Conservapedia

Changes

User:JZambrano/WhyILeftWikipedia (view source)

Revision as of 14:46, July 27, 2012

9,159 bytes added ,  14:46, July 27, 2012
→‎To Be Discussed Later When I Reach Them:: formatting
Line 485: Line 485:     
== 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 (which was closed so Wikipedia editors couldn't see the sourcing provided), the second providing 40+ sources (which was also closed). Here's the Source where both these discussions can be seen in one place, archived, though the discussions are collapsed:
−
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 :
     −
The following are my proposed edits to the Barack Obama page, with the intent being to make it more objective and comprehensive, rather than painting a deceivingly rosy picture of him.
+
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&oldid=334923784#Proposed_Changes Source]
−
1. Proposed Edit to introduction section.
  −
Original: "Obama is the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize laureate.[4]"
  −
Proposed: "Obama is the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize laureate[4], an honor which accompanied widespread criticism about his lack of accomplishment[[54]][[55]] and confessed surprise by Barack Obama.[[56]][[57]],
  −
2. Proposed Edit to 'State legislator: 1997–2004' section.
  −
Original: "Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996, succeeding State Senator Alice Palmer as Senator from Illinois's 13th District, which at that time spanned Chicago South Side neighborhoods from Hyde Park-Kenwood south to South Shore and west to Chicago Lawn.[42]"
  −
Proposed: "Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996, succeeding State Senator Alice Palmer as Senator from Illinois's 13th District, which at that time spanned Chicago South Side neighborhoods from Hyde Park-Kenwood south to South Shore and west to Chicago Lawn.[42] Obama won the election through use of lawyers to subsequently disqualify the petition signatures of Alice Palmer and 3 other opponents after the filing deadline.[[58]][[59]]"
  −
3. Proposed Edit to 'State legislator: 1997-2004' section.
  −
Original: "In January 2003, Obama became chairman of the Illinois Senate's Health and Human Services Committee when Democrats, after a decade in the minority, regained a majority.[48] He sponsored and led unanimous, bipartisan passage of legislation to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they detained, and legislation making Illinois the first state to mandate videotaping of homicide interrogations.[44][49]"
  −
Proposed: "In January 2003, Obama became chairman of the Illinois Senate's Health and Human Services Committee when Democrats, after a decade in the minority, regained a majority.[48] He sponsored and led unanimous, bipartisan passage of legislation to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they detained, and legislation making Illinois the first state to mandate videotaping of homicide interrogations.[44][49] This legislation was originally worked on by Senator Rickey Hendon[[60]][[61]], and was among numerous pieces of legislation given to Obama as part of a requested deal with his political mentor[[62]][[63]], Senator Emil Jones.[[64]][[65]]"
  −
4. Proposed Edit to '2004 U.S. Senate campaign'.
  −
Original: "Obama's expected opponent in the general election, Republican primary winner Jack Ryan, withdrew from the race in June 2004.[58] Two months later, Alan Keyes accepted the Illinois Republican Party's nomination to replace Ryan.[59] A long-time resident of Maryland, Keyes established legal residency in Illinois with the nomination.[60] 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.[61]"
  −
Proposed: "Obama's expected opponent in the general election, Republican primary winner Jack Ryan, withdrew from the race in June 2004[58] following a widely-reported sex scandal.[[66]] 2 months later, and with less than 3 months remaining in the election[[67]], former Ambassador to the United Nations' Social and Economic Council[[68]], Alan Keyes, accepted the Illinois Republican Party's nomination to replace Ryan.[59] A long-time resident of Maryland, Keyes established legal residency in Illinois with the nomination.[60] Following a race in which Keyes was heavily criticized as a 'carpetbagger'[[69]] by the press, and with Keyes running a negative campaign criticizing Obama on the issue of late-term abortions[[70]], Obama in the November 2004 general election received 70% of the vote to Keyes' 27%, the largest victory margin for a statewide race in Illinois history.[61]"
     −
Ultimately I may add more suggestions later but this I think is a good start and comprises the bulk of the elaborations about his past I would like to see. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 05:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
+
=== First: 17 Sources, Proposed Changes ===
−
In other news, an amputee has recalled that losing his legs "stings a little bit". Sceptre (talk) 05:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
+
:{{hat|1=Consensus is against these changes as a whole, and specifically #4 which was also discussed separately. Discussion continues in other venues, but this particular thread is not covering new ground. -- <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">[[User:Frank|<span style="color:cyan;background:blue">&nbsp;Frank&nbsp;</span>]]&nbsp;{{!}}&nbsp;[[user_talk:Frank|<span style="color:blue;background:cyan">&nbsp;talk&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 22:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)}}
−
I'll review them seriously when I have a chance. Whether we agree or not in the end, I appreciate your taking the invitation to start a new section and propose them straight, one at a time. I hope we can all keep up a dignified, collegial, supportive spirit discussing them (kicking several editors, and myself, under the table... ahem!). Thanks! - Wikidemon (talk) 05:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  −
Alright, I look forward to talking about this objectively, thanks for the offer! --Jzyehoshua (talk) 06:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  −
I haven't taken the time to study the other suggestions yet, but the first one, I think, has immediately obvious problems. The introduction should not be longer than is necessary. The mention that he is the laureate merely acknowledges that he did receive the prize. It does not, in any way, project any position on whether he deserved that prize or not. You are proposing a change that changes that statement from being purely NPOV to one that could be called POV. We haven't even had enough time to see how history has judged the 2009 prize, so why are we mentioning this in an article that is supposed to provide an accurate overview of his entire life? WHSL (Talk) 05:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  −
Well, just to play Devil's Advocate here, if George Bush received a Nobel Peace Prize and got criticized for it, and we put that in the intro paragraph, people would be up in arms that it was merely mentioned without the opposition factor being mentioned as well. On Bush's page, for example, it spends many sentences discussing the issues of criticism and popularity loss just in the introduction. When an award receives as much criticism and controversy as Obama's Nobel Prize did, to not mention this even in passing in the prominent introduction is to essentially frame the fact in a positive and deceivingly so light. I do think the criticism/controversy should be mentioned at least in passing, or else not mention the award at all, or it is appearing to only provide positive details in the introduction section, in contrast to other profiles (such as George Bush's).
  −
As for the 16 additional words used in the introduction, I think they are worthwhile for balancing out an introduction section that otherwise fails to mention ANY negative or critical aspect whatsoever. This is in sharp contrast to other political profiles which carry no such qualms about mentioning a critical fact or mention in the introduction to provide a more accurate and two-sided summary.
  −
--Jzyehoshua (talk) 06:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  −
Yes, Bush's page does discuss issues relating to his declining popularity. However, consider when Bush was president. His presidency is now over. It is history. We have had more time to consider the finer points of his presidency. However, Obama's winning of the Nobel Prize is in the recent past. We have not had the time to consider the historical implications of the 2009 prize. You cannot judge how historically controversial something actually was this early.
  −
Also, your statement regarding "positive details" is not one I would agree with at all. I can't see anywhere statements like "he is rated a very popular president". How can something be overly positive if you cannot find obviously positive statements? Could you point me to the specific places where you think the introduction is apparently POV? WHSL (Talk) 06:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  −
I very much disagree. I see no difference. For one thing, Hurricane Katrina happened pretty recently too and there is criticism of Bush about that on his profile. If the Iraq War was happening right now, criticism of him about that would be warranted as well. There were protests about that and it was clearly controversial just as there are clearly controversial issues surrounding Obama right now as well. Controversy can be assessed at any time. If numerous news outlets are reporting on it or there are mass protests going on, then it makes sense to mention this in passing.
  −
As for examples of the positive details, it is more what it does mention in contrast to what it does not. It mentions he was president of the Harvard Law Review, but does not mention he published only one article while there.[[71]] It mentions he won the Nobel Peace Prize but none of the controversy that surrounded this, and led to criticism of the committee responsible for awarding the prize. It skims over all his accomplishments while never mentioning anything involving controversy or criticism. If one did not know better, you would think he had no controversy at all surrounding him who makes no waves and not the polarizing figure his presidency is showing him to be. It could mention his excessively liberal voting record or the protests against his lack of a birth certificate. Or that the stimulus and health care bills he made primary talking points are facing skepticism by the American people and delays in Congress, and he has taken criticism from his own party for backing off of his earlier promises on withdrawing troops and continuing the Guantanamo military commissions. Maybe his record drop off in public support, which set a record low for any president at that point in their presidency[[72]]. Again though, from Wikipeda, you would never even consider it from reading the intro. As far as the intro makes it look, everything is just peachy. Palin has faced less controversy and her profile makes it a point to mention ethics complaints. All I am saying is it is not an accurate portrayal of how he appears to the American people. Just something to show that controversy would be accurate, but there is nothing. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 07:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  −
Using Hurricane Katrina and George Bush as an comparative example of controversy is not very good. Hurricane Katrina occurred five years ago, and killed a lot of people, and caused millions of dollars worth of damage. Barack Obama winning the Nobel Prize occurred very recently, and certainly hasn't killed anyone. How can you compare them?
  −
Your examples still do not point to me how the article specifically portrays Obama in a positive light. I have no idea how one can say this article is "peachy". The article only talks about what Obama has or has not done, and what he believes or does not believe in. A person reading this article should have no higher or lower opinion of Obama after finishing it. Nowhere does it say that he was immensely popular etc. In turn:
  −
Only one article as president of Harvard Law Review - how is this notable at all?
  −
Nobel Peace Prize - controversy is mentioned, last section of article.
  −
Controversies - one about Nobel Peace Prize is mentioned, rest are irrelevant to his overall biography and belong to the presidency article.
  −
Polarising figure - source?
  −
Excessively liberal voting record - "Excessive" is a POV term. Obama has a strong history though of being considered a liberal; this is mentioned.
  −
Basically can't prove he is born in US - fringe theory at best.
  −
Stimulus health bills - Don't judge how history will treat this while it is still happening.
  −
Public support - Drop in popularity is mentioned.
  −
Palin has less controversy - Once again, you cannot quantify controversy like this. Palin was a Vice Presidential candidate; Obama is the current President.
  −
Not "accurate portrayal of how he appears to the American people" - Wikipedia is worldwide, and suggesting that we all put articles from the American perspective can be quite offensive.
  −
Controversy is not easy to measure, and certainly cannot be assessed "at any time". The reason is that people will generally think and talk about the latest and greatest ones. Therefore, it is difficult - and not a good idea to attempt - to measure the effect of a particular controversy on history just months after it has happened. Just having multiple reputable news outlets reporting on it is nowhere near enough - they release news every day, covering new and old controversies. Just having protests is not enough either - there are protests all the time. One must wait for the weight of history to truly judge whether a controversy really had historical effect. There are controversies every day, but only a few survive in memories and become truly important.WHSL (Talk) 13:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  −
Hmmm... as a side note, would you then say you have no problem at all with my other additions, since all of them have proved controversial over the years concerning Obama and are by no means recent? Furthermore, shouldn't Wikipedia report recent events as well as old ones? If there is a recent scandal, I have seen numerous Wikipedia articles mention this, or other controversies relating to a person or business. It would make no sense to do otherwise. Also, is there any Wikipedia policy stating that controversial events must pass a certain time limit before they can be addressed in an article? --Jzyehoshua (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
     −
Second: Notable Controversies, 48 Sources
+
:<!--{{user:JzG/Uninformed wingnut drivel}} (commented out by [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 12:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC) - cute template but I think this could escalate any dispute here -->
   −
In the 'Proposed Changes' section I mentioned that I found this in the Wikipedia rules for the Wikipedia:Lead section guidelines:
+
:The following are my proposed edits to the Barack Obama page, with the intent being to make it more objective and comprehensive, rather than painting a deceivingly rosy picture of him.
−
"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence."
+
 
