Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:48, 21 August 2008

Template:Community article probation

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Sourced material

Seems like there is alot of "alleged" material. --70.181.45.138 (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The "alleged" material was the result of an author with a distinctly partisan point of view adding "alleged" to every documented accuracy. I have removed these comments in order to return the article to NPOV. The partisan operative will say otherwise, but needs to learn that not everyone sees his biased perspective as neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.74.8.86 (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Concerning your current behavior: Your own bias is showing in your edit summaries. You are technically correct that things such as the book's factual inaccuracies (I'm assuming that's what you meant) are well-documented in reliable sources, but you're being terribly rude. You need to assume some good faith here and stop with the insults immediately. If you insist on calling other editors names such as "racist, sexist right wing nut job" in your edit summaries, you will be banned from editing Misplaced Pages. That is immature, puerile behavior, and violates Misplaced Pages's policy on personal attacks.

Concerning CENSEI's edits: You need to stop adding weasel words to the text right now. The book is factually inaccurate, and there's no way around that. It's easily verified in the sources. This isn't about politics or how one might feel about the author or the book's subject. We all have to adhere to Misplaced Pages policy on point of view. The answer, if you are sure the book is not inaccurate, isn't to white-wash the article, it is to find verifiable, neutral, reliable sources that say so, and then ideally to compare and contrast both views, giving proper weight to each (and by that, I mean to avoid giving too much weight to a fringe view).

--GoodDamon 18:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course its factually inaccurate...because it challenges your preferred presidential candidate. Sorry GoodDamon, your bias is overtly obvious. I love how all the sources this article cites to refute the book are far left (I.e mediamatters, NYT). You know there are other more neutral sources you could cite...but you wont do that. We know. You love Obama. He's your guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk) 07:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not the NYT is biased, it's not far left by any stretch of the imagination. And regardless, it has a reputation for being about as accurate as newspapers come on straightforward factual matters like those referred to in the article. You've yet to provide any contrary sources... 78.105.202.25 (talk) 08:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Since when did I cite MediaMatters? That's not my cite. And if you think the New York Times doesn't pass muster as a reliable source, I'm not sure there's any point in further discussion. But for the record, I'm happy to cite reliable sources that refute the New York Times; if you find any, I'll see to it they're incorporated. I've been looking diligently for them myself for neutral POV, but haven't been able to find any. Until then, it really does appear, based on the reliable sources we have (not MediaMatters) that the book is factually incorrect. That's not my bias showing. --GoodDamon 17:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

And incidentally, I should also point out that you, anonymous editor, are very welcome to make your own contributions to the article. --GoodDamon 17:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR

There is at least one statement in this article that violates WP:OR:

If Murray's point is valid, we can expect to see items from the book surfaced in the mainstream media first by the Fox News Network on cable. If falsehoods, repackaged as ponderable questions, proliferate from there onto the less obviously biased news organizations, the book may have considerable impact

There are also other sections which come close to violating OR too. One section would be the Content section which should be expanded and also written in a more neutral manner. Brothejr (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Since you've removed the offending material in the other sections, I'm moving the tag to the content section. Gamaliel (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"facts" in the book vs. facts about the purpose of the book

Somebody needs to explain why these hardcover smear instruments are produced by the same group of people every four years. It is, openly and beyond a doubt, a right-wing conspiracy. Matalin's the mastermind behind the Threshold Editions imprint. Right-wing think tanks buy up huge bulk orders from Simon & Schuster which artificially propels the book to number one on the NYT bestseller list. The early August timing is key because there's not enough time between now and November 4th to refute every falsehood the book promotes. The "bestseller" status legitimizes discussion of points from the book posed as questions on cable news shows. And, finally, these "questions" overwhelm the mainstream media. This kind of smear campaign distracts the public dialogue from sufficient focus on health care, education, security, etc. Most of us can plainly see that understanding the story behind the book is much more important than understanding the book itself. Can't a wikipedia article somehow expose the game behind all this without getting too POV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.106.144.216 (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

All that may be true... and entirely inapplicable to Misplaced Pages. Please read WP:SOAP. --GoodDamon 17:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

To explain how the book got to #1 on the NYT bestseller list in one week is entirely applicable to Misplaced Pages. --219.106.144.216 (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That is a legitimate view, but there are major obstacles to presenting it as you have, here. Specifically, can this be presented in a neutral fashion? "Critics allege..." is more helpful than "This book is a right-wing conspiracy to distract the public," for our purposes. Just as important, can this be attributed/verified to reliable sources as a notable criticism? I'd invite you to bring some sources to the table, if you would be so kind. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought we could let our hair down on the Discussion page. No, of course I wouldn't post the above in the article itself. Since I don't feel very "neutral" about this, I've backed off from editing. But one of you neutral types certainly could look at the similarities with the release of Unfit For Command, and could do that in a perfectly neutral, encyclopedic way. The main question I'm posing: Is the article about the content only? Or is it also about the process? A wiki article about spam email doesn't just describe the content of a spam email, right? Spammers spam for a reason. This book was rolled out and propelled to the bestseller list at this time for a reason - to give its claims legitimacy as talking points on cable "news" shows. --219.106.144.216 (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages are for talk, after all. :) On a personal level, I agree with a fair chunk of what you're saying. I'm short on time at the moment, but let's see if I can maybe find something about this, later. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Various organizations for many decades have purchased books to boost the sales ratings. Find a reliable source that says that right wing interests used that tactic for this book and it can be added. Without such a reference, it is supposition or original research. Edison (talk) 01:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Identifying Media Matters for America

I identified Media Matters for America as a "progressive" group that was formed to counter what they see as "conservative misinformation" and added a footnote linking directly to MMA's website where I got the description. I found that description at the top of Misplaced Pages's Media Matters for America article. I'm wondering why an editor removed that (I've now put it back in the article again with a note to please discuss it here). At the MMA article, National Review is described as a "conservative" magazine in a criticism section. I have no problem at all with including criticism of Corsi's book in this article, in fact, I've added information on the criticism and made it prominent because this is a controversial book critical of someone else. But removing identification of where MMA is coming from seems completely unfair and POV. Noroton (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem was that you paraphrased their description of themselves while saying that is was the actual description. It should be their actual description or not. Also, the scare quotes around the word "progressive" were a problem. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually your most recent edit addresses that problem. Thanks. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

List of alleged falsehoods

I added a list of falsehoods to the article from Media Matters. I will go through and cite other sources besides them, although I have not as of yet. Before anyone deletes it, they need to realize that what Misplaced Pages reports is facts, and if the facts show the book to be a preposterous pack of lies, then they should still remain here. Facts must not be bent to fit political viewpoints, if they are, Misplaced Pages is no better than this book. See Also: Truthiness Wikilost (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Whatever else was in that edit, it was mostly vandalism. Don't. Arkon (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Some of your edit was vandalism and the rest, while probably true, were not referenced and very likely not relevant. It is not the point of wikipedia to refute the content of the book. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I've refrained from vandalism this time, but the point of Misplaced Pages is to report facts, if it wasn't, there wouldn't be a "Factual Inaccuracies" section in the article already. I'm merely showing the extent of those inaccuracies. Wikilost (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the point of Misplaced Pages is to use reliable sources to provide verifiable content for an encyclopedia. You need to read both of those policies, as well as WP:SOAP. --GoodDamon 21:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a sub-page with a table of the claims. It doesn't seem to fit, but noting what is disputed should be included in some fashion. Iii33lll (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The Obama Campaign has just released a 41-page rebuttal on PDF. See: Jonathan Martin's blog on Politico. --Ohaohashingo (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine leaving it on this article, as it doesn't seem excessively large, but if the only reason to exclude is length, a "list of..." page as Iii33lll suggests would be workable. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Some of the "inaccuracies" I've read about are things that could have different interpretations or that Corsi disputes. We should be citing on the page who says a particular thing is an inaccuracy and attributing the charge to that source rather than having Misplaced Pages baldly state something is inaccurate -- unless it's air-tight. I haven't gone through the whole list, but it's early in the debate about this book and Corsi will likely have responses. The list should start with "The book has been criticized as inaccurate in these ways:" In fact, I'm going to be bold and make that change now. Also, I'm changing the title of this section, per WP:TALK -- Noroton (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I've followed behind you and rephrased things a bit further. Tried not to make any substantial changes to meaning, but I encourage others to follow behind me and check my work. May still need more tweaking (and, as you mentioned, attribution). – Luna Santin (talk) 01:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that these aren't allegations of inaccuracies, but rather known inaccuracies. It's a well known and obvious fact, for example, that Corsi got the Obama's marriage date wrong. The same can be said for most, if not all, of the things on the list. --Wikilost —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.97.4 (talk) 02:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

General comment on standards, civility

While it is pretty clear the book is a load of old cobblers created by someone who doesn't want a Democrat to win the election, it is no excuse for biased and slipshod editing. Inflammatory titles for headings, poorly-sourced reactions and non-neutral language are creeping in all over the place. Please follow Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines with respect to WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, etc. Also, some of the comments on this talk page have been less than civil. Please assume good faith and be nice. Bear in mind that this article probably falls under the auspices of Obama-related article probation, which means everybody must behave themselves. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Kerry link

Is the link to Kerry's site appropriate? I believe I've seen it come and go, so thought we should take a moment to discuss. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not? It's a valid source. It's also a good place for people to get the real story on this book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilost (talk • contribs) 21:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It's relevant for several reasons: 1) It has received press. 2) It is by someone Corsi attacked in a similiar manner lact president election. There aren't going to be any other websites put up by former presidential canidates attacked by Corsi. Iii33lll (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It's relevant, but I don't think it passes muster with WP:RS or WP:V. Perhaps as an external link? --GoodDamon 22:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yeah. Obviously it's partisan, I hadn't been thinking of it as a source (though it could still be used to source its own claims if needed, I would think). Currently it's linked twice, I think, once in-line when it's first mentioned, and then again as one of our three external links. Seems that's supported by consensus; was just looking to clear that up. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Corsi's "pro-white" promotion

Should we discuss Corsi's interviews, including his scheduled appearance on the The Political Cesspool Radio Show, which says it "represent a philosophy that is pro-White"? Source Iii33lll (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Given that the subject of the article deals directly with controversial racial principles, I would say yes. — goethean ॐ 22:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it may be more appropriate for his article. However, a passing mention in this article may be reasonable, depending on the circumstances. --Tom (talk - email) 22:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama's response is going to talk about Corsi's racist comments made on Free Republic. So maybe there can be a section on Corsi's views along with this. We66er (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd say sure. May be a bit more to write about after his appearance, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Critical reception section

OK, it's fairly obvious that the overwhelming majority of news sources find the book to be full of holes. At this point, I'm thinking that section should be broken up into three or more subsections, indicating the response to the book from:

• News sources
• The political campaigns (when/if McCain's campaign has a response)
• The response from left and right punditry

There's no getting around the fact that it's going to be heavily weighted in the negatives... WaPo, NYT, AP, MSNBC, CNN, and the rest of the big news outlets have released news articles -- ones that are notably not opinion pieces -- stating that the book is largely inaccurate. These are our reliable, verifiable sources, and that's going to shape the article. But we can at least try to balance that by getting the responses from related parties into the article as well. And we absolutely have to get rid of the MediaMatters citations... If a reliable source vets their information and determines it's accurate, we can use that reliable source. But I don't think MediaMatters ever qualifies as reliable by Misplaced Pages standards. --GoodDamon 01:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

How does media matters not qualify as reliable? They fact-checked the book, and published several reports showing what slander it is. They may be controversial, but they have reliable sources backing them up in all of their assertions. People may not like MediaMatters, but they are a reliable source. At the very least, they could go in the Left/Right Punditry section you suggested, were it to take shape. Wikilost

It could certainly go there, and external links to it would be fine, but as far as Misplaced Pages policies are concerned (WP:V and most importantly, WP:RS), I don't think it qualifies for citations. They're not a news organization, they're a liberal/progressive politics promoting organization. Seriously, read those Misplaced Pages policies. It'll make more sense afterward. --GoodDamon 02:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything "fringe" or "extremist" about Media Matters. They are certainly left leaning, but that doesn't make their facts any less valid. As long as the article doesn't reflect that bias, I don't see the problem. Wikilost —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.97.4 (talk) 04:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not disputing their facts. But seriously, read the policies I've listed, especially WP:RS. Regardless of how accurate they are, I don't think they pass muster any more than WorldNetDaily. --GoodDamon 05:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

