Changes

The following will be primary sources of evidence cited:

The following will be primary sources of evidence cited:

1 - My [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Jzyehoshua&dir=prev&limit=500&target=Jzyehoshua User Contributions page at Wikipedia]

 

2 - The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&offset=20100101000000&limit=110&action=history&tagfilter= Barack Obama page history for December 2009]  

* 1 - My [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Jzyehoshua&dir=prev&limit=500&target=Jzyehoshua User Contributions page at Wikipedia]

3 - The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&offset=20091224102052&limit=500&action=history&tagfilter= Barack Obama Talk page history for December 2009]

* 2 - The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&offset=20100101000000&limit=110&action=history&tagfilter= Barack Obama page history for December 2009]  

4 - The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jzyehoshua&offset=20100101000000&limit=500&action=history&tagfilter= December 2009 page history for my Talk page]

* 3 - The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&offset=20091224102052&limit=500&action=history&tagfilter= Barack Obama Talk page history for December 2009]

* 4 - The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jzyehoshua&offset=20100101000000&limit=500&action=history&tagfilter= December 2009 page history for my Talk page]

Lesser sources include:

Lesser sources include:

1 - The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GoodDay/Archive_17#Liberal_Bias.3F December 2009 page history for GoodDay's Talk Page]

* 1 - The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GoodDay/Archive_17#Liberal_Bias.3F December 2009 page history for GoodDay's Talk Page]

2 - The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFrank&action=history&year=2009&month=12&tagfilter= December 2009 page history for Frank's Talk Page]

* 2 - The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFrank&action=history&year=2009&month=12&tagfilter= December 2009 page history for Frank's Talk Page]

3 - The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGrsz11&action=history&year=2009&month=12&tagfilter= December 2009 page history for Grsz's Talk Page]

* 3 - The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGrsz11&action=history&year=2009&month=12&tagfilter= December 2009 page history for Grsz's Talk Page]

I am confident these sources clearly show the level of liberal bias to be seen on Wikipedia, in preventing mention of even a major controversy surrounding Obama like his opposition to medical care for newborn children fully outside the womb -- his opposition to the famously popular Born Alive Infants Protection Act in 2002 that became U.S. Law with public approval upwards of 90% which passed the U.S. Senate unanimously. Despite the considerable news coverage of the subject in both 2004 and 2008, Wikipedia as an institution refused to give so much as a one-sentence mention to the subject, betraying all its hypocritical claims of impartiality and objectivity.

I am confident these sources clearly show the level of liberal bias to be seen on Wikipedia, in preventing mention of even a major controversy surrounding Obama like his opposition to medical care for newborn children fully outside the womb -- his opposition to the famously popular Born Alive Infants Protection Act in 2002 that became U.S. Law with public approval upwards of 90% which passed the U.S. Senate unanimously. Despite the considerable news coverage of the subject in both 2004 and 2008, Wikipedia as an institution refused to give so much as a one-sentence mention to the subject, betraying all its hypocritical claims of impartiality and objectivity.

I will be updating this periodically (last update 4/21/2012). I am attempting to mention all evidence, including edit comments/titles. Bolding is removed from quotes even if it was used at the time to better track chronology (relying as it does on bolded time stamps). Sources for each quote are given at the end as 'Source 1', 'Source 2', etc. Key quotes by myself and others will be highlighted in Red. Key comments by myself now are shown in Green:

I will be updating this periodically (last update 4/21/2012). I am attempting to mention all evidence, including edit comments/titles. Bolding is removed from quotes even if it was used at the time to better track chronology (relying as it does on bolded time stamps). Sources for each quote are given at the end as 'Source 1', 'Source 2', etc. Key quotes by myself and others will be highlighted in Red. Key comments by myself now are shown in Green:

'''1 - 2009, 12/17, 15:01-36:''' I made the following edits to the Barack Obama page, striving to simply report the hard facts while keeping opinionated adjectives out of the edits. The edits rested upon 8 major sources, 3 from the ''Illinois General Assembly'' (senate transcripts) and one each from the ''Associated Press'' (quoted on ''MSNBC''), ''FactCheck.org'', the ''Chicago Tribune'', the ''Houston Press'', and ''Time Magazine'', not exactly conservatively biased news sources. This was just an initial proposal, the later one included over 40 prominent sources, as will be shown:

'''1 - 2009, 12/17, 15:01-36:''' I made the following edits to the Barack Obama page, striving to simply report the hard facts while keeping opinionated adjectives out of the edits. The edits rested upon 8 major sources, 3 from the ''Illinois General Assembly'' (senate transcripts) and one each from the ''Associated Press'' (quoted on ''MSNBC''), ''FactCheck.org'', the ''Chicago Tribune'', the ''Houston Press'', and ''Time Magazine'', not exactly conservatively biased news sources. This was just an initial proposal, the later one included over 40 prominent sources, as will be shown:{{cquote|POLITICAL CONTROVERSIES

Former 2004 Senate opponent [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Keyes Alan Keyes], who entered the 2004 Senate race after Obama's original opponent, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ryan Jack Ryan], dropped out due to a sex scandal, began accusing Obama just one day after entering the race of taking the 'slaveholder's position' because Obama termed children surviving late-term abortions "fetus]es]" and supported the right of hospitals to let them die of abandonment [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5654128/ 166]. Obama in 2003, before the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Senate Illinois Senate], questioned whether a bill known as the Born Alive Infants Protection Act could be summarized as follows:[http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf 167]

Former 2004 Senate opponent [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Keyes Alan Keyes], who entered the 2004 Senate race after Obama's original opponent, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ryan Jack Ryan], dropped out due to a sex scandal, began accusing Obama just one day after entering the race of taking the 'slaveholder's position' because Obama termed children surviving late-term abortions "fetus]es]" and supported the right of hospitals to let them die of abandonment [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5654128/ 166]. Obama in 2003, before the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Senate Illinois Senate], questioned whether a bill known as the Born Alive Infants Protection Act could be summarized as follows:[http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf 167]

"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_O%27Malley_(American_politician) Senator O’Malley], the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was – is that there was a method of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion abortion], an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_abortion induced abortion], where the — the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus fetus] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child child], as – as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womb womb]. And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living. Is that correct? Is that an accurate sort of descriptions of one of the key concerns of the bill?"

"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_O%27Malley_(American_politician) Senator O’Malley], the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was – is that there was a method of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion abortion], an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_abortion induced abortion], where the — the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus fetus] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child child], as – as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womb womb]. And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living. Is that correct? Is that an accurate sort of descriptions of one of the key concerns of the bill?"

After Senator O'Malley answered in the affirmative, Senator Obama's reply included the following:

After Senator O'Malley answered in the affirmative, Senator Obama's reply included the following:

"Number one, whenever we define a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viability_(fetal) previable fetus] as a person that is protected by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_protection_clause equal protection clause] or the other elements in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution Constitution], what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose I think it would probably be found unconstitutional. The second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we're placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as -- as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we're probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality."

"Number one, whenever we define a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viability_(fetal) previable fetus] as a person that is protected by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_protection_clause equal protection clause] or the other elements in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution Constitution], what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose I think it would probably be found unconstitutional. The second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we're placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as -- as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we're probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality."