−
Now, my question is, what should be the 'notable controversies' surrounding Barack Obama to be included in his introduction/lede?
+
:1. Proposed Edit to introduction section.
−
Prominence/notability, as well as available reliable sources will play into this. I am interested in seeing what people think should be mentioned as 'notable controversies' in the lede. Again, what controversies are mentioned should then be compared by their prominence and sourcing. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
  −
I am not aware of any controversy that would be considered notable, let alone notable enough for the article lede. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  −
Well, that is a bit of a misstatement, as notability is a test of article suitability, not whether something is of due weight, relevance, and encyclopedic quality to be in the lede. It's not saying that we must include controversies in the lede, only that we include them if they're noteworthy enough, and don't avoid them. A better statement would be that controversies that are significant enough to be a major part of the article are not excluded from the lede simply because they are controversies. I'll probably propose a minor change to WP:LEDE to avoid confusion (in case you notice the obvious, over there). - Wikidemon (talk) 00:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  −
Interesting. I've been reviewing the Wikipedia guidelines a lot lately and can find nothing saying that controversial content may not be included, which I think fits your statement of "A better statement would be that controversies that are significant enough to be a major part of the article are not excluded from the lede simply because they are controversies." I agree that it needs to fit the test of notability.
  −
However, looking at the Notability guidelines showed me something else - the earlier controversial subject that started all of this, Obama's controversy with live birth abortion, may not only meet the standards of notability, but since notability is defined as "notability determines whether a topic merits its own article" and the sourcing on this issue is so unusually strong for an Obama-related topic, the topic may even merit its own page.
  −
As the notability page states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." And, "Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines."
  −
Now, take this commentary on Obama's history on live birth abortion:
  −
Background: Barack Obama beginning from his time in the Illinois Senate opposed numerous bills that would have stopped a practice where children surviving late-term abortions could be left to die. He considered them, though completely outside the womb and breathing, 'fetuses'.[[98]] (pp. 85-86) Bills included the 2001 Born Alive Infants Protection Act[[99]][[100]](pp. 85-88), the 2001 SB 1661 Induced Birth Infant Liability Act[[101]][[102]](pp. 88-89), the 2001 SB 1095 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act[[103]][[104]][[105]] (pp. 50-66), and the 1997 SB 230 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act[[106]][[107]]
  −
Notability: Alan Keyes, Obama's general election opponent for the 2004 U.S. Senate, made the issue his primary talking point.[[108]][[109]] At the time, activists such as Jill Stanek[[110]] and Phyllis Schlafly[[111]] also opposed Obama on such grounds. Keyes to this day continues opposing Obama on what he calls 'infanticide'.[[112]][[113]] During the 2008 elections, both Sarah Palin[[114]] and John McCain[[115]][[116]] criticized Obama over the 'Born Alive' controversy as well.
  −
Prominence: There has been no shortage of mainstream media coverage on this issue. During the 2008 Primary Election, Hillary Clinton and the National Organization of Women[[117]][[118]], as well as other Congressmen[[119]][[120]], accused Obama of voting 'Present' instead of 'No' on abortion bills. The Washington Post's "Fact Checker" also addressed the issue, noting his very lengthy voting history on the subject, but also pointing out that it was an agreed-upon strategy between pro-choice politicians and Planned Parenthood as a way to avoid public attention on controversial abortion bills.[[121]][[122]] Obama defended himself by saying it was an agreed-upon strategy with Planned Parenthood.[[123]] In 2007 ABC News[[124]] and the NY Times addressed this Planned Parenthood-Obama-present votes connection [[125]][[126]] and both FactCheck[[127]] and PolitiFact[[128]][[129]], as well as Time Magazine[[130]], Fox News[[131]], the Boston Globe[[132]], MediaMatters.org[[133]], the Huffington Post[[134]][[[[135]]]], and NPR[[136]], all chimed in referencing the connection as well. In August 2008 there was also a lengthy back and forth between Obama, David Brody of CBN[[137]], and the National Right to Life Committee[[138]][[139]] concerning his record on live birth abortion. Another exchange occurred between Obama's campaign, Jill Stanek, and Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune.[[140]] As covered by the NY Sun, Obama was facing attacks from all sides, and had first erroneously claimed he would have voted for the federal bill, but then upon confrontation with senate records dug up by the NRLC, his campaign admitted he'd voted against an Illinois bill with similar language.[[141]] FactCheck shortly thereafter supported this claim, and upon examination of the claims by both Obama's campaign and the NRLC wrote a widely covered[[142]] article called "Obama and 'Infanticide'" stating that Obama was misrepresenting his record on the issue, though it thought the term 'infanticide' open to interpretation.[[143]] David Freddoso, who also covered the born alive issue in his best-selling book, 'The Case Against Barack Obama' in August 2008, wrote in an article for the National Review that Stanek and O'Malley (primary sponsor of the born alive legislation previously mentioned) had teamed up on legislation such as the 1095 bill, and notes that Obama was the only legislator to speak against it on the senate floor.[[144]]
  −
Other Notable Coverage: The Huffington Post in April of 2008 attacked Deal Hudson for criticizing Obama on the issue of infanticide.[[145]]
  −
I would posit that few other controversies are going to be as comparably notable as this. Or that few could rival the depth of sourcing (I deliberately included a few liberal and conservative secondary sources, though most were meant to be neutral ones). At any rate, as I read the guidelines more and more, the more I am convinced that the subject of controversy surrounding Obama's history on live birth abortion can meet the Wikipedia guidelines for notability, neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiability. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 01:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  −
I strongly recommend that this is the last time you use this talk page as a dumping ground for this perversion of the facts. Frankly, this claptrap about infanticide that you keep peddling absolutely disgusts me. This BLP-violating abomination should be eradicated from this talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  −
It only violates the BLP, as I've said before, if the sources are wrong. Which is why I went out of my way to provide numerous accredited sources. And as has been pointed out, it is not biased to simply report that the accusation has been made. Everything I stated was sourced. If you think it violates the BLP, please state how. I see nothing wrong with the sourcing, the prominence, notability, relevance, etc. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 05:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  −
Jzyehoshua - your attempts to find any consensus for these items have not met any success so far. That's an indication that they cannot meet guidlines for notability, neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiability. You continue to plaster "when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife" statements but few proposed changes to the article itself. The "infanticide" issue is a total non-starter. Keyes is unimportant in a biographical article about Obama. The list goes on. I suggest you put individual proposed changes in separate sections and attempt to gain consensus on each one separately. You can see from this page that there is little or no support for what you've tried thus far.  Frank  |  talk  02:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  −
But the problem is, those who are disagreeing are not disagreeing with whether the material meets the guidelines or not. They are disagreeing because it is opposed to their worldviews and opinions, which is why they refuse to consider consensus. As I've showed, many of the major newspapers and neutral fact-checking organizations on the web, as well as even TV news agencies, have covered this issue. That suggests the objections raised here are ideological, not substantial, in nature. After all, the sourcing, relevance, and prominence are all undeniable. The issue is whether people on here like it or not, and they don't, because many of those here are liberal. I expected that. Again, consensus is not reached solely because nobody likes the views. Otherwise, I would expect to see more statements about why my sourcing fails to measure up or does not meet the guidelines. There is difference between lack of consensus because of bias and lack of consensus because of objective reasoning.
  −
P.S. I have challenged perhaps half a dozen times now those suggesting I violated guidelines to state how and give specific examples. Only Wikidemon has provided tangible constructive criticism and examples. The fact is that those guidelines do not prevent controversy or negative statements being reported on (so long as it's done objectively). They only require exceptional sourcing for exceptional remarks. The controversies surrounding conservative politicians are reported on their pages and there is far less opposition to doing so than is seen here. What is more, I am sure many of them have less sourcing or even available sourcing than what is used here. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 05:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  −
Look, I already quoted verbatim from the NPOV guidelines, the WP:BLP guidelines, and the Wikipedia:Lead section guidelines. At some point I expect those criticizing me of violating the guidelines to actually use this as more than just an attack, and actually give examples of what parts of the guidelines are being violated, and give examples of what parts of my works are violating them. I mean, I've been doing all the work citing this stuff. I can't be expected to be hypersensitively defending myself against every little accusation of violating a guideline with lengthy essays quoting from said guidelines if the accuser is too lazy to even give examples and cite what part of the guidelines and my writing is at issue. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 06:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  −
Bottom line: can you show where there is WP:CONSENSUS for the change(s) you are thinking about? I say there is not, for two reasons: 1) I don't see it on this talk page, and 2) I don't even see a specific change request. This is not just any article on Wikipedia - it's one of the most watched, with over 1800 watchers. I understand that consensus is generally not a reason to revert a change, but for such a highly-visited (and watched) page which is on probation, things are different. Nobody's saying you can't edit the article. What's being said is that changes of a controversial nature on a WP:BLP article that is highly-visited and highly-watched and is on probation should be discussed first. I still don't see any specific proposals for changes to the article. What I see is a bunch of accusations and references and original research - but no specific changes being requested.  Frank  |  talk  14:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  −
Please. If you don't have consensus - I don't care how many policies you cite - you cannot make these types of additions to the article. It can't get much simpler than that. Since you clearly do not have consensus, drop it. There have been a dozen or more of us who have given you quite clear-cut reasons why we cannot include multiple insignificant controversies, fringe theories, or the comparatively insignificant views of others about Obama. By the way, you are not helping your case by accusing us of being liberal, or accusing us of not providing tangible evidence against.WHSL (Talk) 06:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  −
According to the Wikipedia Don't revert due to "no consensus" page, "Sometimes editors will undo a change, justifying their revert merely by saying that there is "no consensus" for the change, or by simply asking the original editor to "first discuss". Except possibly on pages that describe settled Wikipedia policy, this is not very helpful. After all, that you reverted the edit already shows that there is no consensus. But you neglected to explain why you personally disagree with the edit, so you haven't given people a handle on how to build the consensus with you that you desire.
  −
Next to that, the behaviour discourages bold contributions, which are essential to building Wikipedia. Moreover, if you can't point out an underlying problem with an edit, there is no good reason to immediately revert it. Finally, there may in fact exist silent consensus to keep the change. Consensus is not unanimity, and is thus not canceled by one editor's objection."
  −
Wikipedia encourages contributors to be bold in editing articles. Reverting a bold contribution solely on the basis of "no consensus" is a sign that the reverter simply did not like the edit. Keep in mind that no one can own an article. Moreover, if one editor favors a new addition (i.e. its contributor), and another opposes it (i.e. the potential reverter), consensus is no closer to being against it than for it until more editors comment or edit, or until the two editors in question can move toward a compromise, preferably through editing.
  −
It is best to first consider whether there is a substantive problem with the edit in question. If it added unsourced or poorly-sourced information, try to find said information yourself, or failing that, note that in the revert summary. If it made the presentation of material awkward, edit to make the presentation less awkward. If it added a biased statement, try to find a way to recast it into a neutral mode. If it added instructions on how to do something, explain that Wikipedia is not a manual. If it removed content with no explanation or an unconvincing one, note that you are restoring valid content, and why the explanation is unconvincing (if the edit summary box is too small for this, continue on the talk page).
  −
But if you feel that an edit should not stand yet can't point to any specific reason, for heavens sake, stop and think before you act. (never make any edit without a reason!)
  −
In general:
  −
  :1. Stop. Think.
  −
  :2. Try to edit the page to better incorporate the edit in question
  −
  :3. If you really can't find a way to incorporate the edit, revert it
  −
  :4. Explain in detail what you tried, and why it didn't work.
  −
  :Even if the reason seems obvious to you, it will not always be obvious to someone else."
  −
Also, according to the Wikipedia Consensus page, "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for making or reverting an edit, or for accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action."
  −
As shown here, Consensus is not a reason in and of itself for reverting an edit, or "accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action." And furthermore, Consensus must be REASONED Consensus. "Reverting a bold contribution solely on the basis of "no consensus" is a sign that the reverter simply did not like the edit." Ultimately the basis of "no consensus" is a straw man that is an unsuitable qualifier - ultimately it comes down to, as the article states, "whether there is a substantive problem with the edit in question". Furthermore, those involved with the Consensus argument also have a duty to be attempting to "better incorporate the edit in question" and "explain in detail what you tried, and why it didn't work."