MediaMatters is not really considered a reliable source, which is why references to it must be qualified (in the same way as right-leaning sites of a similar nature must be). These sorts of sites should only be used when others are not available, and certainly not for any opinion-related stuff. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I don't get it. Many here have asked for balance. GoodDamon him/herself above suggested that we include "The response from left and right punditry." I quoted Sean Hannity verbatim and provided a link to video. Immediately came this change with a rather snide remark Editor GoodDamon gives the reason: "Har-de-har-de-har, but you can't possibly think that'll fly." Why "har-de-har..."? What part of that wouldn't "fly"? I think we need to show plainly how Fox is using this book. --Ohaohashingo (talk) 06:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC) I mean, maybe my first draft of that tiny section wasn't worded perfectly but certainly a section for "Uncritical reception" of the book is called for here. --Ohaohashingo (talk) 06:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC) In other words, I don't think anyone editing here would disagree that the UNcritical reception was most likely the main purpose of the publishing of The Obama Nation. We can't reference people's motives. I understand that. But we can post quotes of Sean Hannity where he recommends that the book be read by all Americans before election day. That is a fact. It's also a fact that he raised none of the concerns mentioned in the "Critical reception" section of this article. So, why not an "Uncritical reception" section based completely on verifiable references? --Ohaohashingo (talk) 06:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You cannot use a YouTube video as a reference. The only way you can put Hannity's comments into the article is if you find a reliable source that quotes them. GoodDamon should not be using inflammatory edit summaries, but I imagine it was a response to the lack of any usable reference. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a note... I literally thought Ohaohashingo was joking with that addition. The "har-de-har" stuff was because I figured he/she must have known the language and citation used wouldn't be allowed to stay. I'm sorry if my edit summary came off as inflammatory, because I didn't mean it that way. --GoodDamon 14:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I'm a newbie, not a prankster.--Ohaohashingo (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I see. Well, if YouTube isn't a reliable reference, then I guess it can't be included. I defer to both of you. The article still needs an "Uncritical response" section. In the clip, Hannity does in fact tell his audience that Corsi's book contains "allegations that every American should hear before election day." I found it interesting that Hannity could come right out and summarize the game so succinctly. It's a book full of allegations, and they want as many voters as possible to get the allegations into their minds before election day. Whether the allegations all prove false is beside the point. If this year is anything like 2004 with the Swift Boat crap, it'll probably be 2009 before each falsehood is finally put to rest. So, it doesn't seem that the "critical reaction" matters that much. Spending most of this wiki article debunking allegations is like falling for the trick itself and feeds the artificial controversy. The only approach that can objectively explain the political strategy that the book plays into is to create a section that exposes the uncritical reaction. Our encyclopedic task could be just to describe a bestseller or it could be to place that bestselling book within a wider strategy for smearing Democratic presidential candidates. If anyone has the skill to source a section that would objectively do the latter, please do! I'm getting less and less neutral the more I follow this.--Ohaohashingo (talk) 12:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I could have stated that more simply. Corsi is in the allegation business. He doesn't care whether the allegations can be shown to be false. The talk radio and cable news shows that have him on uncritically don't care either. If I were less partisan and more skillful at wiki'ing, I'd try to show this in the wiki article just by naming the shows that have had him on and noting whether they're uncritical. --Ohaohashingo (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for a bespoke "uncritical reaction" section. Both positive and negative reaction can fall under the same heading ("critical" encompasses both positive and negative critique). Moreover, we do not need to feed Misplaced Pages readers Hannity's regurgitated talking points as some kind of defense of the book, as that would simply be extending Corsi's smear campaign to this medium - that is something for blogs to do, not encyclopedias. Reliably-sourced reviews, both positive and negative, are acceptable for inclusion in this section (in moderation). -- Scjessey (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

To me, talk radio and cable "news" aren't giving the book a positive critique so much as a non-critique. Facticity is beside the point. The book apparently wasn't written for the sake of knowledge or even for the sales revenues, so I don't know why Misplaced Pages should treat it as an ordinary political bestseller and not as a smear tool. The intentionally false allegations are the product. The consumers are these talk radio and cable "news" shows. Am I mistaken?

• I have no problem mentioning Sean Hannity's comments if we can be sure they're his -- does he post them at the web site for his TV or radio show? You might want to get them quick because he might be eating his words later. He's got a good-sized audience so his opinions are prominent enough to include, I think. Same with Media Matters -- I think if we present them as we do, as a "progressive" group, and attribute any of their allegations to them, and then put in any response Corsi will make (and I'm sure he'll have a written response somewhere on the Web), then it seem to be a pretty fair back-and-forth presentation of a contentious book. We might split up the bulleted list by source, with introductory lines like "Media Matters for America, a website that describes itself as ____, has said the book is inaccurate in these ways:" or something like that (I liked Luke's edit in introducing the list of points). I think it's widely accepted that MMA is a biased source and there's a lot of potential for inaccuracy, so I wouldn't present their assertions for their value as facts, but I think their analysis has some value as opinion. I expect more reliable sources to weigh in (The New Yorker maybe, The New Republic, The Weekly Standard, etc.) and when they do, assertions by Media Matters can be replaced by those sources making the same points. Noroton (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Calling this an "attack book" in the first sentence

An editor is reverting, pushing to get "attack book" in the first sentence. I think we shouldn't be using a name like that without on-the-page citation to some reliable source, and I wouldn't put it that high up in the article. We do something similar with the word "terrorist" (see WP:TERRORIST). I'm also not sure what that phrase tells us that we don't already have in the article now, presented in a better, more detailed way. Noroton (talk) 02:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. That phrase has to go. --GoodDamon 02:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I inserted the word "attack". It was cited to the NYT article. Is there a question with the sourcing? — goethean ॐ 02:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

And so it is: Almost exactly four years after that campaign began, Mr. Corsi has released a new attack book From the NYT article. Hadn't noticed that. I don't think I'd put it in the first sentence though, or even the first paragraph. I have no objection to using the phrase, if sourced explicitly on the page, anywhere else in the article. The Washington Post has a Friday editorial now online here that calls the book a "hit job". I think if the reliable sources are going to pile on those kinds of phrases, we should reflect that. It seems to me we shouldn't have phrases like these in the top paragraph though unless they become very, very prevalent in reliable sources. Which may happen. Noroton (talk) 04:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

As with Noroton, I'd be fine mentioning this with attribution, somewhere, but probably not in the lead sentence -- if NPOV is important throughout a page, it is probably doubly so in its opening line. I figured I had enough trouble calling it a "controversial" book in the lead, earlier. :p – Luna Santin (talk) 04:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipipedia editor calls it an "attack book" = O.R. NY Times calls it an "attack book"= critical reception from a reliable source, and shoud be included with attribution. If Fox News or the Wall Street Journal calls it "gospel truth" that could also be added per NPOV. Media Matters stacks up well against Fox News as a "fair and balanced news source" just with a different perspective. Edison (talk) 01:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Surely you jest, sir. Arjuna (talk) 05:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Censorship of the attacks

I apologize for posting here, as a layman who knows nothing about Misplaced Pages's editorial process, standards, and how it deliberates over controversial material. However I must point out that the entry looks absolutely ridiculous. After reading a headline about the Obama campaign issuing a 40-page response to an attack book I hadn't heard about, I headed straight to Misplaced Pages to find out more. I found a paragraph-long "Content" section devoid of all content, and three pages of criticism and rebuttals to... whatever the actual allegations were, since they've apparently been censored out (if they haven't been censored, and this is simply a case of lack of access or of willing editors, or of something else along these lines I'm not aware of, please forgive this post.)

However false and malicious and deleterious and derelict these attacks may be, if the Obama campaign is going to fuel the controversy by dignifying them with a response, hand-waving and self-censorship are not the answer. If you're afraid of contributing to the injection of falsehoods into the campaign, then by all means prefix each individual allegation with a warning and follow it with copious amounts of debunking and rebuttal. But now that this stuff has become news and it's been responded to, refusing to cover the attacks while covering the criticism and rebuttals is so Orwellian that it's pretty much laughable. Not even Bush's wartime Psy-Ops or the Chinese containment efforts on Falun Gong and Tibet are so outlandish.

That said, I'm not gonna go and spend any more time trying to dig out what the heck the allegations are, and I'm certainly not buying the book or feeding ad money to the extremist websites that come up when I google for them. I doubt there's any truth to them, and knowing more about them won't improve my level of political preparation or savvy. If this is the state you wanted me to be in, you've achieved your goal. But even if I ever found out what they were, I like to think that false allegations wouldn't have influenced my judgement of Obama. Perhaps I'm smarter than the average Misplaced Pages reader, or perhaps you think I'm actually dumber than I think I am. 66.166.20.194 (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The actual "content" that you are referring to (the stuff in the book) can only be put in the article if (a) it does not contradict Misplaced Pages's rules concerning potentially libelous material, and (b) it can be sourced reliably. Part of the problem is that the book has only been recently published, so there is a lack of reliable information to include. Much of what is available comes from "debunkers", which is why it might seem as if the article is biased against the author. As time passes, the availability of quality references will improve, so the standard of the article will improve in tandem. In the rush to get an article out about this, things like WP:RECENT have been ignored (resulting in a lower quality article). -- Scjessey (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand, thanks for the clarification! 66.166.20.194 (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed material about Corsi that is irrelevant to this book

I removed this passage:

The New York Times reported on a Youtube video which mocks Mr. Corsi for a Jan. 29 interview on Alex Jones' radio show. According to the paper, "The clip has Mr. Corsi discussing the findings of Steven Jones, physicist and hero of the 9/11 Truth Movement who claims to have evidence that the World Trade Center towers collapsed due to explosives inside the building, not just the planes hitting them, during the attacks." Obama's campaign has criticized Corsi for these claims.

I don't see what this has to do with the book. It's good, interesting information on Corsi, and if it isn't in our bio article on Corsi, I'm all for putting it in, but it's not about this book. The passage might be a WP:COATRACK problem. Let's not put it back in the article unless there's a consensus here to do so. Am I missing something? Noroton (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine, but that he was written conspiracies is relevant as his position and current work also speaks about the credibility of his work. As Corsi even notes, people have called his claims on the North American Union "a crazy conspiracy." Iii33lll (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if we should say something about Corsi's background that would touch on that. If he writes a lot about conspiracies or fringe subjects, it seems to me that's relevant, but it would be much, much better to make a broader statement than just focus in on one thing. Maybe a paragraph in which this is mentioned and which mentions similar things, combined with the fact that he co-authored the Swiftboat book in 2004 and other background information would be a good background paragraph. In that context, this seems like it would be relevant, and I think a consensus of editors would support it. Noroton (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I just saw this passage, and I'm removing it as well because it's about Corsi and not about the book, and because it's presented without context, although I think it, too, could be used in a background paragraph or paragraphs:

John Hawkins of Human Events, a conservative paper Corsi writes for, explained: "I don't think Corsi is any more worthy of being taken seriously than those who think Jews rule the world or the 'Truthers' who think President Bush is responsible for 9/11."

Noroton (talk) 18:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of commentary

And I've removed all the POV stuff you just added from neo-con blogs and opinion sites. Reliable sources only, please. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey, there is no prohibition on commentary added as commentary from reliable sources. These sources are prominent (in the case of Hewitt and Townhall.com) and reliable (National Review Online is attached to National Review magazine). I'm not including them for factual information. I find it one-sided on your part to be removing this while not removing Media Matters information (which I also think should be in the article.) This was criticism of the Obama campaign move, and criticism is allowed when presented as criticism. What is the policy basis of your removal? Noroton (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

As has previously been discussed (and I expand on this in my previous comment), National Review is not considered to be a reliable source. Nor are The New Republic, The Nation, or any similar "agenda-based" sources. These sources should only be used when referred to by others. For example, if WaPo writes something that quotes somebody writing in NR. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This was the passage Scjessey removed:

Conservative commentators said the Obama campaign's response wasn't always accurate itself, and it gave the book more publicity, likely resulting in higher sales. Jim Geraghty, writing in the "Campaign Spot" blog on National Review Online, criticized the Obama campaign response for bringing up but not refuting Corsi's critcism that Obama would have been aware of the famous, controversial past of Bill Ayers during the time Obama knew and worked with him. Radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt, in his blog, called the Obama campaign's point about Ayers unconvincing. Hewitt also said, "Obama seems to have made a huge mistake in attempting to spin many of these charges. Most of them are matters of opinion — such as the interpretation of Michelle Obama's 'not been proud of America' comment or whether Hamas endorsed Obama. Corsi is the happiest man in the world tonight because Obama's team not only gave him a few million dollars of publicity, they also failed to discredit him completely."