During his time in the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama would vote against other bills addressing this subject of 'live birth abortion', including the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act (which included statements by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cullerton Senator Cullerton] that closely mirrored the aforementioned and later arguments of Obama)[http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans90/ST031897.pdf 168] and the Induced Birth Infants [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liability Liability] Act (with both Senators Obama and Cullerton speaking, Obama elaborating).[http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST040402.pdf 169]

During his time in the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama would vote against other bills addressing this subject of 'live birth abortion', including the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act (which included statements by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cullerton Senator Cullerton] that closely mirrored the aforementioned and later arguments of Obama)[http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans90/ST031897.pdf 168] and the Induced Birth Infants [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liability Liability] Act (with both Senators Obama and Cullerton speaking, Obama elaborating).[http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST040402.pdf 169]

In August of 2008, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FactCheck Factcheck.org] officially recognized some truth to the claims of infanticide, stating "We find that, as the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/NRLC NRLC] said in a recent statement, Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported. Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus, according to an undisputed summary written immediately after the committee's 2003 mark-up session."[http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html 170]

In August of 2008, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FactCheck Factcheck.org] officially recognized some truth to the claims of infanticide, stating "We find that, as the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/NRLC NRLC] said in a recent statement, Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported. Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus, according to an undisputed summary written immediately after the committee's 2003 mark-up session."[http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html 170]

'''Chicago Politics'''

'''Chicago Politics'''

As reported on by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tribune Chicago Tribune][http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-070403obama-ballot-archive,0,5297304,full.story 198] and later the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston_Press Houston Press]' Todd Spivak[http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/full 199], Obama defeated early political opponents by challenging their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petition petition] signatures. In this way he was able to defeat activist and popular incumbent [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Palmer_(Illinois_politician) Alice Palmer], who had earlier supported him, when she was forced to hurriedly collect petition signatures before the filing deadline.  

As reported on by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tribune Chicago Tribune][http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-070403obama-ballot-archive,0,5297304,full.story 198] and later the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston_Press Houston Press]' Todd Spivak[http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/full 199], Obama defeated early political opponents by challenging their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petition petition] signatures. In this way he was able to defeat activist and popular incumbent [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Palmer_(Illinois_politician) Alice Palmer], who had earlier supported him, when she was forced to hurriedly collect petition signatures before the filing deadline.  

As Spivak points out about the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative legislative] record of Senator Obama, "It's a lengthy record filled with core [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal liberal] issues. But what's interesting, and almost never discussed, is that he built his entire legislative record in Illinois in a single year." Then Senate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_Leader Majority Leader] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_Jones Emil Jones] was approached by young Senator Barack Obama, who told him "You have the power to make a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senator United States Senator]."[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1738494-2,00.html 200]   

As Spivak points out about the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative legislative] record of Senator Obama, "It's a lengthy record filled with core [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal liberal] issues. But what's interesting, and almost never discussed, is that he built his entire legislative record in Illinois in a single year." Then Senate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_Leader Majority Leader] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_Jones Emil Jones] was approached by young Senator Barack Obama, who told him "You have the power to make a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senator United States Senator]."[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1738494-2,00.html 200]   

During his last year in the Illinois Senate Obama sponsored 26 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_(proposed_law) bills] that were passed into law. Jones had Obama craft legislation dealing with key issues in the news. But what is more, as reported on by Spivak, "Jones appointed Obama [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponsor_(legislative) sponsor] of virtually every high-profile piece of legislation, angering many rank-and-file state legislators who had more [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seniority_in_the_United_States_Senate seniority] than Obama and had spent years championing the bills. 'I took all the beatings and insults and endured all the racist comments over the years from nasty [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican Republican] committee [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chairmen chairmen],' State Senator [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickey_Hendon Rickey Hendon], the original sponsor of landmark racial profiling and videotaped confession legislation yanked away by Jones and given to Obama, complained to me at the time. 'Barack didn't have to endure any of it, yet, in the end, he got all the credit.'" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=332374186&oldid=332220645 Source 1]

 

During his last year in the Illinois Senate Obama sponsored 26 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_(proposed_law) bills] that were passed into law. Jones had Obama craft legislation dealing with key issues in the news. But what is more, as reported on by Spivak, "Jones appointed Obama [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponsor_(legislative) sponsor] of virtually every high-profile piece of legislation, angering many rank-and-file state legislators who had more [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seniority_in_the_United_States_Senate seniority] than Obama and had spent years championing the bills. 'I took all the beatings and insults and endured all the racist comments over the years from nasty [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican Republican] committee [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chairmen chairmen],' State Senator [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickey_Hendon Rickey Hendon], the original sponsor of landmark racial profiling and videotaped confession legislation yanked away by Jones and given to Obama, complained to me at the time. 'Barack didn't have to endure any of it, yet, in the end, he got all the credit.'"}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=332374186&oldid=332220645 Source 1]

'''2. 2009, 12/17, 15:24:''' Scjessey posted on my Talk page:  His comment, which I naturally didn't take too kindly to, was:

'''2. 2009, 12/17, 15:24:''' Scjessey posted on my Talk page:  His comment, which I naturally didn't take too kindly to, was:

3 - 2009, 12/17, 15:41: Frank reverted these edits with a comment of "This requires discussion on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama the talk page] before being added": [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=332375110&oldid=332374186 Source 3]

{{cquote|Just saw these edits while browsing RecentChanges. Excuse my bad language, but you've got to be f***ing kidding, right? I suggest you self-revert that stuff post haste! --[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Scjessey Scjessey] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scjessey talk]) 21:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&action=historysubmit&diff=332370915&oldid=332220645 Source 2]

4 - 2009, 12/17, 15:45: GoodDay posted on my user talk page in Scjessey's new section:

'''3 - 2009, 12/17, 15:41:''' Frank reverted these edits with a comment of "This requires discussion on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama the talk page] before being added": [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=332375110&oldid=332374186 Source 3]

Your additions have been reverted. Recommend using the related talkpage, before making such additions. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Source 4

5 - 2009, 12/17, 15:47: I was still editing the page and hadn't yet checked the history or my talk page, all I knew was my changes had been reverted (See 9 for more detail). So I made a new edit without the Chicago Politics section to see if this would be okay, since I considered The Born Alive one exceptionally well sourced as controversial given its prominence in the 2004 elections, major media controversy in 2008, and sourcing from Illinois Senate transcripts: Source 5

6 - 2009, 12/17, 15:49: Frank reverted the edit again with an edit comment of "(Undid revision 332376252 by Jzyehoshua (talk))", giving a link to the Talk page. Source 6

'''4 - 2009, 12/17, 15:45:''' GoodDay posted on my user talk page in Scjessey's new section:

{{cquote|Your additions have been reverted. Recommend using the related talkpage, before making such additions. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GoodDay GoodDay] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GoodDay talk]) 21:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jzyehoshua&diff=next&oldid=332371811 Source 4]

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

Please read the edit notice at the top of the edit page for Barack Obama. You've now reinserted material that was specifically removed with request to go to Talk:Barack Obama to discuss potential addition of the material. As the article is highly watched and under probation, further insertion of the same or similar material will earn you a block very quickly. Frank  |  talk  21:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Source 7

 

8 -  2009, 12/17, 15:55-16:28: I posted on GoodDay's Talk page in response to his comment on mine, thinking he'd been the one who had reverted my edits, because I hadn't yet checked the Obama page's history to see who had (something of a newbie mistake I'll admit). Scjessey, Frank, and GoodDay all responded there as well:

I saw you recently removed my new section on political controversies surrounding Barack Obama, which was very well sourced and kept neutral in stating only POVs from major media organizations. I ironically made that section only after noticing that other politicians who are conservative had politically conservative have such sections, but not Obama. I think it ironic that liberals seek to silence free speech when it is critical of them. This began with someone swearing at me on my profile which I would calmly suggest may indicate a lack of unbiased neutrality upon the reporting party's part. Please explain to me how I overstepped any boundaries with my post before I take this to a higher level.

