Changes

User:JZambrano/WhyILeftWikipedia (view source)

Revision as of 12:14, July 27, 2012

218 bytes added , 12:14, July 27, 2012

categorizing, formatting

Line 1: Line 1: −

This was previously at Blogger.com[http://jzyehoshua1.blogspot.com/2009/08/obama-v-obama-on-abortion-in-health.html] and still appears in Google search results[http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=jzyehoshua+blogger], but apparently Google took it down for some reason. Therefore, I'll just put it back up here. It shows the level of bias ongoing at the page for Obama, and how intent Wikipedia is on suppressing the evidence and sources I provided at the Obama page here. The same content I provided here I was willing to have summarized in just a few well-sourced sentences on the Obama page, and not even in the Lede, yet editors there fought this tooth and nail, and did not even want it discussed; doing all they could to get me banned. How Google is involved with the Barack Obama campaign I'm not sure but it's growing apparent they too want the information suppressed, and actually tampered with my ability to access Google News results - I had to alter individual results to prevent them from changing my access to the search feature for it in recent months. Here's the former entry I had on Blogger:

+

This was previously at Blogger.com[http://jzyehoshua1.blogspot.com/2009/08/obama-v-obama-on-abortion-in-health.html] and still appears in Google search results[http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=jzyehoshua+blogger], but apparently Google took it down for some reason. Therefore, I'll just put it back up here. It shows the level of bias ongoing at the page for Obama, and how intent Wikipedia is on suppressing the evidence and sources I provided at the Obama page here. The same content I provided here I was willing to have summarized in just a few well-sourced sentences on the Obama page, and not even in the Lede, yet editors there fought this tooth and nail, and did not even want it discussed; doing all they could to get me banned. How Google is involved with the Barack Obama campaign I'm not sure but it's growing apparent they too want the information suppressed, and actually tampered with my ability to access Google News results - I had to alter individual results to prevent them from changing my access to the search feature for it in recent months. Here's the former entry I had on Blogger - I'm adding subsections for comments 1-10, 11-20, etc., for ease in editing:

==Wikipedia Controversy: Bias on Born Alive Bills with Obama==

Line 22: Line 22:

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:

+

== 1-10 ==

'''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

Line 43: Line 44:

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:

−

{{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]

+

{{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]}}

'''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]

'''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]

+

{{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]}}

'''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: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=332376252&oldid=332375110 Source 5]

Line 65: Line 66:

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)

−

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)

+

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

+

:::::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) [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GoodDay/Archive_17#Liberal_Bias.3F 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:

Line 101: Line 102:

<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

+

== 11-20 ==

'''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:

Line 187: Line 190:

-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

+

== 21-30 ==

'''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:

Line 243: Line 248:

Many people do not realize that Obama even copied Bush's state of the union address from 2000, when he said 'Juntos Pudemos' or 'Together We Can'. If you look into their backgrounds and personality types, you might find more similar than you'd think.

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

+

== 31-40 ==

'''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:

Line 314: Line 321: −

+

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

−

To Be Discussed Later When I Reach Them:

First: 17 Sources, Proposed Changes

Until I can get to them for their own sections, the following are key proposed edits and discussions, first providing four proposed edits with 17 sources, the second :

Line 443: Line 437:

Source

−

Summary (does NOT indicate completion until this notice is removed, there is still far more, and will be updated with the post):

+

== Summary ==

+

(does NOT indicate completion until this notice is removed, there is still far more, and will be updated with the post):

Obvious Bias:

JZambrano

SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit

1,134

edits