Footnotes:

• Levin, Yuval, "Fighting the Last War", August 14, 2008, 4:53 p.m. post at "The Corner" blog at National Review Online website, retrieved August 15, 2008
• Geraghty, Jim, "Is the Obama Campaign Asserting The Candidate Didn't Know of Ayers' Past?", August 15, 2008, 8:43 a.m. post at "Campaign Spot" blog at National Review Online website, retrieved August 15, 2008
• Hewitt, Hugh, "The Obama Push Back: "Ayers and Dohrn Are Members Of The Establishment"", "Hugh Hewitt" blog at Town Hall website, August 14, 2008, 6:55 p.m., retrieved August 15, 2008

Further justification for keeping it in: What the Obama campaign does about this book is important because it greatly affects the public's knowledge of and perception of this book, therefore when there's prominent criticism of what the campaign did, it's reasonable to have that criticism mentioned in our article. Geraghty and Hewitt are widely known commentators, and many political websites and others quote each of them and comment on what they say, so this is prominent criticism. If the Obama campaign's own response contains inaccuracies, there should be nothing wrong with pointing that out. That's important. Noroton (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

All of those sources are neo-con blogs. Please don't try to tell me these are "reliable sources". IF the Obama campaign response contains "inaccuracies", these must be brought to light by a reliable source. Neo-con blogs cannot be trusted to be neutral in this respect, can they? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to be removing critical comments because criticism is inherently POV, then we can remove the Media Matters material as well. It's also going to make a "Critical reviews" section kind of difficult. Noroton (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you read my comment about Media Matters, or did you just ignore it? -- Scjessey (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see it before I posted. I'm a bit confused, are you referring to the section just below? Please take another look at the passage and follow the Geraghty source. I think it says there that some of Obama's rebuttal points are not just differences over facts but differences over interpretation, which is the realm of political spin and journalistic commentary. These are sources for their own opinions about that. This is offered as criticism, not for the facts. Whether or not Obama would have known about Ayers past and whether or not the campaign's rebuttal points are convincing and good strategy are matters of opinion. This is absolutely allowed by WP:Reliable sources. Noroton (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am referring to the section about the quality of sources below. Just to be clear, a high percentage of the sources are of poor quality. Adding material with yet more low quality sourcing is not at all helpful. Your addition was "responding to the response", but we still haven't provided adequate sourcing for the response. That is why this sort of thing is more suited to Wikinews. Misplaced Pages's rigorous polcies cannot cope with these fast-moving media circuses very well. Everybody needs to be PATIENT and let the story mature a little. That way, we can write the article properly and with a sense of perspective. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the Geraghty source is still pure POV from a neo-con. It's his opinion, and he gives it in the "blog" part of a partisan source. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Which is allowed by WP:RS#News organizations. Please address my point that, according to that passage in the Reliable Sources policy, we are allowed to note opinion. By the way, your calling National Review authors "neo-cons" is inaccurate. Unless they say otherwise, you can always assume they are what National Review says it is: "conservative". (forgot to add signature, here it is, a bit late) -- Noroton (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You want to put in opinions about Obama campaign statements, not opinions about the subject itself (the book). So no, you are wrong about what it says at WP:RS because it doesn't apply in this case. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

In terms of WP:RS it's irrelevant what's being criticized. Noroton (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Anyone else care to weigh in on this? Noroton (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. The blogs and such have to go. There can be a section for reviews of the book from supporters and detractors alike, but non-WP:RS sources cannot be used to support statements of fact about a book. A blog or political site like MM or WND can only be used as sources for articles or sections about themselves. It's perfectly valid, for instance, to use a MM website to support a statement like "Media Matters describes itself as foo..." but it can't be used to support statements like "It is a fact that bar..." --GoodDamon 19:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The passage I added was about opinions. If you look at Geraghty's short blog post here, you'll see it's about opinion and is analyzing the Obama response, going into some detail on one example. It's not a question of relying on Geraghty or the others to report facts but to cover opinions concerning an aspect of the reception of the book. Noroton (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I could see something like that going into a section specifically devoted to such opinions. I'd feel better about including them if those opinions are also mentioned in a WP:RS ref that can be incorporated. --GoodDamon 19:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Blogs by professional journalissts, even professional opinion journalists, comply with WP:RS. We don't have enough material for a separate section on criticism of the Obama response, and I doubt it will be important enough to create a separate section. Misplaced Pages policy (or maybe a guideline) prefers that criticism be weaved into an article as much as possible anyway, to help keep it in context. Noroton (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, although I'd say they should be weighted appropriately as opinion pieces. Statements of fact in a news article should carry more weight. Anyways, go ahead, be bold, and edit away! --GoodDamon 20:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• No one else is commenting. Unless someone does by tomorrow, I'll add back some of the material removed and say its per consensus of this talk page. Noroton (talk) 01:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are only conservative responses to the campaign response included? Gamaliel (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now that Tapper is back in, it isn't an all-conservative paragraph, but it is an all-negative paragraph. Surely there must be someone who thought that Obama's response was a good idea? Gamaliel (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Go right ahead and add in the cheers to Obama's response. I'm sure someone praised it. In fact, I think it's a good idea to add that. There's a whole meme about how a campaign should be forceful in responding to criticism, so I think that's a good idea. Please see my next comment and the "Jake Tapper" section below. Noroton (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) See explanation below at Talk:The Obama Nation#Jake Tapper where I also mentioned that I added back a shorter version of Jake Tapper's response. Think of the response to criticism at Media Matters for America and keep in mind that the Obama response is very important in terms of understanding the subject of the article. Since it's so important, criticism of that response also needs to be mentioned. I think any further discussion should take place at the Jake Tapper section, below. Noroton (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(ecX2) I disagree with all of this material as a blatant WP:COATRACK. It's using the section on Obama's response to: (1) mention the book's publicity; (2) accuse Obama of inaccuracy - even if it is true that Obama's response is less than perfect it is a significant weight problem for Misplaced Pages to use the occasion of Obama's response to a book full of partisan fabrications to accuse Obama of inaccuracies; (3) repeat criticism of Obama by people other than the book's author; (4) repeat / use as a source to impugn Obama two partisan posts by Obama opponents on a conservative blog; and (5) mention the Bill Ayers Republican talking point again - twice (once in text, another by simply pointing to a conservative blog on the subject). Of all of this, the only colorably neutral piece is the Tapper material because that's netural and possibly (or possibly not) a reliable source. I would argue not reliable enough - a presumably neutral commentator opining that a candidate is "rewriting history" is opining, not conducting journalism. There is no consensus to add this material and it's on the very subject that got us to article probation in the first place - coatracking Obama articles with spurious material about Ayers, Wright, and Rezko - in this case, Ayers.Wikidemo (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(following the ec) No, I don't think that reporting partisan praise of Obama's response to balance out the partisan criticism of Obama's response fixes anything. Balanced partisanship makes the whole thing more partisan, not less. This article is about the book, not a political forum for critiquing Obama. Moreover, a 50/50 balance of support and opposition to Obama's response neutralizes Obama's words, which are a 95% accurate response to a partisan attack. Treating the response itself as something to scrutinize gives credence to the book itself. We shouldn't be getting into this at all. Simply report how various notable involved / related parties have responded to the book, (perhaps) how a few reliable sources have described or reviewed the book, and if there's any fallout of encylcopedic importance we can report that too. But not a debate on the merits of Obama. Wikidemo (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's NOT have this discussion in two different places. My response at Talk:The Obama Nation#Jake Tapper. -- Noroton (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed unsourced WP:BLP-violating allegation about Corsi allegedly making stuff up

I removed this item from the list:

• Keith Obermann show also showed that some of Corsi's footnotes are quotes from himself, thus means he made up of a lot of material.

First, it's unsourced. Second, it's accusing Corsi of lies. If that can be proven with reliable sourcing, then WP:BLP is satisfied. But not until then. Do not add it back without reliable sourcing. There is NO 3RR rule for removing obvious WP:BLP violations unless there is a consensus to include it. Anyone adding it back risks getting blocked, and let's not have that happen. Be careful, please. Noroton (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with this removal. As I said earlier, comments from folks like Olbermann and Hannity are only "admissible" if their words are quoted in reliable sources. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. There's a big difference between "Corsi is apparently wrong" and "Corsi is a liar". --GoodDamon 19:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable source warning

This article is currently relying heavily on Media Matters for America for sourcing. This article, while not specifically a biography of a living person, concerns the biographical details of Barack Obama; therefore, the BLP rules should be followed as closely as possible. BLPs are expected to use a generally higher standard of sourcing than other articles, and sites like Media Matters for America and National Review are not really suitable. Neither are opinion pieces and blog entries, or links to videos, etc. Mainstream media sources are preferred, and should replace older references based on these lower quality sources as soon as possible. Please do not add new material unless it can be reliably sourced. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Although this is a WP:BLP-related article, anything related to Obama here falls under the WP:WELLKNOWN part of WP:BLP. I think it's worth pasting the short WP:Reliable Sources#News organizations passage here:

Further information: Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons

Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as The Washington Post, The Times in Britain, and The Associated Press. However, great care must be taken to distinguish news reporting from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact. When citing opinion pieces from newspapers or other mainstream news sources, in-text attribution should be given. When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used.

There is a gray area between opinion and reporting when sources discuss this. Commentators from reputable publications and the blogs of reputable publications will have notable, relevant opinions and criticism about aspects of this, and since a lot of this is about accuracy, someone's opinion that something is accurate or inaccurate is highly relevant here. This is why I think we should have information here from Media Matters for America, because that organization, while not a news organization (or if it is one, a highly opinionated one) has relevant opinions. It's statements have been very prominent in the debate over this book. Let's present its criticism as opinion and lets allow other opinions to be presented on the page, sourced on the page to the commentators. WP:BLP and WP:RS were not meant to protect either Obama or Corsi from criticism or negative publicity. And we're not protecting anyone from anything if we don't cover widely reported criticism. Noroton (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, WP:WELLKNOWN isn't a free pass to write anything you want. Misplaced Pages is not a blog, or a gossip column, or a soapbox. Any addition must also follow WP:RS, WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NPOV and (crucially) WP:WEIGHT. Of all of these, WP:WELLKNOWN is the least important policy. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently trying to purge MM from the article. PLEASE, people... Stop adding refs to blogs and politically-affiliated media watchdogs! --GoodDamon 18:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed - this is exactly what I have been advocating. Let's clean things up a bit before moving forward. Incidentally, we also need to purge all the external links from the body of the article. Those belong in the references. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey, we shouldn't be focusing on WP:WEIGHT while the article is under major expansion, because you can't possibly judge weight until the page gets at least a bit more stable. This is essentially a stub-class article until we get more information on content, and if we had to subject the criticism end of it to WP:WEIGHT at this point, it would be about a paragraph long. As to your comment on Misplaced Pages is not a blog, or a gossip column, or a soapbox. you're implicitly assuming bad faith. I've found the editors here pretty flexible and not always knowledgeable, so please continue to follow WP:AGF. Your comments seem to assume no criticism is allowed touching on living persons. Not so. And blogs written by professional journalists, including professional opinion journalists, are within WP:RS guidelines, as has been pointed out elsewhere on this page, with the entire passage quoted. -- Noroton (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily is a reliable source for what Corsi claims, such as this March 2008 post. Iii33lll (talk) 23:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Content section

I've noticed that a lot of the content for criticism of the book could also be used to fill in details about the book's content itself. Anyone up for tackling that? --GoodDamon 19:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The book itself is widely available (selling for what, $15 or so on Amazon?), and if someone has it at hand, that might prevent a lot of inaccuracies (explicit or implied) about the shape of the content. I'm a bit dubious about providing much about content from sources highly critical of it. I think some reviews should be out soon, and that might provide much better sourcing, in addition to the book itself. Aren't content sections typically taken directly from a book, even though it's a primary source? (I'm not sure what our best practices are regarding that.) Noroton (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

True, but using the book itself as a source for explanations of content has its own problems. There is a danger of WP:OR if someone is reading the book and summarizing what is in the book. Also, there are notability problems in that we would need a specific reason (ie., frequent mention in reliable sources) to discuss specific passages. Otherwise it's just an attempt to push (for or against) the POV of the author. This article is about the book, not a Cliff's Notes version of the book or a rebuttal to it. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Gee, sorry, I don't seem to have the $15 needed to buy a copy right now. Regrets to the author/publisher. Edison (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Then checkit out from the library. I borrowed a friend's copy after he was done with it and read it cover to cover. Proportionately, it has about as many trivial factual errors as a typical daily newspaper, which would generally define it as a reliable source under WP:RS. WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is a grotesque WP:NPOV violation

Any editor wondering why WP has a reputation for left-wng bias need look no farther than here. Pick the two criticisms that are most notable, from the most reliable sources, and delete the rest. That does not include Media Matters, a partisan left-wing spin-doctoring operation.

Every left-wing blog that has ever had a negative thing to say about this book has apparently been cited here as if it was the gold standard of WP:RS. About 80% of the article is criticism. Come on, people. If you woke up tomorrow morning and the Barack Obama biography had this much criticism from this many unreliable sources, your screeching would be heard all the way to Antarctica and every editor involved would be topic banned for a year.

Please try to control your left-wing bias and write an NPOV article. Please. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

General claims don't interest us. Specifically, what claims come from unreliable sources? WP:NPOV means all views get their say, it doesn't mean "being" nice by ignoring cited criticism. Iii33lll (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Balance.

Balance.

Balance.