  −
I do not like calling people out like this, and would prefer to work towards agreement objectively, but the fact remains that over half those commenting right now on my proposed edits are not providing any of the constructive material the previously quoted page says should be involved. They are telling me to achieve Consensus without following the Consensus page guidelines themselves. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 08:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  −
You might want to slow down a bit on the rule interpretation but to address the points you raise: lack of consensus should not be the sole reason for opposing an edit, just as lack of a citation should not either in most cases - there has to be a good faith bona fide objection to the material, at which point it becomes the job of the person proposing the change to achieve consensus, or wanting to include the material to find appropriate sources. If people are objecting to your desire to add something to the article under claim of "no consensus" what they really mean is that the objections are stated elsewhere and to their mind you have not (yet) established that there is consensus to overcome those objections. If they feel it is against policy and guidelines you would have to demonstrate a consensus for the interpretation / analysis that the proposal actually is permissible per the policy and guidelines. Policy / guidelines are mostly exclusionary, creating thresholds to meet before things can be added. Relatively few of them demand that something be included, they just permit it. So if it's within the territory of editor discretion you would have to establish consensus not only that the content is permissible, but that it should be added. You can look at WP:BRD for a widely-followed essay on that. You're right that having too many nay-sayers on an article discourages bold edits. This is a mature, featured article so the gradualist approach is probably a good thing. Otherwise good articles start falling apart to the entropy of hasty edits. It's probably gone too far here, and definitely too far on some of the other Obama articles, which are losing ground in their efforts to stay current because it is so hard to make major additions. Cest la vie. We can't solve that problem in a day. Contrary to the language you're quoting (or is that your own analysis?) on high-traffic important articles thereis a role for precedent and for deferring to past decisions. The Arbitration Committee weighed in on the issue fairly recently with respect to this particular article, and said roughly that although consensus can change, excessive and contentious rehashing of matters that have been decided can be disruptive to the editing process. The answer is somewhere in between. Proposals should have a realistic chance of success - if something has been discussed and rejected a few times already, and it wasn't long ago, and there is no change in the subject we are covering or new sources about it, and the same editors are still here, it is pointless to repeat the same discussion. It also doesn't work, you can rarely win consensus to edit the article by wearing out people's patience for discussion. I do agree that the people arguing against your proposals are not providing constructive criticism. I'll hazard a guess as to the reasons. I think you started off on the wrong foot with an overly bold edit and some aggressive comments on the talk page. Some people here are very alert to trouble and perhaps see it where none is intended. I think that is unfair to you but given the history of the article it's not surprising. And finally, these discussions have been going on a long time and gotten off track. I think people just don't feel like talking about it anymore. I'm not one to talk about brevity, but I think many of your posts - the last one a case in point - are very long and quote long stretches of policy that you could just link to, plus the extensive use of bold is distracting, people liken that to ALLCAPS or shouting!!!!! I actually think a number of your content proposals are good ones, and people would probably accept them if we could find a more effective way to discuss it. I'm still planning to propose some modest changes along those lines one at a time, so if we can all take a deep breath and try to be patient, we'll work through this. Anyone who's gotten this far, can we all chill out a little bit? Cool? Wikidemon (talk) 09:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  −
True, that's all I've been saying, that those accusing me of no consensus or violating a policy should state exactly what's wrong with it, and how it violates the policy. I tried numerous times now to get specific users to start a conversation over source validity, prominence of the sources, relevance to a section, neutrality of wording and how to improve it, etc. What statements on this I actually heard I actually compromised on very, very early on. For example, I agreed quickly that if the word 'infanticide' was too offensive to some then it could just not be used and an alternative like live birth abortion specified in its place. I've also tried to avoid framing and asked others how they thought sentences could be reworded to avoid violation of NPOV. I specifically brought up such high quality and high profile sources, as well as examples of mentions by all major campaigns, to combat the 'fringe' theory that keeps making the rounds. Not that it would matter either way.
  −
According to the Wikipedia Fringe theories page it should be abundantly clear that fringe theories which are notable, well-sourced, and covered well by the mainstream media still warrant inclusion. I'll avoid posting this one out unless there continues to be disagreement over that. And also, sorry about the bolding - I've just done that primarily for quoted material to make clear what parts I most wanted read and to ensure they wouldn't get overlooked. I like to quote surrounding material as well to show context but then like the bolding so it shows exactly what I'm concentrating on, and since it's WP guidelines, didn't think it as much an issue as if I was bolding my own words, which I've mostly avoided here (the starting paragraph in the Consensus section is the one exception I can think of).
  −
I would like to try the WP:BRD page's outline of resolving this dispute, as there seems little alternative at this point save arbitration, but since this is a protected page, am not sure I will be able to do so. And yes, all the language being quoted was from the articles except for a few points towards the end. It made it tough to tell since I left the original double quotation marks from the page in instead of changing them to single quote marks.
  −
You're also right it may just be an instance of my using an overly bold edit at the beginning - however, to be fair I was unaware the term infanticide would be so poorly received. Here in Illinois that term has been used quite a bit in the news during the earlier Obama election involving Alan Keyes so I was, I thought, just using a popular media term to refer to the situation that would quickly ring a bell for those who'd seen it in the news. Once I realized how many people were unfamiliar with Obama's elections and the terminology, I quickly backed off from the term and began proposing alternatives. I suppose it is more widely used here in the U.S. than in other countries, and I notice many are surprisingly from the U.K. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  −
I must ask: outside of this one editor's opinion (and yes, by an outsider's look it is an opinion) is this is a huge thing and not some rambling of a pro-lifer who really doesn't like the president. How has this made news today? Is it being carried on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc? Is it a big topic in the news papers? (excluding blogs and opinion pieces) Outside the pro-life community, is this topic really being associated with the president (I.E. the common person on the street would spout this when asked about the president?). In all honest opinion, this looks more like a big point to extreme pro-lifers then it does to the country at large. Finally, and more to the point, is this such a large issue, I mean really a glaring issue that everyone in the country recognizes it and believes it or questions it, to be included in this article? Brothejr (talk) 09:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  −
I don't think that's the proposal on the table. Bear with this, I think we can restate the various content proposals in a focused, productive way at some point. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  −
If it involves Keyes and infanticide, it will surely be rejected. This sort of distortion must be discouraged, because it violates WP:BLP quite seriously. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  −
Yes, it is a major issue. That is why I brought up its relevance by major politicians. The fact that Alan Keyes in the 2004 senate election, Hillary Clinton in the 2008 presidential primary election, and both McCain and Palin in the 2008 general election made it a talking point against Obama should've been, I thought at least, a major red flag here. When his last 3 major opponents in elections have all brought it up, and when it's been referenced in what at least here in the U.S. are some of the major news publications - it's pretty big. Here in Illinois especially, it has been the major issue involving Obama that people will be familiar with. That is why I quoted so much from the Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times, and other Illinois newspapers - to show out of state users just how major an issue this has been here in Illinois particularly. The major newspapers and news channels have addressed it extensively, particularly during the 2004 elections. The NRLC, primary pro-life group here in the U.S., has also been pushing the issue for years, and thus it has been a back and forth between them and Obama's campaign to the extent that major fact-checking groups like the Washington Post's Fact Checker and FactCheck.org have objectively weighed both sides. I already quoted from the Fox News and MSNBC articles where the subject came up. In the Consensus section, I even noted that several Fox News anchors and guests have accused Obama of infanticide:
  −
-Sean Hannity[[146]]
  −
-Glenn Beck[[147]]
  −
-Rush Limbaugh[[148]]
  −
-Newt Gingrich[[149]]
  −
-Ann Coulter[[150]]
  −
-Dr. Jerome Corsi[[151]]
  −
Also, here is another example of Fox News reporting, though in print, of coverage of the infanticide issue.[[152]]
  −
Fox News in particular has allowed this issue to be brought up many times now.
  −
I don't follow CNN as closely but found evidence it has been addressed there as well.[[153]][[154]] The issue has received so much coverage in fact that a CNN reporter even questioned Obama for CNN about the issue.[[155]]
  −
I did some more Googling and didn't find evidence yet of it being addressed by MSNBC on public television yet. However, there is plenty of overall evidence out there. Simply google the name of a major news network and the terms Obama infanticide (possibly video as well) and you will see for yourself. There is plenty of sourcing out there that can be found at any time simply by using Google to search for it. It is why it is so easy for me to find sources on this stuff at will right now.--Jzyehoshua (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  −
This is beyond a joke. All the sources you have found fall into 3 distinct camps:
  −
Obama's political opponents (like Keyes) making wild unsubstantiated claims.
  −
Right-wing media pundits (the rogues gallery you list above) taking the wild unsubstantiated claims and trying to make them into a bigger deal than they are.
  −
Normal mainstream media (which does not include FOX, by the way) debunking the wild unsubstantiated claims when they are not covering runaway balloons.
  −
If you really believe this stuff is important, you have been duped by the first 2 groups. You are doing exactly what they want you to do, which is to try to push their agenda into Wikipedia articles. In doing so, you are committing multiple violations of WP:BLP, and quite possibly defaming Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  −
At this point, you're going to disagree with any sources I provide. You'll just keep Moving the goalpost no matter what I do. First Brothejr said, "How has this made news today? Is it being carried on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc?" Then when I provide evidence from Fox News you say it's not a news network (contrary to the prior comment he made implying it "made news today" and when I provided evidence from CNN you threw in the "runaway balloons" comment alleging that even if it could be proven CNN had covered it, that it would just be mistaken coverage anyway. Ultimately, there's simply nothing I could do to convince users like you, so why bother? I think it better to just accept that you and I won't agree on this, so that focus may be put on areas where Consensus can be achieved. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 16:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  −
What are you talking about? I did not ask those questions. You are attributing statements made by others to me. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  −
I recognized it and changed it almost instantaneously (same minute) that you made the comment, when I realized it was by brothejr and not you. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 16:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  −
If the proposal is that we make some overarching comment that there is a controversy over Obama's support for abortion, or any mention that some people accuse him of infanticide, then no - BLP problems, poor sourcing, NPOV, and undue weight. The "rogues gallery" of professional agitators mentioned above just isn't encyclopedically important, except on the rare occasion when through their outrageous prose and antics they manage their way to bootstrap their way into the national stage. Not just because they said it -- they say lots of stuff -- but because it actually creates an impact beyond their own typical audience. Keyes is particularly fringe-y here. He may not have been acknowleged as such at the time but at this point as one of the more vexatiously litigious birthers his relevance and credibility level is nill. If Keyes' primary campaign strategy in the election was to attack Obama on abortion that can be stated neutrally and is arguably worth five or six words in the section devoted to that election, more in the article on the subject. But there's a strong counter-argument that given the election margin, his ineffective election tactics made no difference to Obama or anyone else so they aren't worth covering at all. I think this is the weakest of the content proposals. Best to start with the stronger ones that have more of a chance of passing scrutiny. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
      +
:Original:  "Obama is the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize laureate.[4]"
   −
Source
+
:Proposed:  "Obama is the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize laureate[4], an honor which accompanied widespread criticism about his lack of accomplishment[http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5981JK20091009][http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/10/world/10nobel.html] and confessed surprise by Barack Obama.[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/09/barack-obama-nobel-peace-prize1][http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/09/obama-surprised-deeply-humbled-nobel-peace-prize/],
 +
 