 

'''7 - 2009, 12/17, 15:50:''' Frank posted on my Talk page with a comment of {{cquote|Please read the edit notice at the top of the edit page for [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama Barack Obama]. You've now reinserted material that was specifically removed with request to go to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama Talk:Barack Obama] to discuss potential addition of the material. As the article is highly watched and under probation, further insertion of the same or similar material will earn you a block very quickly. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Frank Frank] |  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Frank talk] 21:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jzyehoshua&diff=prev&oldid=332376837 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jzyehoshua&diff=prev&oldid=332376837 Source 7]}}

 

'''8 -  2009, 12/17, 15:55-16:28:''' I posted on GoodDay's Talk page in response to his comment on mine, thinking he'd been the one who had reverted my edits, because I hadn't yet checked the Obama page's history to see who had (something of a newbie mistake I'll admit). Scjessey, Frank, and GoodDay all responded there as well:

{{cquote|I saw you recently removed my new section on political controversies surrounding Barack Obama, which was very well sourced and kept neutral in stating only POVs from major media organizations. I ironically made that section only after noticing that other politicians who are conservative had politically conservative have such sections, but not Obama. I think it ironic that liberals seek to silence free speech when it is critical of them. This began with someone swearing at me on my profile which I would calmly suggest may indicate a lack of unbiased neutrality upon the reporting party's part. Please explain to me how I overstepped any boundaries with my post before I take this to a higher level.

Sincerely,

Sincerely,

Jz --Jzyehoshua (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Blah blah blah free speech blah blah censorship blah blah baby killers... -- Scjessey (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

:Blah blah blah free speech blah blah censorship blah blah baby killers... -- Scjessey (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Jz, I was the one who reverted your addition twice, and I left a message on your talk page about it. The revert of your edits has nothing to do with bias of any type. It's just that we need to develop a WP:CONSENSUS before putting a whole new section in an article, especially one as highly-watched as Barack Obama. Frank  |  talk  21:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)  

Actually, Jz, I was the one who reverted your addition twice, and I left a message on your talk page about it. The revert of your edits has nothing to do with bias of any type. It's just that we need to develop a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CONSENSUS WP:CONSENSUS] before putting a whole new section in an article, especially one as highly-watched as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama Barack Obama]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Frank Frank] |  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Frank talk] 21:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)  

Jz, you need your eyesighte tested, giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)   

Jz, you need your eyesighte tested, giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)   

If you didn't revert my additions, then why post on my talk page saying they were reverted? -.^ --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)  

If you didn't revert my additions, then why post on my talk page saying they were reverted? -.^ --[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jzyehoshua Jzyehoshua] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jzyehoshua talk]) 22:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)  

Something to do, I suppose. GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Source 8

Something to do, I suppose. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GoodDay GoodDay] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GoodDay#top talk]) 22:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Source 8

9 - 2009, 12/17, 16:00-18: I and Frank had a discussion on his Talk page in which I explained I'd still been editing the page and had only made my 2nd edit (See 5) because I hadn't seen his comments yet. He re-emphasized the discussion should occur on the Obama Talk page:

 

'''9 - 2009, 12/17, 16:00-18:''' I and Frank had a discussion on his Talk page in which I explained I'd still been editing the page and had only made my 2nd edit (See 5) because I hadn't seen his comments yet. He re-emphasized the discussion should occur on the Obama Talk page:

Liberal Bias?  

Liberal Bias?  

I recently made the following comment in regards to the moderator who removed my comment, once I got their message. The reason it was re-posted was I was still editing and hadn't yet seen the messages.  

I recently made the following comment in regards to the moderator who removed my comment, once I got their message. The reason it was re-posted was I was still editing and hadn't yet seen the messages.  

"I saw you recently removed my new section on political controversies surrounding Barack Obama, which was very well sourced and kept neutral in stating only POVs from major media organizations. I ironically made that section only after noticing that other politicians who are conservative had politically conservative have such sections, but not Obama. I think it ironic that liberals seek to silence free speech when it is critical of them. This began with someone swearing at me on my profile which I would calmly suggest may indicate a lack of unbiased neutrality upon the reporting party's part. Please explain to me how I overstepped any boundaries with my post before I take this to a higher level.

"I saw you recently removed my new section on political controversies surrounding Barack Obama, which was very well sourced and kept neutral in stating only POVs from major media organizations. I ironically made that section only after noticing that other politicians who are conservative had politically conservative have such sections, but not Obama. I think it ironic that liberals seek to silence free speech when it is critical of them. This began with someone swearing at me on my profile which I would calmly suggest may indicate a lack of unbiased neutrality upon the reporting party's part. Please explain to me how I overstepped any boundaries with my post before I take this to a higher level.

Sincerely,

Sincerely,

Jz --Jzyehoshua (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)"  

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

However, to elaborate further, other politicians have political controversy sections. This to me seems a stalling tactic to eliminate any possibility of public criticism of Barack Obama. I have noticed this done in the media as well, an unusually discriminatory form of bias attempting to silence all speech that is critical of him. I have no problem with the section being changed, but if you are going to disallow any discussion of the controversy surrounding him, however unbiased or neutral it may be in tone, then please at least avoid the hypocrisy evident here, and remove similar sections from the profiles of all other politicians.

However, to elaborate further, other politicians have political controversy sections. This to me seems a stalling tactic to eliminate any possibility of public criticism of Barack Obama. I have noticed this done in the media as well, an unusually discriminatory form of bias attempting to silence all speech that is critical of him. I have no problem with the section being changed, but if you are going to disallow any discussion of the controversy surrounding him, however unbiased or neutral it may be in tone, then please at least avoid the hypocrisy evident here, and remove similar sections from the profiles of all other politicians.

Joshua  

Joshua  

The correct venue for this discussion, as I have already written in three places (including your own talk page), is Talk:Barack Obama.  Frank  |  talk  22:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)  

The correct venue for this discussion, as I have already written [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=332375110 in] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jzyehoshua&diff=prev&oldid=332376837 three] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoodDay&diff=prev&oldid=332378228 places] (including your own talk page), is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama Talk:Barack Obama].  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Frank Frank] |  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Frank talk] 22:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)  

Source 9

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABarack_Obama&diff=332446310&oldid=332439690#Coverage_of_Controversies.3F Source 9]

10 - 2009, 12/17, 17:12: I made the following comment on the Talk page for Barack Obama, in "Coverage of Controversies" section, per Frank's request, emphasizing that I was willing to forego a controversies section and simply mention the controversies within the article elsewhere, per newer Wikipedia preferences:

'''10 - 2009, 12/17, 17:12:''' I made the following comment on the Talk page for Barack Obama, in "Coverage of Controversies" section, per Frank's request, emphasizing that I was willing to forego a controversies section and simply mention the controversies within the article elsewhere, per newer Wikipedia preferences:

Coverage of Controversies?  

Coverage of Controversies?  