Adolf Hitler doesn't contain this much criticism. Upon further review, this article is also being used as a WP:COATRACK for a cheap shot against McCain. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, but a lot of this is addressed in some of the sections above. Please comment there. You, Scjessey and GoodDamon seem to be in agreement about Media Matters. I tend to worry that we'll miss something by not having information from them that can be considered opinion, not necessarily factual reporting. I think articles about contentious subjects should reflect the fact that they're contentious and some comments from blogs are OK for that, although comments from blogs written by professionals are even better. It shouldn't be thought of as cut and dried. I'd be interested in your responses in some of the sections above. Noroton (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from opinion sites and such are OK, as long as they're not used as references for things like statements of fact as I mentioned above. I actually agree with you, in that there should be a specific section devoted to response from folks on both sides of the aisle who have read it. But it just came out a few days ago; we gotta give folks besides the news organizations some time to read it. --GoodDamon 19:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

General observation: NPOV policies explicitly exclude fringe views in presenting a tone of neutrality. Since Corsi's POV can reliably be characterized as fringe, to discuss his views in an context other than as fringe would itself be a violation of WP:NPOV. Arjuna (talk) 01:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Even a fringe POV must be treated in an NPOV manner. As CENSEI commented on my User Talk page, as long as that attitude persists at Misplaced Pages, Misplaced Pages will continue to be an extension of MyBarackObama.org. While views expressed by Corsi elsewhere (such as his 9/11 conspiracy theory espousal) could arguably be described as fringe views, the vast majority of this particular book has stated concerns that have been expressed by notable mainstream voices, from Hillary Clinton to the National Review. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Specifics? You commented about "many unreliable sources". What unreliable sources? Give examples. How do we fix the problem if you don't tell us? The article represents sources printed and not many reliable media are taking his claim seriously. Also your Hitler claim is absurd: Category:Adolf Hitler is very negative. I suggest you stick to proving your claim about "many unreliable sources" and stay away from heated rhetoric. Iii33lll (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Bring some meaningful proposals to the table, then? Doesn't do much good to complain this way if you're unwilling to even try meeting other users halfway. Specifics would be good. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Who was it that said "The first party to bring up Hitler in a debate automatically loses?" Edison (talk) 01:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe you're referring to Godwin's Law, coined on Usenet by Misplaced Pages's own Mike Godwin. --Clubjuggle /C 01:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

And you're misstating Godwin's Law. It's the first person who calls his opponent a Nazi who loses the debate. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Arjuna's right about fringe views. If this was a case of right vs. left, editors could provide balance and avoid expressing their own points of view. But this isn't right vs. left. It's dirty vs. clean. Doesn't call for "balance." --Ohaohashingo (talk) 02:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the comment CENSEI was referring to on my User Talk page when observing that as long as this attitude is prevalent at Misplaced Pages, Misplaced Pages will continue to be an extension of MyBarackObama.org. See my comment above. Expressing concerns about Obama's close links with an America-hating radical preacher, a pair of unrepentant terrorists and a fundraiser recently convicted on 16 felony counts related to fundraising is not a fringe view. It is, in fact, a thoroughly reasonable and mainstream view that's shared on both the center left and the center right. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If no one minds, I'm going to fire up my chainsaw and start chopping the criticism down to levels I've seen on Good Articles and Featured Articles. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to do that. It is has been clearly demonstrated by mainstream media that virtually everything in the book is lies and hearsay, so the criticism of the book is appropriately weighted. Your lack of civility in your comments above is a clear violation of the article probation, by the way, so you might want to take it down a notch. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

What's been demonstrated in the mainstream media is that it has a significant number of errors regarding the completely trivial stuff like the date of Obama's wedding, or whether he mentioned in his book that he took his wife with him when he went to Africa. Corsi missed with his rubber bands and BB guns, but his heavy artillery is right on target. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

In your opinion, you mean. MSM seems unanimous in saying that this is a pack of lies written by a crackpot who thinks oil isn't a fossil fuel. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Worker Bee is right on target. The mainstream media have addressed largely trivial points in their criticism and this page as it stands ignores the substance of Corsi's work (e.g. details of Rezko affiliations}. Hopefully this article can be edited to reflect more balance and become not just another of "Obama's supporter pages". Umbertoumm (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not the purpose of wikipedia to delve into the "substance of Corsi's work" but rather indicate the notability and circumstances of the publication of the book. Remember, this article is about the book itself, not about the subject matter or content of the book. Whether you agree or not, the mainstream media routinely refers to the book as factually inaccurate when discussing it and this should be indicated here. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

We're letting the discussion be derailed. WP:NPOV is not negotiable. It applies to every article on Misplaced Pages, even this one. Even if the book's contents are genuinely fringe - a point I do not concede - they must be addressed in an NPOV manner. That means no more than 20% of the article should contain criticism. It violates WP:NPOV and - oh golly, what was that policy that keeps getting thrown in my face at Talk:Barack Obama? WP:WEIGHT. Yeah, that's it. This article is not called Criticism of "The Obama Nation." WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Where did you get that 20% figure from? That's rather absurd. The notability of this book is inseparable from its controversy. Every reliably sourced news item I've read about this book emphasizes that the book is factually inaccurate so it would violate NPOV not to mention this. Further, the comparison to biographical articles is incorrect as this is not a WP:BLP. It does, however, have to maintain the standards of WP:BLP where information about Corsi or Obama are concerned. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

WorkerBee, you've been such a busy bee. The mainstream consensus is that the book is fringe and full of coarse innuendo. Does NPOV require us to balance hate with non-hate? Slime with non-slime? Here's an article representative of the reception the book has received: Obama vs. the lunatic fringe. The book isn't simply an assault on Obama. It's an assault on the decency of our public discourse. So, it's not surprising that Wiki editors wouldn't be able to give it the usual left-right balance. Also see: Corsi's Obama book: facts or 'slime'?. --Ohaohashingo (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that The_Case_Against_Barack_Obama gets balanced treatment. The Obama Nation doesn't get such a charitable read, but that apparently reflects a difference between the books where one is serious (right-wing) scholarship and the other is slimy insinuendo.--Ohaohashingo (talk) 23:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The edit is supported by Umbertoumm and CENSEI; and GoodDamon agrees that MMA is not a reliable source. So please don't pretend the edit was unilateral. Creating an article that consists entirely of criticism, much of it poorly sourced in a partisan blog like MMA, is clearly a violation of WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT and WP:COATRACK. WorkerBee74 (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for a decision on consensus

All those in favor of reverting my most recent article edit, which was a huge step toward ending WP:COATRACK status and the WP:NPOV and WP:RS violations, state your support below along with policy based reasons.

• Strongly Oppose for the reasons stated. WorkerBee74 (talk) 00:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly Support. The facts may make this book look bad, but it's not out fault if they do. We can add more to the content section to add balance, someone found that the NYT posted the entire first chapter online. I am also reverting this edit until consensus is reached. Also, WP:Coatrack is an opinion piece, NOT an official policy. Hence the tag at the top reading: "you may heed it or not". Wikilost (talk) 00:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not following. What is being proposed here? Arjuna (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Arjuna. What's being asked? We66er (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

He wants to chop off about half of the criticism. He went ahead and did it, I reverted it until we get some consensus. I failed to understand what he was asking as well. I propose leaving all the criticism that does not have MMA as a source. Wikilost (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly Support. Arjuna (talk) 01:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC) Transcluded from below by Curious bystander (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose. WL does not have consensus for his repeated reverts and is approaching WP:3RR territory — which is dangerous territory when editing an article on probation. It's clear from their comments that WD and CENSEI are opposed to these repeated reverts as well. As WB74 has correctly pointed out, this article is a WP:COATRACK and that essay, while not as binding as policy, has meaning for many Wikipedians. The article, as reverted, violates WP:NPOV. I will place a warning on WL's User Talk page and restore WB74's version, which is far closer to NPOV. Curious bystander (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

There's hardly a consensus for the other version either. I've removed your warning from his talk page (see Misplaced Pages:Don't template the regulars). I noticed you haven't warned any of the other participants in this edit war, and you are participating in it as well. Gamaliel (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The burden of establishing consensus is on the editors seeking to add material. WL is the only editor who's close to the 3RR limit, hence he was the only one warned. Curious bystander (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest leaving the warnings to people who aren't in the midst of an edit war. You can assume that users who aren't newbies are aware of the rules, especially a well-known one like 3RR, and thus there is no need to warn them. Thank you for your concern, but he is not a newbie and is a regular poster on this talk page, so he is well aware of what's going on. Gamaliel (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm asking whether you support Wikilost's revert of my edit. He's confused too; he's stronglyopposing his own revert. He dismissed WP:COATRACK as if it doesn't mean anything, and ignored WP:RS and WP:NPOV as if they don't mean anything. I removed all criticism that was sourced to MMA because without that unreliable source, it's WP:OR. I also removed a snide remark from Slate that criticizes Corsi for failing to respond to an email. Failing to respond to an email is not notable. WorkerBee74 (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hate to say it, WP:Coatrack DOESN'T mean anything. It is an ESSAY. This is also an essay. They are not policy. As for RS and NPOV? I support removal of Media Matters sources, except on themselves, and for NPOV? There is no POV in this article, if the facts cause the reader to take one, that's not our responsibility. Bullshit is not on par with reason and should not be treated as such. Wikilost (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Since wikilost already made the rv, I'm confused as to what the request for consensus is about. I strongly disagree with the revision by WorkerBee74, so I think that means I Strongly Support. MMA is certainly an organization with a POV, that does not mean they are not a RS. NPOV policies apply to the article, not every single source. Instead, it would be legitimate to mention that MMA does have a POV and let readers use their judgement how to evaluate the information. Arjuna (talk) 01:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:WEIGHT. It's a section of WP:NPOV - the section your revert violates. There's a very large POV being pushed in this article: David Brock's POV. WorkerBee74 (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

WorkerBee74, WP:NPOV says "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources," not that we remove criticism. As for WP:WEIGHT, if you feel positive reviews are being ignored then add them. We66er (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It's best to get consensus before making any major changes. WorkerBee74, WIKIPEDIA IS NOT PAPER we have plently of room to include all views from the right and the left. This includes, Media Matters' opinion. Do not cut out criticism, unless the source fails WP:RS. If you want to balance the article, I suggest adding positive reviews. That's the proper way to do it rather than remove other people's hard work. If you want to remove a section start a new section on this talk and give people a day or so to work it out before moving forward. (PS I'm not sure WP:COATRACK applies here.) We66er (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

From WEIGHT: "Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all." It's obvious that the majority view is that this book is trash. If this were not the case, I might understand your complaint. However, the majority view is that this book is inaccurate. The article should show that. Wikilost (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not "obvious that the majority view is that this book is trash." That opinion is coming from the left. The mainstream, majority view is that it's partisan and that it has a significant number of trivial factual inaccuracies. WorkerBee74 (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This recent revision (since undone) had inserted ABC's criticism of Obama for America's refutations. Maybe something like that could be saved for a wiki article about the campaign's PDF, but I wonder why it's appropriate to include it here. If hundreds of reliable sources found the campaign's refutations reasonable, why would we cherry-pick Tapper's criticism and give it such weight? --Ohaohashingo (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that ABC blog post has two minor points: 1) Corsi criticism may not have been unfounded when using another's words in a speech and 2) he used "anti-semitism" instead of "anti-Israel." I think if minor issues like that are going to get included then expect a huge section outlining all the mistakes Corsi's critics allege. Also if it gets mentioned, the fact that the author still by-and-large thinks Corsi's book is incorrect should be included. We66er (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Expect a "huge section" outlining all the mistakes Corsi's critics allege. That sounds retaliatory. It's no way to run an encyclopedia that purports to be neutral. If you did not already know that, you know it now. WorkerBee74 (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