 +
:2. Proposed Edit to 'State legislator: 1997–2004' section.
 +
 
 +
:Original:  "Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996, succeeding State Senator Alice Palmer as Senator from Illinois's 13th District, which at that time spanned Chicago South Side neighborhoods from Hyde Park-Kenwood south to South Shore and west to Chicago Lawn.[42]"
 +
 
 +
:Proposed: "Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996, succeeding State Senator Alice Palmer as Senator from Illinois's 13th District, which at that time spanned Chicago South Side neighborhoods from Hyde Park-Kenwood south to South Shore and west to Chicago Lawn.[42]  Obama won the election through use of lawyers to subsequently disqualify the petition signatures of Alice Palmer and 3 other opponents after the filing deadline.[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-070403obama-ballot-archive,0,5297304,full.story][http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/full]"
 +
 
 +
:3. Proposed Edit to 'State legislator: 1997-2004' section.
 +
 
 +
:Original: "In January 2003, Obama became chairman of the Illinois Senate's Health and Human Services Committee when Democrats, after a decade in the minority, regained a majority.[48] He sponsored and led unanimous, bipartisan passage of legislation to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they detained, and legislation making Illinois the first state to mandate videotaping of homicide interrogations.[44][49]"
 +
 
 +
:Proposed: "In January 2003, Obama became chairman of the Illinois Senate's Health and Human Services Committee when Democrats, after a decade in the minority, regained a majority.[48] He sponsored and led unanimous, bipartisan passage of legislation to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they detained, and legislation making Illinois the first state to mandate videotaping of homicide interrogations.[44][49]  This legislation was originally worked on by Senator Rickey Hendon[[http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/full]][[http://www.illinoistimes.com/Springfield/article-922-in-the-black.html]], and was among numerous pieces of legislation given to Obama as part of a requested deal with his political mentor[[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&refer=politics&sid=anw8dtE3kyvA]][[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3602710.ece]], Senator Emil Jones.[[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1738494-2,00.html]][[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2]]"
 +
 
 +
:4. Proposed Edit to '2004 U.S. Senate campaign'.
 +
 
 +
:Original:  "Obama's expected opponent in the general election, Republican primary winner Jack Ryan, withdrew from the race in June 2004.[58] Two months later, Alan Keyes accepted the Illinois Republican Party's nomination to replace Ryan.[59] A long-time resident of Maryland, Keyes established legal residency in Illinois with the nomination.[60] 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.[61]"
 +
 
