotten off track.  I think people just don't feel like talking about it anymore.  I'm not one to talk about brevity, but I think many of your posts - the last one a case in point - are very long and quote long stretches of policy that you could just link to, plus the '''extensive use of bold''' is distracting, people liken that to ALLCAPS or shouting!!!!!  I actually think a number of your content proposals are good ones, and people would probably accept them if we could find a more effective way to discuss it.  I'm still planning to propose some modest changes along those lines one at a time, so if we can all take a deep breath and try to be patient, we'll work through this.  Anyone who's gotten this far, can we all chill out a little bit?  Cool?  [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 09:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

:::You might want to slow down a bit on the rule interpretation but to address the points you raise: lack of consensus should not be the ''sole'' reason for opposing an edit, just as lack of a citation should not either in most cases - there has to be a good faith bona fide objection to the material, at which point it becomes the job of the person proposing the change to achieve consensus, or wanting to include the material to find appropriate sources.  If people are objecting to your desire to add something to the article under claim of "no consensus" what they really mean is that the objections are stated elsewhere and to their mind you have not (yet) established that there is consensus to overcome those objections.  If they feel it is against policy and guidelines you would have to demonstrate a consensus for the interpretation / analysis that the proposal actually is permissible per the policy and guidelines.  Policy / guidelines are mostly exclusionary, creating thresholds to meet before things can be added.  Relatively few of them demand that something be included, they just permit it.  So if it's within the territory of editor discretion you would have to establish consensus not only that the content is permissible, but that it should be added.  You can look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BRD WP:BRD] for a widely-followed essay on that.  You're right that having too many nay-sayers on an article discourages bold edits.  This is a mature, featured article so the gradualist approach is probably a good thing.  Otherwise good articles start falling apart to the entropy of hasty edits.  It's probably gone too far here, and definitely too far on some of the other Obama articles, which are losing ground in their efforts to stay current because it is so hard to make major additions.  Cest la vie.  We can't solve that problem in a day.  Contrary to the language you're quoting (or is that your own analysis?) on high-traffic important articles there ''is'' a role for precedent and for deferring to past decisions.  The Arbitration Committee weighed in on the issue fairly recently with respect to this particular article, and said roughly that although consensus can change, excessive and contentious rehashing of matters that have been decided can be disruptive to the editing process.  The answer is somewhere in between.  Proposals should have a realistic chance of success - if something has been discussed and rejected a few times already, and it wasn't long ago, and there is no change in the subject we are covering or new sources about it, and the same editors are still here, it is pointless to repeat the same discussion.  It also doesn't work, you can rarely win consensus to edit the article by wearing out people's patience for discussion.  I do agree that the people arguing against your proposals are not providing constructive criticism.  I'll hazard a guess as to the reasons.  I think you started off on the wrong foot with an overly bold edit and some aggressive comments on the talk page.  Some people here are very alert to trouble and perhaps see it where none is intended.  I think that is unfair to you but given the history of the article it's not surprising.  And finally, these discussions have been going on a long time and gotten off track.  I think people just don't feel like talking about it anymore.  I'm not one to talk about brevity, but I think many of your posts - the last one a case in point - are very long and quote long stretches of policy that you could just link to, plus the '''extensive use of bold''' is distracting, people liken that to ALLCAPS or shouting!!!!!  I actually think a number of your content proposals are good ones, and people would probably accept them if we could find a more effective way to discuss it.  I'm still planning to propose some modest changes along those lines one at a time, so if we can all take a deep breath and try to be patient, we'll work through this.  Anyone who's gotten this far, can we all chill out a little bit?  Cool?  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikidemon Wikidemon] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikidemon Wikidemon]) 09:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

::::True, that's all I've been saying, that those accusing me of no consensus or violating a policy should state exactly what's wrong with it, and how it violates the policy.  I tried numerous times now to get specific users to start a conversation over source validity, prominence of the sources, relevance to a section, neutrality of wording and how to improve it, etc.  What statements on this I actually heard I actually compromised on very, very early on.  For example, I agreed quickly that if the word 'infanticide' was too offensive to some then it could just not be used and an alternative like live birth abortion specified in its place.  I've also tried to avoid framing and asked others how they thought sentences could be reworded to avoid violation of NPOV.  I specifically brought up such high quality and high profile sources, as well as examples of mentions by all major campaigns, to combat the 'fringe' theory that keeps making the rounds.  Not that it would matter either way.   

::::True, that's all I've been saying, that those accusing me of no consensus or violating a policy should state exactly what's wrong with it, and how it violates the policy.  I tried numerous times now to get specific users to start a conversation over source validity, prominence of the sources, relevance to a section, neutrality of wording and how to improve it, etc.  What statements on this I actually heard I actually compromised on very, very early on.  For example, I agreed quickly that if the word 'infanticide' was too offensive to some then it could just not be used and an alternative like live birth abortion specified in its place.  I've also tried to avoid framing and asked others how they thought sentences could be reworded to avoid violation of NPOV.  I specifically brought up such high quality and high profile sources, as well as examples of mentions by all major campaigns, to combat the 'fringe' theory that keeps making the rounds.  Not that it would matter either way.   

::::I must ask: outside of this one editor's opinion (and yes, by an outsider's look it is an opinion) is this is a huge thing and not some rambling of a pro-lifer who really doesn't like the president. How has this made news today? Is it being carried on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc?  Is it a big topic in the news papers? (excluding blogs and opinion pieces)  Outside the pro-life community, is this topic really being associated with the president (I.E. the common person on the street would spout this when asked about the president?).  In all honest opinion, this looks more like a big point to extreme pro-lifers then it does to the country at large.  Finally, and more to the point, is this such a large issue, I mean really a glaring issue that everyone in the country recognizes it and believes it or questions it, to be included in this article?  [[User:Brothejr|Brothejr]] ([[User talk:Brothejr|talk]]) 09:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

::::I must ask: outside of this one editor's opinion (and yes, by an outsider's look it is an opinion) is this is a huge thing and not some rambling of a pro-lifer who really doesn't like the president. How has this made news today? Is it being carried on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc?  Is it a big topic in the news papers? (excluding blogs and opinion pieces)  Outside the pro-life community, is this topic really being associated with the president (I.E. the common person on the street would spout this when asked about the president?).  In all honest opinion, this looks more like a big point to extreme pro-lifers then it does to the country at large.  Finally, and more to the point, is this such a large issue, I mean really a glaring issue that everyone in the country recognizes it and believes it or questions it, to be included in this article?  [[User:Brothejr|Brothejr]] ([[User talk:Brothejr|talk]]) 09:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::I don't think that's the proposal on the table.  Bear with this, I think we can restate the various content proposals in a focused, productive way at some point.  - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 10:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::I don't think that's the proposal on the table.  Bear with this, I think we can restate the various content proposals in a focused, productive way at some point.  - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikidemon Wikidemon] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikidemon Wikidemon]) 10:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

::::::If it involves Keyes and infanticide, it will surely be rejected. This sort of distortion ''must'' be discouraged, because it violates [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP WP:BLP] quite seriously. -- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Scjessey Scjessey] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scjessey talk]) 14:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

::::::If it involves Keyes and infanticide, it will surely be rejected. This sort of distortion ''must'' be discouraged, because it violates [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP WP:BLP] quite seriously. -- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Scjessey Scjessey] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scjessey talk]) 14:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)