WorkerBee, I'm not sure what you're on about, to be honest. The critical reaction to Corsi has been overwhelmingly unfavorable, and so to suggest that this negative critical reaction is receiving undue weight in the article seems, erm, wrong-headed. I appreciate your effort to keep things honest, but really I think this is beating a dead horse. Arjuna (talk) 01:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems that we have our consensus, if WorkerBee74 has nothing more to say and nobody else has any input. Wikilost (talk) 01:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Not so fast there, Speed Racer. I see one two votes supporting your revert (your vote and Arjuna's) and one vote opposing (my vote). You don't have consensus. Furthermore, more than half the people editing on this page - including CENSEI, Umbertoumm and GoodDamon, haven't weighed in yet. MMA is not a reliable source. Without it, everything I removed is a WP:OR violation. I am adopting the same argument used against me when I tried to include material from Scoop.co.nz that was critical of Barack Obama. Now you're going to say, "But this is different." It isn't. WorkerBee74 (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Strongly abstaining from voting - A vote is not consensus. Try to persuade each other. If you're not nearly unanimous, then agree to disagree. --Ohaohashingo (talk) 03:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The book itself is clearly a partisan effort, and somewhat fringe-ey. To discuss it any other way or regard it here as a serious straightforward work is an NPOV problem. Nevertheless, we should endeavor to simply report reaction to the book and the weight of opinion of the most reliable sources, and any other impact or results from the book, rather than to engage in a detailed analysis or refutation of the book's points. The pages here should not be a point / counterpoint argument regarding whether the book's claims are true or not, merely an encyclopedic discussion of the book. That would mean removing much of the factual support for and against the underlying claims in the book. Wikidemo (talk) 02:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo, is this interpretation of yours to be applied to articles on all book which can be defined as "clearly a partisan effort, and somewhat fringe-ey"? Does this mean that books by people who are also Truthers are not reliable sources for other Misplaced Pages articles, or does this new standard only apply to Obama? CENSEI (talk) 02:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It might apply to certain books. Compare it with news sources: Some are reliable and some are not. Simple, isn't it? --Floridianed (talk) 04:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your question at all but I assume it's rhetorical. Perhaps you could state your point directly instead of making a dig at my reasoning. The mainstream reliable sources seem to concur that the book is partisan, inaccurate, and a bit of a sham. The observation that covering books of that ilk as netural is itself an NPOV problem would apply widely. The observation that when books treat controversial topics we should not use the article about the book as a launching point for point-counterpoint sections on the underlying controversy, is something that applies to all books, not just fringe ones. Back to the issue, I think the whole "examples of specific inaccuracies" section ought to go, but perhaps some of the material can be salvaged and integrated elsewhere. Also, the commentary by an organization like "media matters" might be notable as some kind of response, but not necessarily as a criticism or reception. Wikidemo (talk) 03:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Its not rhetorical and I don’t appreciate your accusation that I made a “personal dig” against you. Misplaced Pages is littered with fringe sources from crackpots, all of which can be documented from reliable sources, but none of which matters a flying shit when the material is removed from an article. Believe it or not, I am in complete agreement with your statement that "examples of specific inaccuracies" section should go and be drastically condensed, and I think that we are much closed on these issue than you think.. CENSEI (talk) 03:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me if I misunderstood you to suggest that my comment and interpretation were based on an idiosyncratic or novel standard - it's just common usage and my reading on various policies and guidelines. If I take the question "Does this mean that books by people who are also Truthers are not reliable sources for other Misplaced Pages articles, or does this new standard only apply to Obama?" literally, my response would probably be along the lines that (1) in general I would not categorically prohibit use of a book for a source project-wide based on who the author is, and (2) there are no standards I am aware of, new or old, that apply only to Obama. But I really don't understand the question because I cannot tell what a "Truther" refers to, what books such people might have written, what other articles such books might be used as sources for, what material might be sourced to them, or what "new" standard the question refers to. I still do get the sense that the question could be asked in a more direct way. Wikidemo (talk) 07:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I have gone through the Examples of Specific Inaccuracies and added Reliable Sources to back up the MMA one. feel free to remove those referneces from the list, but leave the content. As per WP:WEIGHT, if the overwhelming response to the book is negative, (hint: it is) Misplaced Pages must reflect that in the article. Unlike WP:Coatrack it is an actual policy, not an essay. If you think the article isn't balanced, go find some positive reviews from Reliable Sources. If you can't find any, then stop complaining about the size of the criticism section. Wikilost (talk) 05:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The concern over the material would be relevance, weight, and synthesis, not the reliability of the facts used in the article's argument against the book. If Rachel Ray says that the best egg whites are lighter than air, it's not particularly helpful to point to a reliable source on the specific gravity of egg whites to accuse her of having inaccuracies in her book, nor does it help to quote Anthony Bourdain saying that Rachel Ray is a bobblehead. We really have to concentrate on what the book is, its impact, and its notability, and neither do our own analysis here nor devote an undue amount of effort to directly debunking its claims. It's enough that Obama declared it bunk and a number of mainstream media sources who fact checked it agree. Wikidemo (talk) 07:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It's clear that there is no consensus supporting Wikilost's revert. CENSEI and Wikidemo have both spoken in favor of less specific cataloguing of inaccuracies in the book from an unreliable source. There's a superficial appearance of some disagreement between them, but as CENSEI said, they're "much closer on these issues than you think." I think we can wait a while longer, to see whether an overwhelming chorus of support for Wikilost's revert develops. But if it doesn't, I'll be restoring my version - because Wikilost does not have consensus. WorkerBee74 (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikilost has gone through the section adding reliable sources. However, it was MMA that put it all together and the reliable sources added have been copied directly from MMA. This perfectly mirrors my proposal for adding some criticism from Scoop.co.nz at Barack Obama, and should not be allowed for the same reason. MMA is not a reliable source; and by removing MMA, it becomes a violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I used the some of the same sources as MMA, but those are obviously reliable sources. WEIGHT dictates that the article reflect the criticism it has been given. Stop trying to lop off half of the criticism section just because you don't like what it says. Somehow, you keep trying to apply various policies to this article that simply do not apply. How is this original research? Answer: it isn't. I just included the facts and added more sources besides MMA to back them up. YOU insisted on that. If anyone has a personal bias here, it's you and CENSEI. You just don't like to see your personal POV refuted, so you try and make it go away. Wikiality is not a policy here. Wikilost (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Please don't revert (which would be edit warring at this point). I'm advocating for a third position, which is to limit responses to those that critique the book itself and to avoid using this article as a battleground over the underlying facts. Even if I agree that some of this material could go, there is other material I would remove, and my opinion about this is not an endorsement to edit war on the subject. Wikidemo (talk) 19:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)BTW, we're up to three reversion on each side in less than 24 hours - two reversions took place on the main page during the span of the past several paragraphs. Can I get all parties to stop reverting the material and keep it to the talk page? If there's any more edit warring on the main page this should probably go on the incident log for article probation. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to avoid that. If WorkerBee74 doesn't think the overwhelming response to the book is negative, he needs to find sources who back that up and include them, NOT rip apart the criticism. He also needs to understand that a vote is not consensus. It's not just who can find more people to agree with them, it's bout what the policies say is appropriate. 71.214.104.253 (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who or why someone is leaving messages on my talk page, but please desist. I have not been engaged in edit-warring or personal attacks, so leave me out of whatever warring may be occuring here. Thanks. Arjuna (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

My note was directed to you in error (I've explained and apologized on your talk page). That said, I did sign my note so I'm not sure why you'd be unclear as to who left it. Sorry for any confusion I've caused. --Clubjuggle /C 20:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Title change

Changed the title on the specific criticism section. When I first read it, I thought it was talking about allegations Corsi made, not the other way around.Wikilost (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

See also and categories

Can the See also section and the included categories be reviewed for accuracy, sourcability, relevance and the like. They seem to be getting a bit out of hand. I don't believe alot of them should be included but wanted to come here first. Thank you. --70.181.45.138 (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Current links: Agnotology, The Case Against Barack Obama, Media manipulation, Negative campaigning, The Republican Noise Machine, Smear campaign, and Swiftboating. Current categories: Category:2008 books, Category:Books about Barack Obama, Category:Books critical of liberalism, Category:Historical revisionism (political), Category:Propaganda examples. Some of the more pointed "see also" links can probably be worked into context, within the article's text. I'm not sure about calling the book "historical" anything, just yet (looking at its category siblings in Category:Historical revisionism (political), it looks very much out of place). As far as Category:Propaganda examples, have reliable sources been describing this that way? I'm inclined to remove the last two cats, at least for now, unless somebody can argue for their inclusion. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that those last two should be removed. Noroton (talk) 01:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I will removed them until reliable sources citing them as such. --70.181.45.138 (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Part about being #1 on NYT Times

I have removed the part about bulk sales since it is only a partial piece from the citation and it is also attributed to Corsi which is slightly different that it reads now. The reason why it has reached this level can be gone over in greater detail further into the article if it is necessary at all. Thank you. --70.181.45.138 (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I fail to understand what you mean by "partial piece", since any reference anywhere is always to a part of a larger article/paper/etc. I also disagree that the observation that "bulk sales" are operative is somehow not pertinent to an understanding of why the book has reached the top of the NYT list. While in principle I do agree that it would be best to find another, non-Corsi reference to support this claim, that may be difficult since who is buying the books is not something that is tracked externally. Only the seller knows who their buyers are. I am not going to rv you for now, as I would like others' comments first. Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 23:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the "bulk sales" mention in reliable, NPOV sources. I don't understand why it should be removed. The book also sold well on Amazon, so the bulk sales don't necessarily mean it isn't selling well by individual copies. Let's keep it in the article. Noroton (talk) 01:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Really disappointing/irritating that 70.181.45.138 (is that you, Mr. Corsi?) went in and removed the bulk sales note. It has to be included somewhere. Plenty of NPOV sources. Example from International Herald Tribune:

The New York Times has pointed out on its bestseller list that "The Obama Nation" has been a popular bulk buy. Some Obama defenders have questioned whether conservative groups bought it in bulk to inflate sales -- a claim Corsi denies.

Corsi's book is marked with a "dagger" on NYT's Hardcover Nonfiction list. Their footnote: "A dagger (†) indicates that some bookstores report receiving bulk orders." How much more reliable can you get? If someone's coming to Misplaced Pages to learn about what this book was created for and how it was meant to be used, then they have to understand that it was deliberately pushed up to number one (probably at great cost) so that right-wing talk radio, cable, and bloggers could use its "popularity" as a way of avoiding the question of whether the book's allegations hold any weight. These conservative megaphones can "point to the 'best-seller' status of the book to bolster their claims of legitimacy," says truthfightsback.com. (Sorry, I have no WP:SOURCES to lay that all out.) Point is, the bulk buy is key to understanding the smearing process. I understand completely that Wikipedian's don't engage in conspiracy theorization. But we could at least make sure to include all the evidence and let readers interpret it.--Ohaohashingo (talk) 04:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like an emergent consensus that it is indeed NPOV to make reference to bulk sales. The onus is now on anyone opposed to its inclusion to demonstrate that there is no evidence to support the claim, or at least that there is countervailing evidence. Ohaohashingo, do you have a citation for the NYT's Hardcover Nonfiction list that you can provide? Once I have that, and any others people want to provide, I will add it back in (or others, feel free!). Aloha, Arjuna (talk) 04:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Aloha right back atcha...

Hardcover Nonfiction - List - NYTimes.com --Ohaohashingo (talk) 04:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The Obama campain is making the claim and the NY Times says some book sellers are recieving bulk orders. This claim seems tenuous at best considering there are no facts (i.e. hard numbers) to back any of this up. Are people also buying in bulk at Amazon? CENSEI (talk) 04:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC). CENSEI (talk) 04:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

To suggest that a claim backed up with a citation from the NYT is "tenuous at best" is not credible. Statements in Misplaced Pages articles must be backed up with WP:RS reliable sources, which the NYT most certainly is, whether you approve of it or not. Misplaced Pages is not a venue for fact-gathering, which would be, as I'm sure you know, a violation of WP:OR. Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 04:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Please enlighten me about how many of the books are being bought in bulk? Is it 5% or 60%, or are there no sources that give this figure? CENSEI (talk) 04:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not a reliable source, nor are you, so it doesn't matter what claims you or I may have, now does it? The NYT, on the other hand, is a RS. If you can find an RS that says that the book is NOT being bolstered by bulk sales, then you might have something. For now, better luck next time. Arjuna (talk) 04:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding bulk orders: I didn't remove it from the article, I just move it from the lead down to "Reception" where further discussion of its sales are. It doesn't seem like this issue or allegation is a being seen as a very big deal, so it seems unnecessary to mention it in the lead, which should only highlight the major points of the article. The issues of inaccuracies and allegations of racial bias are far more widespread and important. So, I think this edit should be undone and the discussion should remain in "Reception." Dylan (talk) 05:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Dylan, I've been watching your edits of this article and have noticed your great copyediting skill. I'm in awe. Anyway, regarding bulk orders: The propagandistic use of this book is apparently more important than the "facts" contained in it. So important that the lede needs to explain it somehow without, of course, resorting to WP:OR. People making use of the #1 status of the book are the ones who don't care at all about the accuracy of the allegations Corsi lays out. So, placing the qualifier about bulk sales in the lede is warranted. Can you leave it there and somehow edit what you've added in "Reception" and somehow make it work? --Ohaohashingo (talk) 06:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ohaohashingo and think s/he nails it on both points (Dylan, very nice work and my edit is not to criticise you as I think you have done an outstanding job at a thankless task). Simply to mention that it is #1 bolsters the propaganda point of Corsi, and it needs to be put into context right up front, not buried in the body somewhere. Secondly, as you have probably already noted, I made a major edit to the lead. The most salient aspect of the book are not only the controversial claims it makes, but the (almost universally in the mainstream media) negative reception it has recieved. Not to put that front and center is a major disservice to the article. Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 06:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not denying the the book has recieved bulk orders, it has, so what? Look at the list, a few others have also recieved the "dagger. The point is to report this in NPOV way if it all. To say although the newspaper suggests that the book's sales figures are enhanced by large bulk sales is not NPOV is OR and undue weight. Insert what the list says, some bookstores report receiving bulk orders. --70.181.45.138 (talk) 13:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This might not be the best tweek, but can it be reported in a neutral way without adding more than is in the citation, ie orignal resaerch. The NYT list has a footnote that is being expanded on imho. Thank you. --70.181.45.138 (talk) 13:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to undo that temporarily. It wasn't grammatical. The clause could have been a sentence on its own. But instead of fixing it I thought it'd be better to wait for consensus. Your point is taken about following the citation exactly, but it's been reported widely in the mainstream media and may need to be explained better, with sources.--Ohaohashingo (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I will tweek it again. This is not NPOV and original research. --70.181.45.138 (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand the arugument that the reason this book is #1 on the list is due to bulk book sales, but that is only an arugument. Is that the only reason? I don't know. It seems that this "issue" has become pretty hotly debated so no problem with inclusion, the only problem is how it is worded. Words do matter :). Seriously, I am a minimalist for the record, so I would personaly like to see less than more since these things seem to get synthasized into NPOV and original research. Has the book "enjoyed" bulk sales? Yes, that is noted. What does that mean? What pecentage of the reason for being at the top of the list does that deserve? --70.181.45.138 (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Plenty of sources: http tinyurl com/bulk-sales. I won't engage in an edit war. Will leave it to others to sort out. --Ohaohashingo (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, I agree that bulk sales have been established, no problem. My problem is that this is turning into The book is #1, but the NYT points out that the book ranking has been inflated due to bulk sales is npov, or. imho of course :) Do we have a citation that says, bulk sales means higher rankings? The NYT footnotes just points out that some bookstores report receiving bulk orders without going further into what that means. Maybe a source other than the NYT times that deals with this "issue" would be appropriate. This whole thing seems debatable and that is what concerns me over the wording. The way it is written now is "favorable" to the author which shows that this wording can go either way. How do we "report" this nugget(bulk sales at some stores) in a NPOV way without adding OR or making connections or leaps? --70.181.45.138 (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, I understand that some will say #1 equals true book but not I. It still can be trash even if it sells well. Has anybody here read the book? Seriously. --70.181.45.138 (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You wouldnt actually expect anyone to actually read the subject of the article? Thats crazy! CENSEI (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are right, I don't know what I was thinking :) --70.181.45.138 (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a shout out to whoever made the change to the contested material to: "...on August 13, The New York Times reported that the book had reached #1 on the New York Times Best Seller list for hardcover non-fiction books , due in part to higher bulk sales.". I think this gets the point across without being objectionable to anyone. Arjuna (talk) 02:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

New Misplaced Pages article: new book on the same subject

I just created an article on David Freddoso's The Case Against Barack Obama, which is competing with this book. Editors may want to look it over for mistakes and improvements. Noroton (talk) 00:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Corsi: "Obama linked to the massacre of Christians in Kenya."