 +
:Proposed:  "Obama's expected opponent in the general election, Republican primary winner Jack Ryan, withdrew from the race in June 2004[58] following a widely-reported sex scandal.[[http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/22/ryan.divorce/]] 2 months later, and with less than 3 months remaining in the election[[http://www.wifr.com/home/headlines/907427.html]], former Ambassador to the United Nations' Social and Economic Council[[http://www.colgate.edu/DesktopDefault1.aspx?tabid=730&pgID=6013&nwID=2534]], Alan Keyes, accepted the Illinois Republican Party's nomination to replace Ryan.[59] A long-time resident of Maryland, Keyes established legal residency in Illinois with the nomination.[60] Following a race in which Keyes was heavily criticized as a 'carpetbagger'[[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50885-2004Aug8.html]] by the press, and with Keyes running a negative campaign criticizing Obama on the issue of late-term abortions[[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5654128/]], Obama in the November 2004 general election received 70% of the vote to Keyes' 27%, the largest victory margin for a statewide race in Illinois history.[61]"
 +
 
 +
 
 +
:Ultimately I may add more suggestions later but this I think is a good start and comprises the bulk of the elaborations about his past I would like to see.  --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] ([[User talk:Jzyehoshua|talk]]) 05:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 +
::In other news, an amputee has recalled that losing his legs "stings a little bit". '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]])</sup> 05:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 +
:::I'll review them seriously when I have a chance.  Whether we agree or not in the end, I appreciate your  taking the invitation to start a new section and propose them straight, one at a time.  I hope we can all keep up a dignified, collegial, supportive spirit discussing them (kicking several editors, and myself, under the table... ahem!).  Thanks! - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 05:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
::::Alright, I look forward to talking about this objectively, thanks for the offer!  --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] ([[User talk:Jzyehoshua|talk]]) 06:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
::::I haven't taken the time to study the other suggestions yet, but the first one, I think, has immediately obvious problems. The introduction should not be longer than is necessary. The mention that he is the laureate merely acknowledges that he ''did'' receive the prize. It does not, in any way, project any position on whether he deserved that prize or not. You are proposing a change that changes that statement from being purely NPOV to one that could be called POV. We haven't even had enough time to see how history has judged the 2009 prize, so why are we mentioning this in an article that is supposed to provide an accurate overview of his entire life? [[User:WHSL|WHSL]] [[User_talk:WHSL|<sup>(Talk)</sup>]] 05:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
:::::Well, just to play Devil's Advocate here, if George Bush received a Nobel Peace Prize and got criticized for it, and we put that in the intro paragraph, people would be up in arms that it was merely mentioned without the opposition factor being mentioned as well.  On Bush's page, for example, it spends many sentences discussing the issues of criticism and popularity loss just in the introduction.  When an award receives as much criticism and controversy as Obama's Nobel Prize did, to not mention this even in passing in the prominent introduction is to essentially frame the fact in a positive and deceivingly so light.  I do think the criticism/controversy should be mentioned at least in passing, or else not mention the award at all, or it is appearing to only provide positive details in the introduction section, in contrast to other profiles (such as George Bush's).
 +
 
 +
:::::As for the 16 additional words used in the introduction, I think they are worthwhile for balancing out an introduction section that otherwise fails to mention ANY negative or critical aspect whatsoever.  This is in sharp contrast to other political profiles which carry no such qualms about mentioning a critical fact or mention in the introduction to provide a more accurate and two-sided summary.
 +
:::::--[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] ([[User talk:Jzyehoshua|talk]]) 06:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
:Yes, Bush's page does discuss issues relating to his declining popularity. However, consider ''when'' Bush was president. His presidency is now over. It is history. We have had more time to consider the finer points of his presidency. However, Obama's winning of the Nobel Prize is in the recent past. We have not had the time to consider the historical implications of the 2009 prize. You cannot judge how historically controversial something actually was this early. <br />
 +
:Also, your statement regarding "positive details" is not one I would agree with at all. I can't see anywhere statements like "he is rated a very popular president". How can something be overly positive if you cannot find obviously positive statements? Could you point me to the specific places where you think the introduction is apparently POV? [[User:WHSL|WHSL]] [[User_talk:WHSL|<sup>(Talk)</sup>]] 06:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
::I very much disagree.  I see no difference.  For one thing, Hurricane Katrina happened pretty recently too and there is criticism of Bush about that on his profile.  If the Iraq War was happening right now, criticism of him about that would be warranted as well.  There were protests about that and it was clearly controversial just as there are clearly controversial issues surrounding Obama right now as well.  Controversy can be assessed at any time.  If numerous news outlets are reporting on it or there are mass protests going on, then it makes sense to mention this in passing.
 +
 
 +
::As for examples of the positive details, it is more what it does mention in contrast to what it does not.  It mentions he was president of the Harvard Law Review, but does not mention he published only one article while there.[[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12705.html]]  It mentions he won the Nobel Peace Prize but none of the controversy that surrounded this, and led to criticism of the committee responsible for awarding the prize.  It skims over all his accomplishments while never mentioning anything involving controversy or criticism.  If one did not know better, you would think he had no controversy at all surrounding him who makes no waves and not the polarizing figure his presidency is showing him to be.  It could mention his excessively liberal voting record or the protests against his lack of a birth certificate.  Or that the stimulus and health care bills he made primary talking points are facing skepticism by the American people and delays in Congress, and he has taken criticism from his own party for backing off of his earlier promises on withdrawing troops and continuing the Guantanamo military commissions.  Maybe his record drop off in public support, which set a record low for any president at that point in their presidency[[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/08/obamas-percent-approval-lowest-president-point/]].  Again though, from Wikipeda, you would never even consider it from reading the intro.  As far as the intro makes it look, everything is just peachy.  Palin has faced less controversy and her profile makes it a point to mention ethics complaints.  All I am saying is it is not an accurate portrayal of how he appears to the American people.  Just something to show that controversy would be accurate, but there is nothing. --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] ([[User talk:Jzyehoshua|talk]]) 07:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
:::Using Hurricane Katrina and George Bush as an comparative example of controversy is not very good. Hurricane Katrina occurred five years ago, and killed a lot of people, and caused millions of dollars worth of damage. Barack Obama winning the Nobel Prize occurred very recently, and certainly hasn't killed anyone. How can you compare them?
 +
:::Your examples still do not point to me how the article specifically portrays Obama in a positive light. I have no idea how one can say this article is "peachy". The article only talks about what Obama has or has not done, and what he believes or does not believe in. A person reading this article should have no higher or lower opinion of Obama after finishing it. Nowhere does it say that he was immensely popular etc. In turn:
 +
:::* ''Only one article as president of Harvard Law Review'' - how is this notable at all?
 +
:::* ''Nobel Peace Prize'' - controversy is mentioned, last section of article.
 +
:::* ''Controversies'' - one about Nobel Peace Prize is mentioned, rest are irrelevant to his overall biography and belong to the presidency article.
 +
:::* ''Polarising figure'' - source?
 +
:::* ''Excessively liberal voting record'' - "Excessive" is a POV term. Obama has a strong history though of being considered a liberal; this is mentioned.
 +
:::* ''Basically can't prove he is born in US'' - fringe theory at best.
 +
:::* ''Stimulus health bills'' - Don't judge how history will treat this while it is still happening.
 +
:::* ''Public support'' - Drop in popularity is mentioned.
 +
:::* ''Palin has less controversy'' - Once again, you cannot quantify controversy like this. Palin was a Vice Presidential candidate; Obama is the current President.
 +
:::* ''Not "accurate portrayal of how he appears to the American people"'' - Wikipedia is worldwide, and suggesting that we all put articles from the American perspective can be quite offensive.
 +
:::Controversy is not easy to measure, and certainly cannot be assessed "at any time". The reason is that people will generally think and talk about the latest and greatest ones. Therefore, it is difficult - and not a good idea to attempt - to measure the effect of a particular controversy on history just months after it has happened. Just having multiple reputable news outlets reporting on it is nowhere near enough - they release news every day, covering new and old controversies. Just having protests is not enough either - there are protests all the time. One must wait for the weight of history to truly judge whether a controversy really had historical effect. There are controversies every day, but only a few survive in memories and become truly important. [[User:WHSL|WHSL]] [[User_talk:WHSL|<sup>(Talk)</sup>]] 13:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 +
::::Hmmm...  as a side note, would you then say you have no problem at all with my other additions, since all of them have proved controversial over the years concerning Obama and are by no means recent?  Furthermore, shouldn't Wikipedia report recent events as well as old ones?  If there is a recent scandal, I have seen numerous Wikipedia articles mention this, or other controversies relating to a person or business.  It would make no sense to do otherwise.  Also, is there any Wikipedia policy stating that controversial events must pass a certain time limit before they can be addressed in an article? --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] ([[User talk:Jzyehoshua|talk]]) 16:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
=== Second: Notable Controversies, 48 Sources ===
 +
 
 +
== Notable Controversies ==
 +
 
 +
:{{hat|Moving on...}}
 +
:In the 'Proposed Changes' section I mentioned that I found this in the Wikipedia rules for the [[Wikipedia:Lead section]] guidelines:
 +
 
 +
:"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, '''and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies'''. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence."
 +
 
 +
:Now, my question is, what should be the 'notable controversies' surrounding Barack Obama to be included in his introduction/lede?
 +
 