I notice that conservative political profiles have mentioned on them scandals and public criticisms such as Palin's (McCain's this time last year was noticeably critical, unlike Obama's) yet not liberals. I imagine this to be because of the disproportionate impact liberals have on the internet, a fact, by the way, which is statistically provable. According to the 2009 political typology report by the Pew Research Center, there are 9 different profiles of voters, 3 Republican, 3 Democrat, and 3 Moderate. The 17% that are overwhelmingly socially liberal (19% of registered voters), and the only wealthy one of the 3 Democrat groups, are also the group of all 9 to go online most frequently for their news (37%, with no other group but the Moderate Upbeats, at 34%, close - no other group but the Republican Enterprisers is at even 26%). http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=945  

I notice that conservative political profiles have mentioned on them scandals and public criticisms such as Palin's (McCain's this time last year was noticeably critical, unlike Obama's) yet not liberals. I imagine this to be because of the disproportionate impact liberals have on the internet, a fact, by the way, which is statistically provable. According to the 2009 political typology report by the Pew Research Center, there are 9 different profiles of voters, 3 Republican, 3 Democrat, and 3 Moderate. The 17% that are overwhelmingly socially liberal (19% of registered voters), and the only wealthy one of the 3 Democrat groups, are also the group of all 9 to go online most frequently for their news (37%, with no other group but the Moderate Upbeats, at 34%, close - no other group but the Republican Enterprisers is at even 26%). [http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=945 http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=945]

At any rate, I am proposing the following section, although, I notice that Wikipedia is now changing to avoid sections labeled 'Political Controversies' even though I noticed another politician with just such a section just today, so perhaps it would be best to not label it that, but instead make it merely historical referenced, as part of his senate career:

At any rate, I am proposing the following section, although, I notice that Wikipedia is now changing to avoid sections labeled 'Political Controversies' even though I noticed another politician with just such a section just today, so perhaps it would be best to not label it that, but instead make it merely historical referenced, as part of his senate career:

Political Controversies  

 

Support for 'Infanticide'  

'''Political Controversies'''

Former 2004 Senate opponent Alan Keyes, who entered the 2004 Senate race after Obama's original opponent, Jack Ryan, dropped out due to a sex scandal, began accusing Obama just one day after entering the race of taking the 'slaveholder's position' because Obama termed children surviving late-term abortions "fetus]es]" and supported the right of hospitals to let them die of abandonment [1]. Obama in 2003, before the Illinois Senate, questioned whether a bill known as the Born Alive Infants Protection Act could be summarized as follows:[2]"Senator O’Malley, the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was – is that there was a method of abortion, an induced abortion, where the — the fetus or child, as – as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the womb. And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living. Is that correct? Is that an accurate sort of descriptions of one of the key concerns of the bill?"  

<br>'''Support for 'Infanticide''''

After Senator O'Malley answered in the affirmative, Senator Obama's reply included the following:  

Former 2004 Senate opponent [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Keyes Alan Keyes], who entered the 2004 Senate race after Obama's original opponent, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ryan Jack Ryan], dropped out due to a sex scandal, began accusing Obama just one day after entering the race of taking the 'slaveholder's position' because Obama termed children surviving late-term abortions "fetus]es]" and supported the right of hospitals to let them die of abandonment [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5654128/ 166]. Obama in 2003, before the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Senate Illinois Senate], questioned whether a bill known as the Born Alive Infants Protection Act could be summarized as follows:[http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf 167]

"Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose I think it would probably be found unconstitutional. The second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we're placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as -- as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we're probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality."  

"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_O%27Malley_(American_politician) Senator O’Malley], the testimony during the committee indicated that one of the key concerns was – is that there was a method of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion abortion], an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_abortion induced abortion], where the — the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus fetus] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child child], as – as some might describe it, is still temporarily alive outside the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womb womb]. And one of the concerns that came out in the testimony was the fact that they were not being properly cared for during that brief period of time that they were still living. Is that correct? Is that an accurate sort of descriptions of one of the key concerns of the bill?"

During his time in the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama would vote against other bills addressing this subject of 'live birth abortion', including the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act (which included statements by Senator Cullerton that closely mirrored the aforementioned and later arguments of Obama)[3] and the Induced Birth Infants Liability Act (with both Senators Obama and Cullerton speaking, Obama elaborating).[4]In August of 2008, Factcheck.org officially recognized some truth to the claims of infanticide, stating "We find that, as the NRLC said in a recent statement, Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported. Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus, according to an undisputed summary written immediately after the committee's 2003 mark-up session."[5]  

After Senator O'Malley answered in the affirmative, Senator Obama's reply included the following:

Chicago Politics  

"Number one, whenever we define a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viability_(fetal) previable fetus] as a person that is protected by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_protection_clause equal protection clause] or the other elements in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution Constitution], what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose I think it would probably be found unconstitutional. The second reason that it would probably be found unconstitutional is that this essentially says that a doctor is required to provide treatment to a previable child, or fetus, however way you want to describe it. Viability is the line that has been drawn by the Supreme Court to determine whether or not an abortion can or cannot take place. And if we're placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and give them as much medical attention as -- as is necessary to try to keep that child alive, then we're probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality."

As reported on by the Chicago Tribune[6] and later the Houston Press' Todd Spivak[7], Obama defeated early political opponents by challenging their petition signatures. In this way he was able to defeat activist and popular incumbent Alice Palmer, who had earlier supported him, when she was forced to hurriedly collect petition signatures before the filing deadline. As Spivak points out about the legislative record of Senator Obama, "It's a lengthy record filled with core liberal issues. But what's interesting, and almost never discussed, is that he built his entire legislative record in Illinois in a single year." Then Senate Majority Leader Emil Jones was approached by young Senator Barack Obama, who told him "You have the power to make a United States Senator."[8]During his last year in the Illinois Senate Obama sponsored 26 bills that were passed into law. Jones had Obama craft legislation dealing with key issues in the news. But what is more, as reported on by Spivak, "Jones appointed Obama sponsor of virtually every high-profile piece of legislation, angering many rank-and-file state legislators who had more seniority than Obama and had spent years championing the bills. 'I took all the beatings and insults and endured all the racist comments over the years from nasty Republican committee chairmen,' State Senator Rickey Hendon, the original sponsor of landmark racial profiling and videotaped confession legislation yanked away by Jones and given to Obama, complained to me at the time. 'Barack didn't have to endure any of it, yet, in the end, he got all the credit.'"

During his time in the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama would vote against other bills addressing this subject of 'live birth abortion', including the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act (which included statements by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cullerton Senator Cullerton] that closely mirrored the aforementioned and later arguments of Obama)[http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans90/ST031897.pdf 168] and the Induced Birth Infants [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liability Liability] Act (with both Senators Obama and Cullerton speaking, Obama elaborating).[http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST040402.pdf 169]

==

In August of 2008, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FactCheck Factcheck.org] officially recognized some truth to the claims of infanticide, stating "We find that, as the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/NRLC NRLC] said in a recent statement, Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported. Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus, according to an undisputed summary written immediately after the committee's 2003 mark-up session."[http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html 170]

Now, all of those are mainstream criticisms of Barack Obama. I would like to see the reasoning behind those who would deny the inclusion of them. I would also ask, if there is a consensus to be achieved on whether to put this in, how long will it take, and how will it be decided? After all, if hypothetically, liberals were more obtuse in refusing to allow criticisms of Obama yet conservatives were able to agree to allow valid criticisms of conservative candidates, would that mean that just because one side is hypocritically unjust in disallowing a consensus that variable and discriminatory means should be permitted to coexist? --Jzyehoshua (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Source 10

 

11 - 2009, 12/17, 17:49: User NoHitHair responded to my new post with a new section titled "NPOV" expressing frustration that my edits had been reverted, and that controversy was being kept out of the Obama page:

'''Chicago Politics'''

As reported on by the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tribune Chicago Tribune][http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-070403obama-ballot-archive,0,5297304,full.story 198] and later the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston_Press Houston Press]' Todd Spivak[http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/full 199], Obama defeated early political opponents by challenging their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petition petition] signatures. In this way he was able to defeat activist and popular incumbent [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Palmer_(Illinois_politician) Alice Palmer], who had earlier supported him, when she was forced to hurriedly collect petition signatures before the filing deadline.  