"Among many startling accusations, the book links Obama to the massacre of Christians in Kenya." That's according to WorldNetDaily where Corsi works for. Should this insane claim be mentioned in the article? Iii33lll (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Good lord. What a pack of slander. No, don't mention it, I looked at the article, and the premise seems to be that because Obama supported somemone for president of Kenya, he was somehow responsible when elections degenerated into violence. If I were Obama, I would waste no time suing these bastards after the election, even is he wins, especially if he loses. Wikilost (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason why it shouldn't be mentioned. Reporting on someone slandering another is not itself slander. — goethean ॐ 02:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but what Corsi says isn't relevant to this article, it's relevant to his. Wikilost (talk) 05:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

First chapter posted online

The New York Times has posted the entire first chapter online: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/books/chapters/chapter-obama-nation.html

The publisher has posted excerpts: http://www.simonsays.com/content/book.cfm?tab=1&pid=631380&agid=2

That might be worth mentioning and for the readers here to take a look at it. Iii33lll (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Press releases are not WP:RS

Someone just added in this, which according to its byline is a press release off US Newswire from Accuracy in Media (yes, the same people who pushed the Vincent Foster conspiracy to attack Clinton, also linked to WorldNetDaily). The thrust of the piece is quotes from Cliff Kincaid, Kincaid is not a WP:RS; google his name for his conspiracies. We66er (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Jake Tapper

Tapper was removed because the section is about the criticism of the book, not his criticism of the campaign. Wikilost (talk) 03:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that there is only room in the article for information about the book as well as critical views of the book. This is not simply a criticism of the campaign, its pretty compeling evidence that the Obama camp decided to take this opportunity to stretchthe truth a bit, alot like what Corsi has been doing. Ironic, no? CENSEI (talk) 03:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

But, what is it about Tapper's blog that's so important that it has to be brought up in this discussion again and again? One blog article. See POV forks. --Ohaohashingo (talk) 04:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Quote:"Tapper was removed because the section is about the criticism of the book, not his criticism of the campaign. Wikilost (talk) 03:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)"

What makes the NY TImes article so important thay it is used no elss than 15 times in the article? CENSEI (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any limit on the number of times a reliable source can be used, so long as we don't cross the WP:COPYVIO line. --Clubjuggle /C 16:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ahm, does that mean we can and should just plain and straight focus on criticism on Obama as far as it is laid out in the book and don't have to value or even think about if it is true or false by a third source??? That is an honest question and I expect an honest answer. --Floridianed (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the article needs new sections:

2.1 Obama's reaction to Corsi's criticisms

2.1.1 Tapper's criticism of Obama's reaction to Corsi's criticisms

2.1.1.1 Rush Limbaugh's bloviation about Tapper's criticism of Obama's reaction to Corsi's criticisms

...and so on? --Ohaohashingo (talk) 04:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it is this: This article has room for: 1. Information on content of the book 2. Positive Critical reactions to the book (few as there may be) and 3. Negative criticism of the book (of which there is a lot, so a lot is represented) I have to admit that I'm not sure where Tapper's criticism would belong, but I don't think it's in this article. Maybe here would be a good place for it. Wikilost (talk) 05:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

As per consensus above at "Removal of commentary", I moved back a shorter version than the original of observations from three conservative commentators that the Obama campaign's long response had errors in it and likely gave the book more publicity. I also added back a shorter version of Tapper's comments. We've gotten to the point where there is now plenty of commentary on the Obama campaign's response. That campaign response is pretty obviously very important to this subject and criticism of that response is worthy of inclusion. I don't think the short paragraph I added back is going overboard, especially since the Obama response is mentioned elsewhere in the article and is so prominent. Frankly, when a number of reliable sources call into question the accuracy of something we're reporting about (the Obama response), we have an obligation to mention that criticism in a short passage. It's similar to the way we have an obligation to mention the criticism of this book. Noroton (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I've copied Wikidemo's comments from Talk:Obama#Removal of commentary to here:

(ecX2) I disagree with all of this material as a blatant WP:COATRACK. It's using the section on Obama's response to: (1) mention the book's publicity; (2) accuse Obama of inaccuracy - even if it is true that Obama's response is less than perfect it is a significant weight problem for Misplaced Pages to use the occasion of Obama's response to a book full of partisan fabrications to accuse Obama of inaccuracies; (3) repeat criticism of Obama by people other than the book's author; (4) repeat / use as a source to impugn Obama two partisan posts by Obama opponents on a conservative blog; and (5) mention the Bill Ayers Republican talking point again - twice (once in text, another by simply pointing to a conservative blog on the subject). Of all of this, the only colorably neutral piece is the Tapper material because that's netural and possibly (or possibly not) a reliable source. I would argue not reliable enough - a presumably neutral commentator opining that a candidate is "rewriting history" is opining, not conducting journalism. There is no consensus to add this material and it's on the very subject that got us to article probation in the first place - coatracking Obama articles with spurious material about Ayers, Wright, and Rezko - in this case, Ayers.Wikidemo (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(following the ec) No, I don't think that reporting partisan praise of Obama's response to balance out the partisan criticism of Obama's response fixes anything. Balanced partisanship makes the whole thing more partisan, not less. This article is about the book, not a political forum for critiquing Obama. Moreover, a 50/50 balance of support and opposition to Obama's response neutralizes Obama's words, which are a 95% accurate response to a partisan attack. Treating the response itself as something to scrutinize gives credence to the book itself. We shouldn't be getting into this at all. Simply report how various notable involved / related parties have responded to the book, (perhaps) how a few reliable sources have described or reviewed the book, and if there's any fallout of encylcopedic importance we can report that too. But not a debate on the merits of Obama. Wikidemo (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Responding to Wikidemo's comments: The nature of this article is partisan, so partisan topics are going to come up. In fact, you can't do justice to the subject without mentioning them. If a major critique of the book comes out, like the Obama campaign's, then it must be included here. If there is significant comment from very reliable sources that this major critique itself has major flaws in it, then it is our duty to point that out. The Obama critique actually needs to be expanded in this article because it's so important to this subject. To the extent that a controversy swirls around this book, we include the controversy -- that is the only proper way for Misplaced Pages to cover a subject. No one's using this as a forum to critique Obama, certainly not by bringing up the fact that reliable sources say there are significant holes in this particular response. Your comments criticizing motives are not helpful and don't get us anywhere. Please calm down. Your comment on "spurious material" should be backed up with evidence or you should withdraw it. Noroton (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Partisanship has no place here. To the extent it occurs in the world and it's notable we can cover it but it should not creep onto our article pages. Thus, it's a partisan book and it's okay to describe it as such. To the extent partisans are affected by the book and they respond or are affected in a notable way it is okay to note (but not parrot) their responses. However, going another step to report partisans attacking each other, rather than the subject of the article, is importing into Misplaced Pages the outside world's partisan debates. This isn't a forum for that. Even so, there is no significant or reliable comment that Obama's response is flawed. Let's cut to the chase here. Citing and reporting Republican attack blogs that find occasion to trumpet Ayers' name again, is not going to fly. We shouldn't attempt to discredit Obama's response, much less use a single editorial (thus unreliable) comment from a single presumably neutral source to do so. Per article probation please try to avoid making it personal - I offer no opinion on editors' motives and won't respond to any of that. Wikidemo (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

ABC News isn't a "partisan attack blog." Even National Review has been around for 50 years or more, publishes in measured tones and his highly respected. By comparison, Media Matters for America is highly partisan and inflammatory, has a well-established reputation for editing out of context and other distortions, and it's been around for what — three years? Four? If anything, NR is a reliable source and MMA is not. Curious bystander (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I describe ABC for what it is. This should be clear from the above but to parse it out:

• Yuval Levin, (Republican operative) "the corner" blog (hosted on National Review) stands for "Conservative commentators and others said the Obama campaign's response wasn't always accurate itself, and it gave the book more publicity". Not reliable source. Trivial. POV. Source does not support the claim in the article for which it stands.
• Jim Geraghty, "Is the Obama Campaign Asserting The Candidate Didn't Know of Ayers' Past?" post in "The Campaign Spot" blog on National Review - partisan hit piece, ends with "Anybody out there buy that?" used to source statement: "criticized the Obama campaign response for bringing up but not refuting Corsi's critcism that Obama would have been aware of the famous, controversial past of Bill Ayers when Obama knew and worked with him." - Blog is not a reliable source or notable criticism. Trivial. Pov. Coatrack of Ayers material. Editorializing commentary in wikipedia article is not tied so source. Source does not support claim.
• Hugh Hewitt - radical right pundit and Republican operative, "The Obama Push Back: "Ayers and Dohrn Are Members Of The Establishment" entry on self-published "town hall" blog used to support claim "Radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt agreed." A mocking, taunting hit piece. Blog is not a legitimate source. Trivial, POV. Coatrack of Ayers material. Source does not support claim in article, and claim is irrelevant.
• Jake Tapper - "political punch" blog on ABC news used to support quote, "not everything in the Obama campaign’s 40-page refutation of Corsi’s shoddy and dishonest book Obama Nation is fair" and that the Obama campaign was "refuting a few of Corsi’s smears by re-writing history". Deciding what is fair, or re-writing history, is a matter of opinion. Editorials are not reliable sources. POV because it discredits Obama's response. This is just a single person's opinion, quoted out of context because source strongly agrees with Obama. As I argue above, third party opinions about responses to the article are not relevant to this article.