 +
:Prominence/notability, as well as available reliable sources will play into this. I am interested in seeing what people think should be mentioned as 'notable controversies' in the lede. Again, what controversies are mentioned should then be compared by their prominence and sourcing.  --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] ([[User talk:Jzyehoshua|talk]]) 23:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
::I am not aware of any controversy that would be considered notable, let alone notable enough for the article lede. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 00:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
:::Well, that is a bit of a misstatement, as notability is a test of article suitability, not whether something is of due weight, relevance, and encyclopedic quality to be in the lede.  It's not saying that we must include controversies in the lede, only that we include them if they're noteworthy enough, and don't avoid them.  A better statement would be that controversies that are significant enough to be a major part of the article are not excluded from the lede simply because they are controversies.  I'll probably propose a minor change to [[WP:LEDE]] to avoid confusion (in case you notice the obvious, over there).  - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 00:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
:::Interesting.  I've been reviewing the Wikipedia guidelines a lot lately and can find nothing saying that controversial content may not be included, which I think fits your statement of "A better statement would be that controversies that are significant enough to be a major part of the article are not excluded from the lede simply because they are controversies."  I agree that it needs to fit the test of notability.
 +
 
 +
:::However, looking at the [[Notability]] guidelines showed me something else - the earlier controversial subject that started all of this, Obama's controversy with live birth abortion, may not only meet the standards of notability, but since notability is defined as "notability determines whether a topic merits its own article" and the sourcing on this issue is so unusually strong for an Obama-related topic, the topic may even merit its own page. 
 +
 
 +
:::As the notability page states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."  And, "Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines."
 +
 
 +
:::Now, take this commentary on Obama's history on live birth abortion:
 +
 
 +
:::* Background:  Barack Obama beginning from his time in the Illinois Senate opposed numerous bills that would have stopped a practice where children surviving late-term abortions could be left to die.  He considered them, though completely outside the womb and breathing, 'fetuses'.[[http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf]] (pp. 85-86)  Bills included the 2001 Born Alive Infants Protection Act[[http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/status/920SB1093.html]][[http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf]](pp. 85-88), the 2001 SB 1661 Induced Birth Infant Liability Act[[http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/status/920SB1094.html]][[http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf]](pp. 88-89), the 2001 SB 1095 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act[[http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1929&ChapAct=720%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B513%2F&ChapterID=53&ChapterName=CRIMINAL+OFFENSES&ActName=Partial-birth+Abortion+Ban+Act.]][[http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/status/920SB1095.html]][[http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/srollcalls92/920sb1095_03302001_030000t.pdf]] (pp. 50-66), and the 1997 SB 230 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act[[http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet90/status/900SB0230.html]][[http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans90/ST031897.pdf]]
 +
:::* Notability:  Alan Keyes, Obama's general election opponent for the 2004 U.S. Senate, made the issue his primary talking point.[[http://www.ifrl.org/ifrl/KeyesvObama.PDF]][[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5654128/]]  At the time, activists such as [[Jill Stanek]][[http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/aug/21/local/chi-zorn_21aug21]] and [[Phyllis Schlafly]][[http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2004/sept04/04-09-01.html]] also opposed Obama on such grounds.  Keyes to this day continues opposing Obama on what he calls 'infanticide'.[[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNbp2-Tm9z4]][[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzqfYTz6fRU]]  During the 2008 elections, both [[Sarah Palin]][[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/10/is_obama_guilty_of_infanticide.html]] and [[John McCain]][[http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Obama_responds_to_Born_Alive_attacks.html]][[http://www.lifenews.com/nat4195.html]] criticized Obama over the 'Born Alive' controversy as well.
 +
:::* Prominence:  There has been no shortage of mainstream media coverage on this issue.  During the 2008 Primary Election, Hillary Clinton and the National Organization of Women[[http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/criticism_of_obama_present_vot.html]][[http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/679446,CST-NWS-obama04.article]], as well as other Congressmen[[http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/20/528491.aspx]][[http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/12/sweet_column_clinton_allies_hi.html]], accused Obama of voting 'Present' instead of 'No' on abortion bills.  The Washington Post's "Fact Checker" also addressed the issue, noting his very lengthy voting history on the subject, but also pointing out that it was an agreed-upon strategy between pro-choice politicians and Planned Parenthood as a way to avoid public attention on controversial abortion bills.[[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_voting_record_on_aborti_1.html]][[http://www.ontheissues.org/2008_GovWatch.htm]]  Obama defended himself by saying it was an agreed-upon strategy with Planned Parenthood.[[http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/08/fact_check_obamas_strong_proch.php]]  In 2007 ABC News[[http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/obama-abortion-.html]] and the NY Times addressed this Planned Parenthood-Obama-present votes connection [[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html?pagewanted=2&_r=3]][[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22335739/]] and both FactCheck[[http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/clinton-obama_slugfest.html]] and PolitiFact[[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/feb/06/hillary-clinton/he-voted-present-which-is-similar-to-no/]][[http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/feb/13/obamas-present-tension/]], as well as Time Magazine[[http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/01/14/obama_campaign_defends_present/]], Fox News[[http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Jan24/0,4670,PresentVotesFactCheck,00.html]], the Boston Globe[[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/24/fact_check_obamas_present_votes/]], MediaMatters.org[[http://mediamatters.org/research/200712140004]], the Huffington Post[[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tracy-fischman/a-vote-for-obama-is-a-vot_b_82842.html]][[[[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/obamas-present-vote-ignor_b_77713.html]]]], and NPR[[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437]], all chimed in referencing the connection as well.  In August 2008 there was also a lengthy back and forth between Obama, David Brody of CBN[[http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2008/08/16/obama-gets-heated-on-born-alive-infant-protection-act.aspx]], and the National Right to Life Committee[[http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBaipa/Obamacoveruponbornalive.htm]][[http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBaipa/FromBarackObamaCampaignAug192008.pdf]] concerning his record on live birth abortion.  Another exchange occurred between Obama's campaign, Jill Stanek, and Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune.[[http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/08/obama-answers-t.html]]  As covered by the NY Sun, Obama was facing attacks from all sides, and had first erroneously claimed he would have voted for the federal bill, but then upon confrontation with senate records dug up by the NRLC, his campaign admitted he'd voted against an Illinois bill with similar language.[[http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-facing-attacks-from-all-sides-over-abortion/84059/]]  FactCheck shortly thereafter supported this claim, and upon examination of the claims by both Obama's campaign and the NRLC wrote a widely covered[[http://www.newsweek.com/id/155560/page/4]] article called "Obama and 'Infanticide'" stating that Obama was misrepresenting his record on the issue, though it thought the term 'infanticide' open to interpretation.[[http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html]]  [[David Freddoso]], who also covered the born alive issue in his best-selling book, '[[The Case Against Barack Obama]]' in August 2008, wrote in an article for the National Review that Stanek and [[Patrick O'Malley (American politician)|O'Malley]] (primary sponsor of the born alive legislation previously mentioned) had teamed up on legislation such as the 1095 bill, and notes that Obama was the only legislator to speak against it on the senate floor.[[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2NmMGNkMTdkZWJkZWRkMjRkNjY5NjllNzZlYjkyNmY=]] 
 +
:::*Other Notable Coverage: The Huffington Post in April of 2008 attacked [[Deal Hudson]] for criticizing Obama on the issue of infanticide.[[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/04/the-next-smear-against-ob_n_116891.html]]
 +
 
 +
:::I would posit that few other controversies are going to be as comparably notable as this.  Or that few could rival the depth of sourcing (I deliberately included a few liberal and conservative secondary sources, though most were meant to be neutral ones).  At any rate, as I read the guidelines more and more, the more I am convinced that the subject of controversy surrounding Obama's history on live birth abortion can meet the Wikipedia guidelines for notability, neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiability.  --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] ([[User talk:Jzyehoshua|talk]]) 01:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
::::I strongly recommend that this is the '''last time''' you use this talk page as a dumping ground for this ''perversion'' of the facts. Frankly, this claptrap about infanticide that you keep peddling absolutely ''disgusts'' me. This BLP-violating abomination should be eradicated from this talk page. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 02:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
:::::It only violates the BLP, as I've said before, if the sources are wrong.  Which is why I went out of my way to provide numerous accredited sources.  And as has been pointed out, it is not biased to simply report that the accusation has been made.  Everything I stated was sourced.  If you think it violates the BLP, please state how.  I see nothing wrong with the sourcing, the prominence, notability, relevance, etc.  --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] ([[User talk:Jzyehoshua|talk]]) 05:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
::::Jzyehoshua - your attempts to find any [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]] for these items have not met any success so far. That's an indication that they ''cannot'' meet guidlines for notability, neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiability. You continue to plaster "when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife" statements but few proposed changes to the article itself. The "infanticide" issue is a total non-starter. Keyes is unimportant in a biographical article about Obama. The list goes on. I suggest you put individual proposed changes in separate sections and attempt to gain consensus on each one separately. You can see from this page that there is little or no support for what you've tried thus far. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">[[User:Frank|<span style="color:cyan;background:blue">&nbsp;Frank&nbsp;</span>]]&nbsp;{{!}}&nbsp;[[user_talk:Frank|<span style="color:blue;background:cyan">&nbsp;talk&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 02:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
:::::But the problem is, those who are disagreeing are not disagreeing with whether the material meets the guidelines or not.  They are disagreeing because it is opposed to their worldviews and opinions, which is why they refuse to consider consensus.  As I've showed, many of the major newspapers and neutral fact-checking organizations on the web, as well as even TV news agencies, have covered this issue.  That suggests the objections raised here are ideological, not substantial, in nature.  After all, the sourcing, relevance, and prominence are all undeniable.  The issue is whether people on here like it or not, and they don't, because many of those here are liberal.  I expected that.  Again, consensus is not reached solely because nobody likes the views.  Otherwise, I would expect to see more statements about why my sourcing fails to measure up or does not meet the guidelines.  There is difference between lack of consensus because of bias and lack of consensus because of objective reasoning. 
 +
 