As Spivak points out about the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative legislative] record of Senator Obama, "It's a lengthy record filled with core [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal liberal] issues. But what's interesting, and almost never discussed, is that he built his entire legislative record in Illinois in a single year." Then Senate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_Leader Majority Leader] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_Jones Emil Jones] was approached by young Senator Barack Obama, who told him "You have the power to make a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senator United States Senator]."[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1738494-2,00.html 200]

During his last year in the Illinois Senate Obama sponsored 26 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_(proposed_law) bills] that were passed into law. Jones had Obama craft legislation dealing with key issues in the news. But what is more, as reported on by Spivak, "Jones appointed Obama [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponsor_(legislative) sponsor] of virtually every high-profile piece of legislation, angering many rank-and-file state legislators who had more [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seniority_in_the_United_States_Senate seniority] than Obama and had spent years championing the bills. 'I took all the beatings and insults and endured all the racist comments over the years from nasty [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican Republican] committee [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chairmen chairmen],' State Senator [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickey_Hendon Rickey Hendon], the original sponsor of landmark racial profiling and videotaped confession legislation yanked away by Jones and given to Obama, complained to me at the time. 'Barack didn't have to endure any of it, yet, in the end, he got all the credit.'"  

<br>==

<br>Now, all of those are mainstream criticisms of Barack Obama. I would like to see the reasoning behind those who would deny the inclusion of them. I would also ask, if there is a consensus to be achieved on whether to put this in, how long will it take, and how will it be decided? After all, if hypothetically, liberals were more obtuse in refusing to allow criticisms of Obama yet conservatives were able to agree to allow valid criticisms of conservative candidates, would that mean that just because one side is hypocritically unjust in disallowing a consensus that variable and discriminatory means should be permitted to coexist? --Jzyehoshua (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Source 10

 

'''11 - 2009, 12/17, 17:49:''' User NoHitHair responded to my new post with a new section titled "NPOV" expressing frustration that my edits had been reverted, and that controversy was being kept out of the Obama page:

NPOV  

NPOV  

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.

NoHitHair (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Source 11

NoHitHair (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC) 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. 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 ass as you close them. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 12

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 ass as you close them. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 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}" 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}" Source 13a

This was then reversed by Queen of Battle with an edit comment of "(Undid revision 332403367 by JzG (talk)This is a content dispute, please do not revert others' comments)" Source 13b

This was then reversed by Queen of Battle with an edit comment of "(Undid revision 332403367 by JzG (talk)This is a content dispute, please do not revert others' comments)" Source 13b

Grsz then removed the section again with an edit comment of "(Undid revision 332438724 by QueenofBattle (talk) it is inappropriate, and on a talk page, not a content dispute)" Source 13c

Grsz then removed the section again with an edit comment of "(Undid revision 332438724 by QueenofBattle (talk) it is inappropriate, and on a talk page, not a content dispute)" Source 13c

While in retrospect I can now see that some like Frank, as well as Abrazame and WikiDemon (mentioned later) were more level-headed, at the time everything was happening so fast, with attacks coming from so many different sides, it was tough to recognize which were willing to at least have a discussion, and which were doing all they could to silence it  and engage in personal attacks. I'm ordinarily pretty good at keeping a level head, but even I had trouble not reacting to such blatant bias and incendiary personal attacks/namecalling at the time.

While in retrospect I can now see that some like Frank, as well as Abrazame and WikiDemon (mentioned later) were more level-headed, at the time everything was happening so fast, with attacks coming from so many different sides, it was tough to recognize which were willing to at least have a discussion, and which were doing all they could to silence it  and engage in personal attacks. I'm ordinarily pretty good at keeping a level head, but even I had trouble not reacting to such blatant bias and incendiary personal attacks/namecalling at the time.

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.  

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. Grsz11 05:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 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.  

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.

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.

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.  

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.--Jzyehoshua (talk) 05:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 15

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

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)

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.

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.

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

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

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

'''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

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. Source 17b

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:

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

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

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.  

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.  

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

--Jzyehoshua (talk) 06:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 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. Tarc (talk) 06:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC) 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 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

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.  

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.  

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.  

-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) Source 20

-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

21 - 2009, 12/18, 04:16-21: Hoary entered the conversation, providing a voice of reason to the increasingly heated discussion. He suggested that I focus on whatever argument was strongest of the 3 suggested additions proposed, and also rebuked Ouroboros Cobra's snide remark earlier. His response to me in the Coverage of Controversies section was:

 

'''21 - 2009, 12/18, 04:16-21:''' Hoary entered the conversation, providing a voice of reason to the increasingly heated discussion. He suggested that I focus on whatever argument was strongest of the 3 suggested additions proposed, and also rebuked Ouroboros Cobra's snide remark earlier. His response to me in the Coverage of Controversies section was:

You want the article to have three additions. One of these you say needs better sourcing, and another in part concerns reasons why another candidate failed (reasons that you haven't linked above to Obama at all). Perhaps you should concentrate on whatever you think is your strongest point. Phrase it persuasively, and it might persuade. -- Hoary (talk) 10:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You want the article to have three additions. One of these you say needs better sourcing, and another in part concerns reasons why another candidate failed (reasons that you haven't linked above to Obama at all). Perhaps you should concentrate on whatever you think is your strongest point. Phrase it persuasively, and it might persuade. -- Hoary (talk) 10:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

In response to Ouroboros Cobra's rude comment to NoHitHair in the NPOV section, Hoary replied:

In response to Ouroboros Cobra's rude comment to NoHitHair in the NPOV section, Hoary replied:

I don't understand how the second half of that could be imagined to be helpful. -- Hoary (talk) 10:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 21

I don't understand how the second half of that could be imagined to be helpful. -- Hoary (talk) 10:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 21

22 - 2009, 12/18, 05:14: I replied to Hoary in the Coverage of Controversies section, reiterating that the Obama page displayed a noticeable absence of controversies, even those that had figured prominently in the news media:

 

'''22 - 2009, 12/18, 05:14:''' I replied to Hoary in the Coverage of Controversies section, reiterating that the Obama page displayed a noticeable absence of controversies, even those that had figured prominently in the news media:

Well, in the article itself, it states about the 2004 Senate Campaign, "Two months later, Alan Keyes accepted the Illinois Republican Party's nomination to replace Ryan. A long-time resident of Maryland, Keyes established legal residency in Illinois with the nomination. In the November 2004 general election, Obama received 70% of the vote to Keyes' 27%, the largest victory margin for a statewide race in Illinois history." For so major an event in Obama's life, the election to the U.S. Senate, this race is effectively covered in about 3 sentences, and glosses over the reasons why Keyes came to Illinois and the fact that the election was virtually over, seemingly to portray Keyes as negatively as possible. In essence, it is bringing up the carpetbagging stuff again and the concept that Obama won in a landslide, without mentioning anything about why Keyes came or why Obama won that way. There are no details given, it is vague, and again that's a major election in his history being glossed over with a few sentences. I don't see why adding a few more paragraphs about the election circumstances would be a bad thing.  