Folks, this is a snowball issue. We have three radical right bloggers bringing up the Ayers issue twice, plus a journalist's editorial, all to stand for the fact that Obama's response to this disparagement is less than perfect. It is not a close case. It seems unlikely that there could be consensus to add this disputed material and if we're back to citing conservative blogs to rehash William Ayers this isn't going to get anywhere. If consensus doesn't emerge rather soon - and I doubt it will - it should be removed. I'll invite Noroton to accept that his restoration of the material is a premature declaration of consensus so we can preserve some decorum in the process. Wikidemo (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

We use similar sources in similar articles. People like Bob Scheer, Sid Blumenthal, Alex Cockburn, and Naomi Wolf (on the far side of the other spectrum) are. I never see you argue against the inclusion of sources like this …. I wonder why. Editorials are reliable sources of opinion, not fact and we are not using these sources for facts, only their opinion, which from what I see is all this article consists of. CENSEI (talk) 00:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Editorials are primary sources (and not terribly reliable ones) as to what the editorial writer believes. They are fine primary sources as to what was said in the editorial, but that is usually not notable and it usually becomes WP:SYNTH to connect the dots between various primary sources to try to get to an encyclopedic statement. Editorials are utterly not reliable to establish that the opinion is in fact true. Repeating an opinion, then stating that it is an opinion, makes it neither more notable nor more reliable. Notability can't usually be self-sourced. You have to show somehow that the fact that person X stated opinion Y was in fact notable to the subject of the article. As for the quality of my edits elsewhere on the encyclopedia I am not going to address your wondering, because that is not what we're talking about.Wikidemo (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo, all you've done here is exaggerate and disparage people, and that doesn't prove anything. Yuval Levin has authored books and written enough articles not to be labeled as a "Republican operative" for working 2 years in the domestic-policy shop in the White House. He's a policy wonk for crying out loud, not a political hack. You have no basis for calling Hugh Hewitt, who is simply conservative, a "radical". Geraghty writes an opinion blog for NRO, the Internet arm of a respected magazine. Where do you get off characterizing opinion journalism as a "hit piece"? Jake Tapper -- you're insisting that he only provide "neutral opinions"? Please accept the fact that WP:NPOV allows different opinions to be presented in a Misplaced Pages article. You've demonstrated an ability to call respectable journalists bad names, but haven't demonstrated that they're not respected journalists. That Obama 40-pager can't be in this article without our telling readers that respected journalists, even opinion journalists, have criticized it for missing the point in some important areas. We are not going to mislead readers because you aren't drawing the obvious distinctions between responsible opinion journalists who write what they actually believe and political hacks who will write whatever they think readers will believe -- you know, the type of political operatives that wrote up the Obama response. Noroton (talk) 02:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel like you are scolding me. I have my opinion on the sources, and I feel these ones do not pass the test for neutrality, reliability, or reference. Two are hit pieces written in an openly mocking tone to disparage a presidential candidate, and bring up lowbrow Republican talking points like Bill Ayers, the Wife's supposed lack of patriotism based on twisting her words, supposed support from Hamas, and claimed lies about past drug use. As I've said throughout, partisan blogs are not reliable sources. Nor are op-ed opinions. Journalists are judged by the quality of their work, and even if these are sterling, insightful political thinkers these examples are rather poor reflections of that and show bias consistent with their other efforts and affiliations. A while back you said you would revert the material back into the encyclopedia if nobody objected. At the time you were proposing it I had objected to the material you proposed and a third editor initially objected then said go ahead. As you can see, more people have now weighed in and there some rather strong objection and obviously no consensus. Poor sourcing is only one of the problems. I really don't think you should hold out and insist the material stay in without consensus - the default for contentious material is to keep it out unless consensus develops otherwise. Wikidemo (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You have my support since I agree at about 95 % with you there. From my side: Go ahead! Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)radical right bloggers Substantiate that. -- Noroton (talk) 22:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If MMA has been removed from the article (hint: it has) then there certainly isn't any place for National Review. 71.214.104.253 (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hint (it hasn't): Media Matters for America, which describes itself as a progressive organization dedicated to countering "conservative misinformation in the U.S. media", has pointed out numerous instances of inaccuracies in the book and in Corsi's statements promoting the work. Paul Waldman of Media Matters appeared with Corsi on Larry King Live when they discussed the claims. MSNBC's Contessa Brewer confronted Corsi with these alleged inaccuracies; Corsi disputed Media Matters' allegations. -- Noroton (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Protecting Obama is not our priority. Offering Misplaced Pages readers a full and NPOV account is. Wikidemo's case reverses those priorities:

• (2) accuse Obama of inaccuracy - even if it is true that Obama's response is less than perfect it is a significant weight problem for Misplaced Pages to use the occasion of Obama's response to a book full of partisan fabrications to accuse Obama of inaccuracies; Since all of the criticism of the book already would violate WP:WEIGHT, this doesn't hold up. You don't concern yourself with WP:WEIGHT while the article is undergoing major expansion. I put the Obama critique in the lead at one point because I thought (and think) it is so important. I certainly think criticism of it is important for encyclopedic reasons.

We are not talking about the section on criticism of the book. I have stated my opinion on that but it is not the issue here. A paragraph attacking Obama's response to the book violates weight matters, certainly one that presents a 50/50 (or as it now stands, a 100%) disapproval of Obama's response to the book's inaccuracies. Wikidemo (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• (3) repeat criticism of Obama by people other than the book's author -- we can't allow a link to the Obama critique without pointing out that reliable, prominent sources have said parts of it are misleading; making sure we're not misrepresenting the facts to our readers is far, far more important than protecting Obama from criticism. P.E.R.I.O.D.

The goal is not "protecting" Obama from anything, but avoiding coatracking. Repeating poorly sourced jabs at Obama by third parties by way of discrediting his comments is inappropriate, when his comments are not the subject of the article. Wikidemo (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• (4) repeat / use as a source to impugn Obama two partisan posts by Obama opponents on a conservative blog -- denegrating well-known reliable sources at NRO in favor of protecting from criticism a presidential candidate who, by the very nature of being a candidate is himself absolutely partisan is not acceptable.

As I explained twice above, and once below, none of the four sources cited are reliable. Three are conservative attack blogs. One is a journalist's personal opinion in a blog. If NPOV, RS, etc., mean anything, we can't use partisan political sources to discredit statements made by politicians. Wikidemo (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• (5) mention the Bill Ayers Republican talking point again - twice (once in text, another by simply pointing to a conservative blog on the subject). -- the goal is to give a neutral presentation of the controversy surrounding the book; inevitably negative information about Obama will be referred to. That isn't coatracking. That isn't wrong. It is, however, inevitable in talking about an anti-Obama book that anti-Obama information will crop up. Kinda goes with the territory. We give a higher priority to our readers than to Obama on public criticisms. It is not fair to reduce legitimate concerns I've expressed and others have expressed on Misplaced Pages and in the general debate as a "Bill Ayers Republican talking point". The idea that mentioning Ayers is unacceptable is something you'll have to justify.

Gratuitous mentions of Ayers in the encyclopedia are one of the main problems that lead to article probation. Doing that again in this article is a problem. The anti-Obama sources are coatracking the Ayers guilt by association attacks in their own writing, which we can cover if it is notable. If the book makes a big to-do of the Ayers nonsense and that becomes a notable issue in the political world, then it's only encyclopedic to report it. However, 2-3 additional mentions of Ayers, used in a direct attack on Obama by third parties, is over the top. If we adopt their statements here we've moved off-wikipedia coatracking into yet another Misplaced Pages article and it becomes coatracking in an article. That's the very definition of a coatrack. Wikidemo (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Of all of this, the only colorably neutral piece is the Tapper material because that's netural and possibly (or possibly not) a reliable source. We're presenting a range of opinions here. As CuriousBystander notes, we mention Media Matters for America here. You don't object to that mention, do you? The priority is informing readers, not protecting Obama.

Media matters bears no relation to this issue. But yes, I did mention an unrelated objection to the way we bring up Media Matters.Wikidemo (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• I would argue not reliable enough - a presumably neutral commentator opining that a candidate is "rewriting history" is opining, not conducting journalism. There is no consensus to add this material and it's on the very subject that got us to article probation in the first place - coatracking Obama articles with spurious material about Ayers, Wright, and Rezko - in this case, Ayers. There is no need to only keep the commentators "neutral" (see Media Matters for America mention). WP:NPOV tells us to report a range of opinions as reflected proportionately among the reliable sources. Done. "Spurious" actually sounds like a partisan take on it, not shared among the range of sources. It is disrespectful to Obama opponents, on Misplaced Pages and off, to call their sincere, legitimate objections "spurious" -- at least without proof.

In general, we only report opinions if they themselves are of note, and only then do we present a range. The opinions themselves are not reliable. For a journalist to opine in a blog that Obama is reinventing history is not notable, just a random opinion. Do you have any evidence that his opinion carries some weight? Has a third party reliable source described this journalist as having the opinion? Is there a widespread neutral belief that Obama reinvents history? I don't think you will find that. If you get past that hurdle, the fact that the journalist has the opinion is not a reliable source that the opinion is correct - that Obama did in fact reinvent history. Turning to your other point, the Ayers refrain coming out of the conservative blogs is bunk. There is no duty here for me to respect that kind of off-Misplaced Pages political partisanship. If anyone here is a partisan they need to check that at the door before editing the article. If they feel disrespected because they sincerely believe in the bloggers' attack points, and it pains them to hear someone say the smear campaign is nonsense, that is their business. Civility demands that we avoid insulting each other, not that we praise off-wikipedia partisanship. Wikidemo (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• This article is about the book, not a political forum for critiquing Obama. Those aren't the priorities of a neutral Misplaced Pages article. We cover the book and response to it and don't censor ourselves in order to avoid critiquing a partisan, well-known presidential candidate. No one is focusing on criticizing him.

Articles should stick to material that is relevant to the notability of the subject of the article, not digressions impugning other things and people that happen to be mentioned in the article.Wikidemo (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Moreover, a 50/50 balance of support and opposition to Obama's response neutralizes Obama's words, which are a 95% accurate response to a partisan attack. Treating the response itself as something to scrutinize gives credence to the book itself. Review WP:FORK. Substantiate your 95-percent comment. No one is saying a 50/50 balance is necessary. If we substituted "Corsi's book" for "Obama" in your first sentence, we'd remove most of the criticism section from this article. This is an article in progress. In fact, if editors are going to insist on WP:WEIGHT being applied this early, I'll insist on removing most of the criticism until we get an adequate "Content" section up. The purpose of this article is not to attack Corsi or his book. But we should keep the criticism section up as we add to the Content section. THAT is reasonable.

We're talking about the paragraph on anti-Obama lashback here, not the rest of the article. That discussion is taking place elsewhere on this page.Wikidemo (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• We shouldn't be getting into this at all. Simply report how various notable involved / related parties have responded to the book, (perhaps) how a few reliable sources have described or reviewed the book, and if there's any fallout of encylopedic importance we can report that too. But not a debate on the merits of Obama. But if prominent, reliable sources have stated the Obama critique has flaws, it's our duty to tell readers that, lest they be misinformed about the reliability of the Obama critique.

No reliable sources have been offered to state that Obama's critique has flaws. If we find opinions they should not be reported unless they themselves are notable; if we find reliable factual material it should be here only if relevant to the notability of the book.Wikidemo (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• To the extent partisans are affected by the book and they respond or are affected in a notable way it is okay to note (but not parrot) their responses. Obama is not a partisan? And I'm "parroting" their responses? If you compare what the sources say to what I wrote, you'd take back "parrot" as an unfair characterization of what I did.

I never said that obama was non-partisan or that you are parroting anything. Obama's response to the book is important because the book affected him in a notable way, and his response is notable. Thus we can state what it is (without parroting or endorsing it). The anti-obama hit pieces from the conservative blogs are not responses to the book - they are the opinions of bystanders who are not affected by the book. Their statements are not notable. Whether or not we describe them as opinions, there is no function to their being here other than to disparage Obama by repeating what they say. Wikidemo (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• However, going another step to report partisans attacking each other, rather than the subject of the article, is importing into Misplaced Pages the outside world's partisan debates. This isn't a forum for that. Incorrect. We briefly describe the controversy, including the most prominent, relevant parts. This among them. That is fair.

There is no suggestion that the conservative blog attacks on Obama are a part of the controversy. I have not seen any reportage on these bloggers' gathering around the book's author to defend him against Obama's response to the book. They're just stray anti-Obama opinions. Wikidemo (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No, this encyclopedia and this article are not point/counterpoint forums for debating the merits of Obama.

• Even so, there is no significant or reliable comment that Obama's response is flawed. NRO, Hugh Hewitt and Jake Tapper are all significant and reliable. Certainly they are reliable concerning their own opinions. (Unlike, say, Steven Colbert.)

The statements are clearly not reliable. Nor has any source been offered to show that they are significant. Why does it matter what Hewitt may believe about this or that? It sheds no light on the book. Repeating them, while pointing out that they are opinions, does not make the material suitable for the encyclopedia.

• Let's cut to the chase here. Citing and reporting Republican attack blogs that find occasion to trumpet Ayers' name again, is not going to fly. Who is being partisan here? Substantiate that these are "Republican attack blogs" and not simply respected sources with a point of view. Show what the difference is.

In response to the question, the people being partisan are the conservative bloggers who are making attacks on Obama. We should not import partisan attack material on the encyclopedia, and I am asking that, having been put here against consensus, it be removed. I will describe for the third time, below, why these sources are partisan. Wikidemo (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• We shouldn't attempt to discredit Obama's response We shouldn't give a damn about whether we discredit Obama's response or not. It's not our job to protect Obama's response. We should report the controversy.

We should work hard to avoid NPOV violations. There is no attempt to protect Obama, but rather an attempt to avoid NPOV material. Wikidemo (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Per article probation please try to avoid making it personal - I offer no opinion on editors' motives and won't respond to any of that. A-hem. -- Noroton (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of something? If so, kindly take that to the article probation incident page but please, not here. Wikidemo (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding WP:RS in counterpoint paragraph to Obama's response

There has been some reversion back into the article that tends to discredit Obama's response to the book. I contend that the material is a WP:COATrack, has no consensus for inclusion (see above discussions), and has no reliable sourcing. The criticism of Obama's response brings up the Obama–Ayers controversy two times in one paragraph - once in the actual text, and in two of the sources by the title and content of the source material. Three of the sources are conservative bloggers who make no secret of opposing Obama. Whether you describe them as "radical right" or simply anti-Obama partisans doesn't matter. They're pursuing an agenda against Obama and opinions and punditry raised in their anti-Obama blogs is not a neutral or reliable source for disparaging Obama here in this article. Hugh Hewitt should be obvious. His professional mission is to uncover and oppose a supposed liberal bias in the media. He runs a radio talk show and blog where he attacks news people for supposed personal bias and promotes fundamentalist Christian political positions. He took a partisan role in the Republican primaries and now the election. In the blog entry he is not writing straight. He mocks Obama's refutation of the book as a "defense brief". He brings up discredited old saws about Ayers, Obama's drug use, Hamas supporting Obama, and Michelle Obama being unpatriotic, praises the other new attack book against Obama, then says "I am just getting started". Jim Geraghty has been running partisan anti-Democrat blogs for years. His blog was called the Kerry Spot to oppose Kerry's election, then the Hillary Spot, and now the Campaign Spot. He also uses a non-serious mocking tone, "Anybody out there buy that?", to try to link Obama to Ayers. That's not playing straight either. Yuval Levin is, as I said, a Republican operative. He works in a conservative think tank and before that, the Bush Administration. These may be fine learned professionals who are certainly entitled to their opinion, and to advocate for their boss or their preferred candidate. But as a source for this article they are just random anti-Obama stuff from the conservative blogosphere.