 +
:::::P.S. I have challenged perhaps half a dozen times now those suggesting I violated guidelines to state how and give specific examples.  Only Wikidemon has provided tangible constructive criticism and examples.  The fact is that those guidelines do not prevent controversy or negative statements being reported on (so long as it's done objectively).  They only require exceptional sourcing for exceptional remarks.  The controversies surrounding conservative politicians are reported on their pages and there is far less opposition to doing so than is seen here.  What is more, I am sure many of them have less sourcing or even available sourcing than what is used here.  --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] ([[User talk:Jzyehoshua|talk]]) 05:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
::::::Look, I already quoted verbatim from the [[NPOV]] guidelines, the [[WP:BLP]] guidelines, and the [[Wikipedia:Lead section]] guidelines.  At some point I expect those criticizing me of violating the guidelines to actually use this as more than just an attack, and actually give examples of what parts of the guidelines are being violated, and give examples of what parts of my works are violating them.  I mean, I've been doing all the work citing this stuff.  I can't be expected to be hypersensitively defending myself against every little accusation of violating a guideline with lengthy essays quoting from said guidelines if the accuser is too lazy to even give examples and cite what part of the guidelines and my writing is at issue.  --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] ([[User talk:Jzyehoshua|talk]]) 06:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
:::::::Bottom line: can you show where there is [[WP:CONSENSUS]] ''for'' the change(s) you are thinking about? I say there is not, for two reasons: 1) I don't see it on this talk page, and 2) I don't even see a specific change request. This is not just any article on Wikipedia - it's one of the most watched, with [http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/watcher.py?db=enwiki_p&titles=Barack_Obama over 1800 watchers]. I understand that consensus is generally not a reason to revert a change, but for such a highly-visited (and watched) page which is on probation, things are different. Nobody's saying you can't edit the article. What's being said is that changes of a controversial nature on a [[WP:BLP]] article that is highly-visited and highly-watched and is on probation should be discussed ''first''. I still don't see any specific proposals for changes to the article. What I see is a bunch of accusations and references and [[WP:OR|original research]] - but no specific changes being requested. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">[[User:Frank|<span style="color:cyan;background:blue">&nbsp;Frank&nbsp;</span>]]&nbsp;{{!}}&nbsp;[[user_talk:Frank|<span style="color:blue;background:cyan">&nbsp;talk&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 14:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
:Please. If you don't have consensus - I don't care how many policies you cite - you cannot make these types of additions to the article. It can't get much simpler than that. Since you ''clearly'' do not have consensus, drop it. There have been a dozen or more of us who have given you quite clear-cut reasons why we cannot include multiple insignificant controversies, fringe theories, or the comparatively insignificant views of others about Obama. By the way, you are not helping your case by accusing us of being liberal, or accusing us of not providing tangible evidence against. [[User:WHSL|WHSL]] [[User_talk:WHSL|<sup>(Talk)</sup>]] 06:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
::According to the Wikipedia [[WP:DRNC|Don't revert due to "no consensus"]] page, "Sometimes editors will undo a change, justifying their revert merely by saying that there is "no consensus" for the change, or by simply asking the original editor to "first discuss". Except possibly on pages that describe settled Wikipedia policy, this is not very helpful. After all, '''that you reverted the edit already shows that there is no consensus. But you neglected to explain why you personally disagree with the edit''', so you haven't given people a handle on how to build the consensus with you that you desire.
 +
 
 +
::Next to that, the behaviour discourages bold contributions, which are essential to building Wikipedia. Moreover, '''if you can't point out an underlying problem with an edit, there is no good reason to immediately revert it'''. Finally, there may in fact exist silent consensus to keep the change. Consensus is not unanimity, and is thus not canceled by one editor's objection."
 +
 
 +
::Wikipedia encourages contributors to be bold in editing articles. '''Reverting a bold contribution solely on the basis of "no consensus" is a sign that the reverter simply did not like the edit.''' Keep in mind that no one can own an article. Moreover, if one editor favors a new addition (i.e. its contributor), and another opposes it (i.e. the potential reverter), consensus is no closer to being against it than for it until more editors comment or edit, or until the two editors in question can move toward a compromise, preferably through editing.
 +
 
 +
::It is best to first consider '''whether there is a substantive problem with the edit in question.''' '''If it added unsourced or poorly-sourced information, try to find said information yourself''', or failing that, note that in the revert summary. If it made the presentation of material awkward, edit to make the presentation less awkward. '''If it added a biased statement, try to find a way to recast it into a neutral mode.''' If it added instructions on how to do something, explain that Wikipedia is not a manual. If it removed content with no explanation or an unconvincing one, note that you are restoring valid content, and why the explanation is unconvincing (if the edit summary box is too small for this, continue on the talk page).
 +
 
 +
::'''But if you feel that an edit should not stand yet can't point to any specific reason, for heavens sake, stop and think before you act. (never make any edit without a reason!)'''
 +
 
 +
::In general:
 +
 
 +
::* 1. Stop. Think.
 +
::* 2. '''Try to edit the page to better incorporate the edit in question'''
 +
::* 3. If you really can't find a way to incorporate the edit, revert it
 +
::* 4. '''Explain in detail what you tried, and why it didn't work.
 +
::Even if the reason seems obvious to you, it will not always be obvious to someone else.'''"
 +
 
 +
::Also, according to the Wikipedia [[WP:CCC|Consensus]] page, "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. '''Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for making or reverting an edit, or for accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action.'''"
 +
 
 +
::As shown here, Consensus is not a reason in and of itself for reverting an edit, or "accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action."  And furthermore, Consensus must be REASONED Consensus.  "Reverting a bold contribution solely on the basis of "no consensus" is a sign that the reverter simply did not like the edit."  Ultimately the basis of "no consensus" is a straw man that is an unsuitable qualifier - ultimately it comes down to, as the article states, "whether there is a substantive problem with the edit in question".  Furthermore, those involved with the Consensus argument also have a duty to be attempting to "better incorporate the edit in question" and "explain in detail what you tried, and why it didn't work."
 +
 
 +
::I do not like calling people out like this, and would prefer to work towards agreement objectively, but the fact remains that over half those commenting right now on my proposed edits are not providing any of the constructive material the previously quoted page says should be involved.  They are telling me to achieve Consensus without following the Consensus page guidelines themselves.  --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] ([[User talk:Jzyehoshua|talk]]) 08:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
:::You might want to slow down a bit on the rule interpretation but to address the points you raise: lack of consensus should not be the ''sole'' reason for opposing an edit, just as lack of a citation should not either in most cases - there has to be a good faith bona fide objection to the material, at which point it becomes the job of the person proposing the change to achieve consensus, or wanting to include the material to find appropriate sources.  If people are objecting to your desire to add something to the article under claim of "no consensus" what they really mean is that the objections are stated elsewhere and to their mind you have not (yet) established that there is consensus to overcome those objections.  If they feel it is against policy and guidelines you would have to demonstrate a consensus for the interpretation / analysis that the proposal actually is permissible per the policy and guidelines.  Policy / guidelines are mostly exclusionary, creating thresholds to meet before things can be added.  Relatively few of them demand that something be included, they just permit it.  So if it's within the territory of editor discretion you would have to establish consensus not only that the content is permissible, but that it should be added.  You can look at [[WP:BRD]] for a widely-followed essay on that.  You're right that having too many nay-sayers on an article discourages bold edits.  This is a mature, featured article so the gradualist approach is probably a good thing.  Otherwise good articles start falling apart to the entropy of hasty edits.  It's probably gone too far here, and definitely too far on some of the other Obama articles, which are losing ground in their efforts to stay current because it is so hard to make major additions.  Cest la vie.  We can't solve that problem in a day.  Contrary to the language you're quoting (or is that your own analysis?) on high-traffic important articles there ''is'' a role for precedent and for deferring to past decisions.  The Arbitration Committee weighed in on the issue fairly recently with respect to this particular article, and said roughly that although consensus can change, excessive and contentious rehashing of matters that have been decided can be disruptive to the editing process.  The answer is somewhere in between.  Proposals should have a realistic chance of success - if something has been discussed and rejected a few times already, and it wasn't long ago, and there is no change in the subject we are covering or new sources about it, and the same editors are still here, it is pointless to repeat the same discussion.  It also doesn't work, you can rarely win consensus to edit the article by wearing out people's patience for discussion.  I do agree that the people arguing against your proposals are not providing constructive criticism.  I'll hazard a guess as to the reasons.  I think you started off on the wrong foot with an overly bold edit and some aggressive comments on the talk page.  Some people here are very alert to trouble and perhaps see it where none is intended.  I think that is unfair to you but given the history of the article it's not surprising.  And finally, these discussions have been going on a long time and gotten off track.  I think people just don't feel like talking about it anymore.  I'm not one to talk about brevity, but I think many of your posts - the last one a case in point - are very long and quote long stretches of policy that you could just link to, plus the '''extensive use of bold''' is distracting, people liken that to ALLCAPS or shouting!!!!!  I actually think a number of your content proposals are good ones, and people would probably accept them if we could find a more effective way to discuss it.  I'm still planning to propose some modest changes along those lines one at a time, so if we can all take a deep breath and try to be patient, we'll work through this.  Anyone who's gotten this far, can we all chill out a little bit?  Cool?  [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 09:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 +
::::True, that's all I've been saying, that those accusing me of no consensus or violating a policy should state exactly what's wrong with it, and how it violates the policy.  I tried numerous times now to get specific users to start a conversation over source validity, prominence of the sources, relevance to a section, neutrality of wording and how to improve it, etc.  What statements on this I actually heard I actually compromised on very, very early on.  For example, I agreed quickly that if the word 'infanticide' was too offensive to some then it could just not be used and an alternative like live birth abortion specified in its place.  I've also tried to avoid framing and asked others how they thought sentences could be reworded to avoid violation of NPOV.  I specifically brought up such high quality and high profile sources, as well as examples of mentions by all major campaigns, to combat the 'fringe' theory that keeps making the rounds.  Not that it would matter either way. 
 +
 