Well, in the article itself, it states about the 2004 Senate Campaign, "Two months later, Alan Keyes accepted the Illinois Republican Party's nomination to replace Ryan. A long-time resident of Maryland, Keyes established legal residency in Illinois with the nomination. In the November 2004 general election, Obama received 70% of the vote to Keyes' 27%, the largest victory margin for a statewide race in Illinois history." For so major an event in Obama's life, the election to the U.S. Senate, this race is effectively covered in about 3 sentences, and glosses over the reasons why Keyes came to Illinois and the fact that the election was virtually over, seemingly to portray Keyes as negatively as possible. In essence, it is bringing up the carpetbagging stuff again and the concept that Obama won in a landslide, without mentioning anything about why Keyes came or why Obama won that way. There are no details given, it is vague, and again that's a major election in his history being glossed over with a few sentences. I don't see why adding a few more paragraphs about the election circumstances would be a bad thing.  

As for the sourcing, I think I provided adequate sourcing (earlier articles by the Chicago Tribune and Houston News both provide evidence) but expect one or 2 more major sources might be ideal given that this was a less-reported-on issue. I still think all 3 should make it into the article.  

As for the sourcing, I think I provided adequate sourcing (earlier articles by the Chicago Tribune and Houston News both provide evidence) but expect one or 2 more major sources might be ideal given that this was a less-reported-on issue. I still think all 3 should make it into the article.  

Also, I notice that the information about the 2008 Presidential Campaign on John McCain's page is more detailed and mentions lobbyist criticisms, but here avoids mentions of the much more prominent fiscal issue in Obama's campaign, public financing. Again, reading different pages for candidates on both sides one can see very different treatment, whether comparing Bush:Obama, McCain:Obama, Palin:Obama, Keyes:Obama, etc. Noticeable negatives are stated on the other pages, but never on Obama's, quite noticeably. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 11:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 22

Also, I notice that the information about the 2008 Presidential Campaign on John McCain's page is more detailed and mentions lobbyist criticisms, but here avoids mentions of the much more prominent fiscal issue in Obama's campaign, public financing. Again, reading different pages for candidates on both sides one can see very different treatment, whether comparing Bush:Obama, McCain:Obama, Palin:Obama, Keyes:Obama, etc. Noticeable negatives are stated on the other pages, but never on Obama's, quite noticeably. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 11:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 22

23 - 2009, 12/18, 06:36: Tarc in a comment to the Coverage of Controversies section revealed why he was so opposed to the edits, apparently he had made a hasty and incorrect assumption that the discussion was about abortion, rather than bothering to read what I was actually saying.

 

'''23 - 2009, 12/18, 06:36:''' Tarc in a comment to the Coverage of Controversies section revealed why he was so opposed to the edits, apparently he had made a hasty and incorrect assumption that the discussion was about abortion, rather than bothering to read what I was actually saying.

In response to the earlier "Both of which deal with 2 major parts of his entire history", I will say that, no, they really don't. "Abortion as infanticide" is a fringe opinion, and will not be given equal weight alongside mainstream POV. The other part is, astill, just a criticism of being a Chicago politician. Nothing special. As to comparisons with other articles, perhaps you could head on out there and improve those if you feel they are flawed, rather than making this article worse so they will all match.Tarc (talk) 12:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 23

In response to the earlier "Both of which deal with 2 major parts of his entire history", I will say that, no, they really don't. "Abortion as infanticide" is a fringe opinion, and will not be given equal weight alongside mainstream POV. The other part is, astill, just a criticism of being a Chicago politician. Nothing special. As to comparisons with other articles, perhaps you could head on out there and improve those if you feel they are flawed, rather than making this article worse so they will all match.Tarc (talk) 12:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 23

24 - 2009, 12/18, 06:38: I replied to Grsz, pointing out that Wikipedia's BLP (Biographies of Living Persons) policy is no excuse for omitting factual information regarding them, just that it has to be factual and well-sourced; properly presented:

 

'''24 - 2009, 12/18, 06:38:''' I replied to Grsz, pointing out that Wikipedia's BLP (Biographies of Living Persons) policy is no excuse for omitting factual information regarding them, just that it has to be factual and well-sourced; properly presented:

So then, you are saying Wikipedia would support my removing anything negative about a person, regardless of its factual basis? So the fact that George Bush started a false war over WOMD, I could remove all reference to that on his page? Because it is the same scenario here. There is factual, well-sourced basis for historical criticism of Barack Obama that can be stated objectively in a reasonable manner. Just because the Republicans use mudslinging all the time against him, doesn't mean there are no criticisms of Obama. It's just that so much of their junk is flying around that their stuff gets discredited and when they actually find something that is valid, it's like the boy that cries wolf, and nobody listens. Anyway, I just don't like it that Obama's being treated specially here and anything negative of him can't be written. I hardly think Wikipedia intends to allow a policy where anything written negative about anyone can be deleted for no other reason than making everything positive about everyone. And no, I'm not saying I want to remove all negative stuff about everyone, just pointing out that it seems ridiculous such a standard is being applied here. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 12:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 24

So then, you are saying Wikipedia would support my removing anything negative about a person, regardless of its factual basis? So the fact that George Bush started a false war over WOMD, I could remove all reference to that on his page? Because it is the same scenario here. There is factual, well-sourced basis for historical criticism of Barack Obama that can be stated objectively in a reasonable manner. Just because the Republicans use mudslinging all the time against him, doesn't mean there are no criticisms of Obama. It's just that so much of their junk is flying around that their stuff gets discredited and when they actually find something that is valid, it's like the boy that cries wolf, and nobody listens. Anyway, I just don't like it that Obama's being treated specially here and anything negative of him can't be written. I hardly think Wikipedia intends to allow a policy where anything written negative about anyone can be deleted for no other reason than making everything positive about everyone. And no, I'm not saying I want to remove all negative stuff about everyone, just pointing out that it seems ridiculous such a standard is being applied here. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 12:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 24

25 - 2009, 12/18, 06:40: Naturally I reacted in outrage at Tarc's distortion of my points, and careless reading comprehension. Anyone paying any attention at all to what I was writing should have been able to recognize the issue had nothing to do with the general abortion debate, but dealt solely with newborn children born after botched abortions who had been left to die without medical care. After all, the reason the BAIPA which Obama had voted against had passed overwhelmingly was precisely because it was not part of the usual pro-choice/pro-life abortion debate, but dealt with something EVERYBODY recognized was wrong, newborn children being left to die as testified before Congress by nurses Jill Stanek and Allison Baker.

'''25 - 2009, 12/18, 06:40:''' Naturally I reacted in outrage at Tarc's distortion of my points, and careless reading comprehension. Anyone paying any attention at all to what I was writing should have been able to recognize the issue had nothing to do with the general abortion debate, but dealt solely with newborn children born after botched abortions who had been left to die without medical care. After all, the reason the BAIPA which Obama had voted against had passed overwhelmingly was precisely because it was not part of the usual pro-choice/pro-life abortion debate, but dealt with something EVERYBODY recognized was wrong, newborn children being left to die as testified before Congress by nurses Jill Stanek and Allison Baker.