 +
::::According to the Wikipedia [[WP:Fringe|Fringe theories]] page it should be abundantly clear that fringe theories which are notable, well-sourced, and covered well by the mainstream media still warrant inclusion.  I'll avoid posting this one out unless there continues to be disagreement over that.  And also, sorry about the bolding - I've just done that primarily for quoted material to make clear what parts I most wanted read and to ensure they wouldn't get overlooked.  I like to quote surrounding material as well to show context but then like the bolding so it shows exactly what I'm concentrating on, and since it's WP guidelines, didn't think it as much an issue as if I was bolding my own words, which I've mostly avoided here (the starting paragraph in the Consensus section is the one exception I can think of).
 +
 
 +
::::I would like to try the [[WP:BRD]] page's outline of resolving this dispute, as there seems little alternative at this point save arbitration, but since this is a protected page, am not sure I will be able to do so.  And yes, all the language being quoted was from the articles except for a few points towards the end.  It made it tough to tell since I left the original double quotation marks from the page in instead of changing them to single quote marks.
 +
 
 +
::::You're also right it may just be an instance of my using an overly bold edit at the beginning - however, to be fair I was unaware the term infanticide would be so poorly received.  Here in Illinois that term has been used quite a bit in the news during the earlier Obama election involving Alan Keyes so I was, I thought, just using a popular media term to refer to the situation that would quickly ring a bell for those who'd seen it in the news.  Once I realized how many people were unfamiliar with Obama's elections and the terminology, I quickly backed off from the term and began proposing alternatives.  I suppose it is more widely used here in the U.S. than in other countries, and I notice many are surprisingly from the U.K.  --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] ([[User talk:Jzyehoshua|talk]]) 15:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
::::I must ask: outside of this one editor's opinion (and yes, by an outsider's look it is an opinion) is this is a huge thing and not some rambling of a pro-lifer who really doesn't like the president. How has this made news today? Is it being carried on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc?  Is it a big topic in the news papers? (excluding blogs and opinion pieces)  Outside the pro-life community, is this topic really being associated with the president (I.E. the common person on the street would spout this when asked about the president?).  In all honest opinion, this looks more like a big point to extreme pro-lifers then it does to the country at large.  Finally, and more to the point, is this such a large issue, I mean really a glaring issue that everyone in the country recognizes it and believes it or questions it, to be included in this article?  [[User:Brothejr|Brothejr]] ([[User talk:Brothejr|talk]]) 09:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 +
:::::I don't think that's the proposal on the table.  Bear with this, I think we can restate the various content proposals in a focused, productive way at some point.  - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 10:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 +
::::::If it involves Keyes and infanticide, it will surely be rejected. This sort of distortion ''must'' be discouraged, because it violates [[WP:BLP]] quite seriously. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 14:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
:::::Yes, it is a major issue.  That is why I brought up its relevance by major politicians.  The fact that Alan Keyes in the 2004 senate election, Hillary Clinton in the 2008 presidential primary election, and both McCain and Palin in the 2008 general election made it a talking point against Obama should've been, I thought at least, a major red flag here.  When his last 3 major opponents in elections have all brought it up, and when it's been referenced in what at least here in the U.S. are some of the major news publications - it's pretty big.  Here in Illinois especially, it has been the major issue involving Obama that people will be familiar with.  That is why I quoted so much from the Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times, and other Illinois newspapers - to show out of state users just how major an issue this has been here in Illinois particularly.  The major newspapers and news channels have addressed it extensively, particularly during the 2004 elections.    The NRLC, primary pro-life group here in the U.S., has also been pushing the issue for years, and thus it has been a back and forth between them and Obama's campaign to the extent that major fact-checking groups like the Washington Post's Fact Checker and FactCheck.org have objectively weighed both sides.  I already quoted from the Fox News and MSNBC articles where the subject came up.  In the Consensus section, I even noted that several Fox News anchors and guests have accused Obama of infanticide:
 +
 
 +
:::::-Sean Hannity[[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xVYW-_0jVU]]
 +
:::::-Glenn Beck[[http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/27095/]]
 +
:::::-Rush Limbaugh[[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_081808/content/01125112.guest.html]]
 +
:::::-Newt Gingrich[[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/04/newt_gingrich_on_obamas_first.html]]
 +
:::::-Ann Coulter[[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xVYW-_0jVU]]
 +
:::::-Dr. Jerome Corsi[[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4tPcezL2Lg]]
 +
 
 +
:::::Also, here is another example of Fox News reporting, though in print, of coverage of the infanticide issue.[[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2008/08/19/obama-spars-with-anti-abortion-groups-over-illinois-senate-record/]]
 +
 
 +
:::::Fox News in particular has allowed this issue to be brought up many times now. 
 +
 
 +
:::::I don't follow CNN as closely but found evidence it has been addressed there as well.[[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPZCXcTwZPY]][[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3UVr01FYQA]]  The issue has received so much coverage in fact that a CNN reporter even questioned Obama for CNN about the issue.[[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skq5M1Ksp_c]]
 +
 
 +
:::::I did some more Googling and didn't find evidence yet of it being addressed by MSNBC on public television yet.  However, there is plenty of overall evidence out there.  Simply google the name of a major news network and the terms Obama infanticide (possibly video as well) and you will see for yourself.  There is plenty of sourcing out there that can be found at any time simply by using Google to search for it.  It is why it is so easy for me to find sources on this stuff at will right now.--[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] ([[User talk:Jzyehoshua|talk]]) 15:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
::::::This is beyond a joke. All the sources you have found fall into 3 distinct camps:
 +
::::::#Obama's political opponents (like Keyes) making wild unsubstantiated claims.
 +
::::::#Right-wing media pundits (the [[rogues gallery]] you list above) taking the wild unsubstantiated claims and trying to make them into a bigger deal than they are.
 +
::::::#Normal mainstream media (which does not include FOX, by the way) debunking the wild unsubstantiated claims when they are not covering runaway balloons.
 +
::::::If you really believe this stuff is important, you have been ''duped'' by the first 2 groups. You are doing exactly what they want you to do, which is to try to push their agenda into Wikipedia articles. In doing so, you are committing multiple violations of [[WP:BLP]], and quite possibly defaming Obama. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 15:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
:::::::At this point, you're going to disagree with any sources I provide.  You'll just keep [[Moving the goalpost]] no matter what I do.  First Brothejr said, "How has this made news today? Is it being carried on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc?"  Then when I provide evidence from Fox News you say it's not a news network (contrary to the prior comment he made implying it "made news today" and when I provided evidence from CNN you threw in the "runaway balloons" comment alleging that even if it could be proven CNN had covered it, that it would just be mistaken coverage anyway.  Ultimately, there's simply nothing I could do to convince users like you, so why bother?  I think it better to just accept that you and I won't agree on this, so that focus may be put on areas where Consensus can be achieved.  --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] ([[User talk:Jzyehoshua|talk]]) 16:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
::::::::What are you talking about? I did not ask those questions. You are attributing statements made by others to me. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 16:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
:::::::::I recognized it and changed it almost instantaneously (same minute) that you made the comment, when I realized it was by brothejr and not you.  --[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] ([[User talk:Jzyehoshua|talk]]) 16:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
::::::::::If the proposal is that we make some overarching comment that there is a controversy over Obama's support for abortion, or any mention that some people accuse him of infanticide, then no - BLP problems, poor sourcing, NPOV, and undue weight.  The "rogues gallery" of professional agitators mentioned above just isn't encyclopedically important, except on the rare occasion when through their outrageous prose and antics they manage their way to bootstrap their way into the national stage.  Not just because they said it -- they say lots of stuff -- but because it actually creates an impact beyond their own typical audience.  Keyes is particularly fringe-y here.  He may not have been acknowleged as such at the time but at this point as one of the more vexatiously litigious birthers his relevance and credibility level is nill.  If Keyes' primary campaign strategy in the election was to attack Obama on abortion that can be stated neutrally and is arguably worth five or six words in the section devoted to that election, more in the article on the subject.  But there's a strong counter-argument that given the election margin, his ineffective election tactics made no difference to Obama or anyone else so they aren't worth covering at all.  I think this is the weakest of the content proposals.  Best to start with the stronger ones that have more of a chance of passing scrutiny.  - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 17:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 +
{{hab}}
    
== Summary ==
 
== Summary ==
JZambrano
SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
1,134

edits

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:MobileDiff/996422"