Umm... what are you talking about? I never said abortion was infanticide. We're not talking about babies INSIDE the mother's body here. The reason it's controversial with Obama is he supported the killing of children who survive abortions and are OUTSIDE the mother's body. Didn't you read what I wrote? --Jzyehoshua (talk) 12:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 25

Umm... what are you talking about? I never said abortion was infanticide. We're not talking about babies INSIDE the mother's body here. The reason it's controversial with Obama is he supported the killing of children who survive abortions and are OUTSIDE the mother's body. Didn't you read what I wrote? --Jzyehoshua (talk) 12:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 25

26 - 2009, 12/18, 07:35-38: Tarc replied with a comment of "Time to move on", and continued to misrepresent one of the major bills over the past century, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, as being cared about only by fringe groups, apparently not having paid any attention to the media publicity it had gotten years earlier which had led to the sweeping public outrage which  led to its unanimous passage through the U.S. Senate including votes by such noted "anti-abortionist[s]" as Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, and Ted Kennedy. This was of course not something I appreciated.  

 

'''26 - 2009, 12/18, 07:35-38:''' Tarc replied with a comment of "Time to move on", and continued to misrepresent one of the major bills over the past century, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, as being cared about only by fringe groups, apparently not having paid any attention to the media publicity it had gotten years earlier which had led to the sweeping public outrage which  led to its unanimous passage through the U.S. Senate including votes by such noted "anti-abortionist[s]" as Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, and Ted Kennedy. This was of course not something I appreciated.  

Yes, I did, but that is what we call a distinction without a difference. This is not the proper venue to discuss anti-abortionist rhetoric though, this is to discuss the article of Barack. This sort of material is certain;y of pressing significance to Alan Keys, Operation Rescue and the like. But it has no bearing here. Tarc(talk) 13:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 26

Yes, I did, but that is what we call a distinction without a difference. This is not the proper venue to discuss anti-abortionist rhetoric though, this is to discuss the article of Barack. This sort of material is certain;y of pressing significance to Alan Keys, Operation Rescue and the like. But it has no bearing here. Tarc(talk) 13:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 26

27 - 2009, 12/18, 07:40: Shortly afterward, WHSL replied in the NPOV discussion as follows:

 

'''27 - 2009, 12/18, 07:40:''' Shortly afterward, WHSL replied in the NPOV discussion as follows:

As OuroborosCobra correctly states, most information about Obama's presidency is contained in Presidency of Barack Obama. Since this article is supposed to be a biography that is intended to provide a brief look at his entire life, it doesn't make sense to put more about the presidency than is already there. Also, Wikipedia discourages criticism sections. They do not provide for neutral articles, and criticisms (cited of course) should be incoporated into the rest of the article. WHSL (Talk)13:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 27

As OuroborosCobra correctly states, most information about Obama's presidency is contained in Presidency of Barack Obama. Since this article is supposed to be a biography that is intended to provide a brief look at his entire life, it doesn't make sense to put more about the presidency than is already there. Also, Wikipedia discourages criticism sections. They do not provide for neutral articles, and criticisms (cited of course) should be incoporated into the rest of the article. WHSL (Talk)13:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 27

28 - 2009, 12/18, 08:00: I quickly addressed Tarc's assertions in Coverage of Controversies that this was not a major issue, pointing out that the bill had passed precisely because it was not typical of the usual abortion debate since it dealt with children outside the womb, not inside, fully capable of surviving if medically attended. I emphasized that it was for this reason Obama had been lying about his voting record on the issue since 2004, trying to cover up his activism in opposing the Born Alive bills, because of how ridiculously popular they'd been with the American public.

 

'''28 - 2009, 12/18, 08:00:''' I quickly addressed Tarc's assertions in Coverage of Controversies that this was not a major issue, pointing out that the bill had passed precisely because it was not typical of the usual abortion debate since it dealt with children outside the womb, not inside, fully capable of surviving if medically attended. I emphasized that it was for this reason Obama had been lying about his voting record on the issue since 2004, trying to cover up his activism in opposing the Born Alive bills, because of how ridiculously popular they'd been with the American public.

You may not consider it immoral that Obama supported leaving newborn children to die on hospital beds. But it resulted, as he said on the Illinois senate floor, in a situation where even normally pro-choice members of the Illinois legislature supporting the bill to stop such a heinous practices. It is why the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act passed, not even normally pro-choice Congressmen could conscientiously support such a form of 'rights' where newborn babies are considered fetuses. It is why Obama has had to hide this aspect of his voting record from people many, many times. He has tried various defenses, including:  

You may not consider it immoral that Obama supported leaving newborn children to die on hospital beds. But it resulted, as he said on the Illinois senate floor, in a situation where even normally pro-choice members of the Illinois legislature supporting the bill to stop such a heinous practices. It is why the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act passed, not even normally pro-choice Congressmen could conscientiously support such a form of 'rights' where newborn babies are considered fetuses. It is why Obama has had to hide this aspect of his voting record from people many, many times. He has tried various defenses, including:  

A) I would have voted for the Federal version of the bill but the Illinois version lacked the same language. FactCheck.org addressed this distortion by agreeing that the NRLC was right - Bart Stupak introduced an amendment to make the Illinois version word for word identical with the federal one, but Obama never let it get in. He brought it up in the Health and Human Services Committee, that he chaired, and voted against it. Thus Obama was lying about that.

* A) I would have voted for the Federal version of the bill but the Illinois version lacked the same language. FactCheck.org addressed this distortion by agreeing that the NRLC was right - Bart Stupak introduced an amendment to make the Illinois version word for word identical with the federal one, but Obama never let it get in. He brought it up in the Health and Human Services Committee, that he chaired, and voted against it. Thus Obama was lying about that.

B) The current Illinois laws already prevented such a practice. However, nurses Jill Stanek and Allison Baker both worked in an Illinois hospital, and were the key witnesses for the federal case - meaning this dealt with Illinois law first and foremost. This was pointed out in one of the earlier senate transcripts I provided, either the 2001 or 1997 one.

* B) The current Illinois laws already prevented such a practice. However, nurses Jill Stanek and Allison Baker both worked in an Illinois hospital, and were the key witnesses for the federal case - meaning this dealt with Illinois law first and foremost. This was pointed out in one of the earlier senate transcripts I provided, either the 2001 or 1997 one.

C) We shouldn't be talking about divisive subjects and focusing on what unifies us, the issue is unimportant. This despite the fact that he consistently speaks much differently about it on the senate floor, addresses it before Planned Parenthood unabashedly, and is just unwilling to show himself about it to the general public.  

* C) We shouldn't be talking about divisive subjects and focusing on what unifies us, the issue is unimportant. This despite the fact that he consistently speaks much differently about it on the senate floor, addresses it before Planned Parenthood unabashedly, and is just unwilling to show himself about it to the general public.  

Many of his other defenses are detailed here by Jill Stanek.[[23]]

Many of his other defenses are detailed here by Jill Stanek.[[23]]

It is dishonest of you to try mentioning a lesser known group in conjunction with former U.N. Ambassador Alan Keyes in an attempt to continue your campaign to paint him as a fringe unknown, while avoiding the fact that the National Right to Life Committee, the primary pro-life group in the United States, has been tirelessly criticizing Barack Obama for years on this issue. You should be more forthright and forthcoming about this issue, rather than trying to deny the clear facts about this case. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 13:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 28

It is dishonest of you to try mentioning a lesser known group in conjunction with former U.N. Ambassador Alan Keyes in an attempt to continue your campaign to paint him as a fringe unknown, while avoiding the fact that the National Right to Life Committee, the primary pro-life group in the United States, has been tirelessly criticizing Barack Obama for years on this issue. You should be more forthright and forthcoming about this issue, rather than trying to deny the clear facts about this case. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 13:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 28

29 - 2009, 12/18, 08:09: Tarc continued to misrepresent this issue as being a fringe one despite having been one of the major political events in the first half of the 2000s, and having figured prominently in the news. He disliked the Jill Stanek source because it was from WorldNetDaily, leading to the numerous mainstream sources I would soon bring in:

 

'''29 - 2009, 12/18, 08:09:''' Tarc continued to misrepresent this issue as being a fringe one despite having been one of the major political events in the first half of the 2000s, and having figured prominently in the news. He disliked the Jill Stanek source because it was from WorldNetDaily, leading to the numerous mainstream sources I would soon bring in:

All of which bears the stamp of a singular point of view and, as noted before, a decidedly fringe one at that. Anyone that approaches any wikipedia article on a living person with the intent to insert charges of "infanticide" into it in reference to the abortion debate is already starting off with two strikes against them, IMO. By the way, worldnetdaily is a sterling exmaple of an unreliable source. Anything "detailed" by WND cannot be used as a citation in a Wikipedia article, apart for basic factual statements about themselves. I think this is at a dead-end. Tarc (talk) 14:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 29a

All of which bears the stamp of a singular point of view and, as noted before, a decidedly fringe one at that. Anyone that approaches any wikipedia article on a living person with the intent to insert charges of "infanticide" into it in reference to the abortion debate is already starting off with two strikes against them, IMO. By the way, worldnetdaily is a sterling exmaple of an unreliable source. Anything "detailed" by WND cannot be used as a citation in a Wikipedia article, apart for basic factual statements about themselves. I think this is at a dead-end. Tarc (talk) 14:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 29a

To the contrary of your accusation of POV in favor of Obama, I would say is there not a negative POV advanced by failing to mention in this article that the major banks have now all paid back their TARP "bailout" money to the government ("taxpayer") with interest? I would ask is there not a pessimistic or negative POV advanced by failing to mention in this article that the DOW has risen almost 4,000 points since March lows? Is there not a negative POV advanced by simply noting an unemployment number, yet failing to explain that new job losses, which had risen throughout the last couple years of the Bush administration to 700,000 a month by the time Obama took office, have decreased profoundly ever since? It's no surprise that the sort of people suggesting negative POV at this article miss the negative POV already there, but it's a disappointment that those battling the negative POV are so unaware or ambivalent about the imbalanced negativity in the article.

To the contrary of your accusation of POV in favor of Obama, I would say is there not a negative POV advanced by failing to mention in this article that the major banks have now all paid back their TARP "bailout" money to the government ("taxpayer") with interest? I would ask is there not a pessimistic or negative POV advanced by failing to mention in this article that the DOW has risen almost 4,000 points since March lows? Is there not a negative POV advanced by simply noting an unemployment number, yet failing to explain that new job losses, which had risen throughout the last couple years of the Bush administration to 700,000 a month by the time Obama took office, have decreased profoundly ever since? It's no surprise that the sort of people suggesting negative POV at this article miss the negative POV already there, but it's a disappointment that those battling the negative POV are so unaware or ambivalent about the imbalanced negativity in the article.

Recently, I substantively responded, with references, to erroneous comments in a conversation about the Stimulus, yet not a single editor here commented and after 14 days it was archived. The true POV is against adding positive facts, not the resistance to the sort of vague, unreferenced hearsay grudges that dominate these pages. Just every once in a while, we need to wrap our minds around an issue and respond with more than the stock "take it to Presidency" answer. I'd point out that nobody's really discussing anything at Presidency lately. The entire talk page there is two sections, with only a single, unresponded-to comment in the past month. Sometimes a thread can seem to include elements of specific responses to other editors, but when substantive, supported statements salient to a point of contention and relevant for article consideration are made, editors are more than welcome to weigh in with their acknowledgement of their veracity and relevancy to the article. When there was nothing going on but delinquency at both of these pages, it was hard to keep up with more substantive editorial discussions; now that there is so much less heat, let's acknowledge the light every once in awhile. Abrazame (talk) 14:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 29b

Recently, I substantively responded, with references, to erroneous comments in a conversation about the Stimulus, yet not a single editor here commented and after 14 days it was archived. The true POV is against adding positive facts, not the resistance to the sort of vague, unreferenced hearsay grudges that dominate these pages. Just every once in a while, we need to wrap our minds around an issue and respond with more than the stock "take it to Presidency" answer. I'd point out that nobody's really discussing anything at Presidency lately. The entire talk page there is two sections, with only a single, unresponded-to comment in the past month. Sometimes a thread can seem to include elements of specific responses to other editors, but when substantive, supported statements salient to a point of contention and relevant for article consideration are made, editors are more than welcome to weigh in with their acknowledgement of their veracity and relevancy to the article. When there was nothing going on but delinquency at both of these pages, it was hard to keep up with more substantive editorial discussions; now that there is so much less heat, let's acknowledge the light every once in awhile. Abrazame (talk) 14:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 29b

30 - 2009, 12/18, 08:32: In the NPOV section, I agree with Abrazame that the bailouts were something to criticize Bush over, but pointed out that a Democrat-run Congress at the time also played a role, and that Obama himself shared a large number of similarities with Bush. I probably shouldn't have taken the bait, as it got off-topic, but I've always been interested in politics.

 

'''30 - 2009, 12/18, 08:32:''' In the NPOV section, I agree with Abrazame that the bailouts were something to criticize Bush over, but pointed out that a Democrat-run Congress at the time also played a role, and that Obama himself shared a large number of similarities with Bush. I probably shouldn't have taken the bait, as it got off-topic, but I've always been interested in politics.

All of which is true. Nevertheless, it was a Democrat-run Congress those last few years of the Bush presidency. And Obama voted in favor of the Bush tax cuts and TARP. He also voted in favor of ALL Bush's war funding requests.

All of which is true. Nevertheless, it was a Democrat-run Congress those last few years of the Bush presidency. And Obama voted in favor of the Bush tax cuts and TARP. He also voted in favor of ALL Bush's war funding requests.

PolitiFact also labeled as 'True' the statement by the McCain campaign that Obama supported the Bush campaign half the time.[[24]] It was noted in 2005 that Obama supported attacking Iran with missile strikes to stop their nuclear program.[[25]] --Jzyehoshua (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 30

PolitiFact also labeled as 'True' the statement by the McCain campaign that Obama supported the Bush campaign half the time.[[24]] It was noted in 2005 that Obama supported attacking Iran with missile strikes to stop their nuclear program.[[25]] --Jzyehoshua (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 30

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  

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)   

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)   

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)  

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)  

Source 31

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:

--Jzyehoshua (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

--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).[[50]] Source 32

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

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.

--Jzyehoshua (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Source 33

--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.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

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.

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

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

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

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

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. 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 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 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)

 

'''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. 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.