I have asked a few times that the material be removed and kept out unless consensus develops to include it. I don't want to jump into even the lowest intensity edit war here though (it was added three times and removed twice by people other than me). Wikidemo (talk) 00:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

They're journalists. Get used to that fact. You're describing opinion journalism and calling it hack work while defending a 40-page document created by real political operatives, a/k/a "hacks". Journalists write what they believe is true and don't (or are not supposed to) write simply what they think others might believe, introducing whatever evasions they think they can get away with. Levin, Geraghty, Hewitt and Tapper write opinion journalism (and in Tapper's case, do reporting). Political hacks (operating either for ideological or paycheck reasons) write whatever they think they can get others to believe. All you're doing is trying to muddy the distinction when, in fact, the distinction is close to the heart of WP:RS. The reason for including the Obama response is that it comes from the campaign of the target of the book and therefore is supposed to represent Obama's own defense. It is inherently unfair to Corsi and is inherently unfair to readers of this article that we avoid mentioning that flaws have been pointed out in the Obama response to the book. We give readers a lot of reasons to despise this book, but if there's a source disparaging the book that we must use, then we must tell readers when significant flaws have been found in that source. It's only fair. It is not irrelevant. Noroton (talk) 04:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

For my say in all of this, I don't care if we leave the NR and Tapper bits, as long as the (undoubtedly much harsher) criticism on McCain's reply can go with his response. 71.214.104.253 (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

But why stop at "Radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt agreed"? We could make a list of all who agreed: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, all the reliable "fair and balanced" sources. --Ohaohashingo (talk) 06:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

COATRACK

(I'll place it here for now to show my good faith and believe it'll not keep going like this.")

This article may relate to a different subject or has undue weight on an aspect of the subject. Please help relocate relevant information and remove irrelevant content. (August 2008)

It's going back and forward "to be or not to be" a COATRACK of the Barack Obama article. Just a reminder: This page is on probation, too! See here Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation so please don't complain later you didn't know. Thanks, --Floridianed (talk) 02:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Side note: Guess when it comes closer to the election we have to out every single related article on probation, and I mean a real tough one. *sigh* --Floridianed (talk) 04:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain material

(wasn't sure where to put this but it was a coatrack so I guess it fits) I've cut out all of the bickering and sniping against McCain from out of the section on McCain's response to the book. As you may have noticed I really don't WP articles should be the place to impugn the people who criticize a book, and these anti-McCain comments seemed particularly weak and irrelevant - basically some liberals media figures and the Obama campaign scolding McCain for having a sense of humor about it. That might tell one a little bit about how the campaign process works (so perhaps it belongs in one of the campaign articles), but it sheds almost no light on the book. And it's also a classic coatrack that worked in Anti-McCain criticism into an article having almost nothing to do with McCain. I did it now because despite what looked like general agreement to avoid this, the McCain section was recently expanded. If we don't nip this in the bud we'll end up with a very long section of irrelevant stuff that will be harder to trim. Wikidemo (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I reverted it. If you are going to have partisan attacks against Obama's response (such as Jim Geraghty), it's only fair to have the same for McCain's response. If you want one gone then remove them both. P.S. The Politico isn't "liberal". Iii33lll (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to the talk page, but the reversion was improper - that is not a valid reason to keep disputed content and seems to be a form of wikigaming. Bashing McCain on an article having nothing to do with McCain is not a valid tactic for dealing with material considered to be unfair to Obama, and runs against the WP:NPOV policy. Please reconsider. If not please note that it is up to those proposing disputed content to establish consensus, and I believe consensus runs against adding this material. Wikidemo (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

How is it disputed? There was no tag. You made no announcement before you did it. You didn't get consensus. You just up and removed material. It's not about "bashing anyone." There are criticisms of Obama's response and so it seems fair that there is criticism of McCain's response. Again, if you want to remove criticism of the response, remove both. Not just the McCain stuff. NPOV says all views are heard, taht includes Obama's response to McCain's "humor". Iii33lll (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

By removing it with a reason, I disputed its presence on the page. If you will read this talk page others have disputed it as well. I do not need consensus. The burden of consensus falls on those proposing to include disputed material to get consensus for its inclusion, not the other way around. You said you want to have material that bashes McCain as long as there is material that bashes Obama in the article. Perhaps I should add material critical of Ralph Nader now because he is getting away from all of this unscathed. But we do not work by tit-for-tat disparagement of people. You seem fairly new to the project based on your edit history. Please take a little more time to get used to the policies, guidelines, and conventions before you take such an aggressive stance in a page like this that is on article probation. Editing the encyclopedia is a collaborative process of trying to create a good article, not an election battleground. Others may have their personal biases, but if you come out and declare that you want the article to criticize McCain as a response to criticism of Obama, that undermines the whole process of weighing edits for relevance, sourcing, relevance, notability, verifiability, and the other real inclusion criteria. Wikidemo (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That is my point, it was not disputed until" you removed it. Nonetheless, you said it being "disputed" was a reason for removing it. That was disingenuous. As for you reading on consensus, it is certainly different from WP:CONSENSUS. You are right this should not be a battleground. So, include criticisms of both responses, or none at all. It's simple. To pick one, is one-sided. You already showed your bias saying: "Obama campaign scolding McCain for having a sense of humor about it." I point you to WP:NPOV: all significant views should be covered. Obama's campaign is a significant view, or at least more significant than Jim Geraghty's blog views. Iii33lll (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I dispute the material for being irrelevant to the subject of the article, of undue weight, an WP:NPOV violation, not having a reliable source, and being a WP:COATRACK. If I dispute it, it's disputed so there's no sense talking about that - although, if you do a page seek on the word McCain you will see that it has been disputed for several days and that three editors other than me have discussed it. Because it is in dispute you need to give a good reason why it should be included, and also establish consensus. You have done neither. You can learn more about consensus by reading the essay WP:BRD, which is more or less what article probation enforces. Criticizing McCain as a balancing exercise because there is criticism of Obama is simply not valid. We don't work that way. Now please, stop being contentious about this and allow the article to be improved rather than holding it up. Incidentally, it is improper to accuse editors of having a bias - you can look at WP:AGF. You're also quite wrong on that assumption. Wikidemo (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but Obama's reply to McCain is not "irrelevant." Or it is, at least, more relevant than Jim Geraghty's blog views, which you left in about Obama. Again, if you want to call Obama's response irrelevant then certainly Jim Geraghty's comments are too. Interesting,

They're equally irrelevant, which leads us to....

McCain and Obama material

I agree with Iii33lll's edits here. It seems they have consensus - reading through the comments on the page editors have agreed that the less reliable sources, less notable opinions, bloggers, opinions, etc., that commented on Obama's reaction to the book and on McCain's reaction to the book could be removed. Yet the edit was almost immediately reverted on the claim that we should get consensus first. I don't agree with blind reverting without a reason other than demand for consensus, but so be it. Does anyone have an opinion for or against, or may we go ahead and remove this material? Wikidemo (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal bias check

As a newbie it's been useful for me to watch Umbertoumm make minor revisions with more neutral/objective word choices. I think the personal consensus among most contributors here (wiki neutrality aside) is that we're basically appalled by political smear campaigns. Some of that feeling definitely made it onto the article itself. I'm still disgusted by the smear artists, but I'm starting to internalize the first Misplaced Pages "pillar" (i.e., a neutral point of view). It's possible to look at even someone as awful as Jerome Corsi in an objective light. To any conservative participants I've rubbed the wrong way with occasional snide remarks, my apologies. --Ohaohashingo (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for a grand compromise

We are currently having debates on the inclusion or exclusion of two things: (1) WorkerBee74 wants to chop down the criticism section for reasons varying from WP:COATRACK to WP:OR, depending on whatever he thinks will work best. (2) Noroton(sp?) wants to include conservative criticism of the Obama campaign's response. So I propose compromise to move past these issues, because right now things are verging on an edit war, and the article is already on probation. The conservatives here can add the criticism of the Obama campaign they want to it's response section, and in return, WorkerBee stops trying to eliminate the criticism. Sound good? We can argue about different interpretations of policies till we're dead, we have to draw a line somewhere. Wikilost (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a counterproposal: take out 1/2 to 2/3 of the criticism, and add nothing. Look at the Misplaced Pages articles about great, classic works of literature such as War and Peace or The Grapes of Wrath. This is not a great, classic work of literature. Curious bystander (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Or, I have an even better plan. Take out all but one pragraph about the inaccuracies, then put the rest on a "List Of..." page with a see also link in the section. This way the article would look more balanced, but we wouldn't eliminate facts from Misplaced Pages. Wikilost (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: Let the criticism be as large as people want as long as it is sourced and presented in an objective manner; allow a response to Obama's campaign 40 page paper; and allow any constructive review of the book. (I tried adding one sourced comment of positive review of the book and it was deleted within a few hours, without the deleting editor's discussion on the talk page). Sincerely Umbertoumm (talk) 20:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I think:

• The Media Matters response should be taken out of the "reception and critical review" section and moved to the "responses" section (which should be retitled to allow the broader focus)- but only if there is a third party (not Media Matters) reliable source to say that the Media Matters position is relevant to the book.

The Media Matters information has been phased out as a source one everything but themselves. However, I bet I can find a source agreeing that they are relevant, so i won't argue with you, I'll just ask for time.

• The examples of inaccuracies (they are inaccuracies, not discrepancies) section should be entirely removed because it is largely synthesis and original research, and it is not Misplaced Pages's job to do a fact check or book review. Any part of it that is sourced to a reliable publication (e.g. the new york times) should be trimmed to avoid undue weight, and folded back into the material if any concerning that organization's critical review of the book.

There is absolutely no way to call these inaccuracies original research. They all come, verbatim, from reliable sources. They are a significant part of the Media's response to this book. How are people supposed to know what all the criticism of the book si for if they don't have specifics? They don't have undue weight, because, as has been noted many times, the OVERWHELMING RESPONSE IS NEGATIVE. If RS have good things to say about those things, include them. If Corsi has a counterpoint, include it. Don't just drop it. As I previously mentioned, I think it should be on a separate page. That way, it won't have undue weight, but people looking for specifics can find some.

• McCain's final response should be noted, but any stuff about him waffling or mis-hearing the question is pointless and not notable.

Agreed.

• Any criticism of the critics should be eliminated as irrelevant.

Agreed

• Material sourced to pundits, bloggers, partisans, opinion pieces, etc., that is otherwise unreliable, should be included only if it is notable to the book itself - which generally requires that we find a third party reliable source to say that it matters to the overall subject matter. If so it should go in a "response" section, not to fight or support any of the other parties responding to the book.

Agreed Wikilost (talk) 01:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to horse trade on any of these things. Each is a separate point we may or may not get to all of these things in turn. Material that is poorly sourced, POV, irrelevant, of undue weight, WP:COATRACK, etc., should not be included without consensus, whichever side it is on. Edit warring should be avoided and those who want to do it should not be editing the pages under probation - again, without regard to side. I don't want to compromise the encyclopedic goals of the article just so other people will stop edit warring. Truces among warring editors are one of the worst ways to reach article stability. Best to avoid edit warring in the first place, and uphold encyclopedic standards instead. Wikidemo (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

All good points, and I agree with all of what you have said here, Wikidemo. I think the inaccuracies (which are notable to the subject as they are always mentioned in any mainstream account of the book) should be briefly summarized, not enumerated. This should be folded into the body of the article, not split out into a separate section. Yes, lose the extraneous details and lose all of the ridiculous "responses to the critics." And yes, blogs from the left and right are not notable enough in themselves to be included here for opinion purposes. This article is probably about twice as long as it should be given all of the WP:NOTE,

So you would keep the debate and edit wars (AKA: requests for consensus) going, just because you think that your interpretations of the policies are correct and everyone else's are invalid? I'm a fan of WP:IAR. If the rules are getting in the way of producing a decent article, bag 'em. It seems to me we have several options: argue and edit war forever, OR come up with an acceptable compromise that, while maybe not perfect, would stop the arguing and edit wars. There's no point to debating further, because some issues will NEVER get consensus. Wikilost (talk) 01:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV you can't have the Obama response mentioned in the article without saying it's been called into question by reliable sources. Nothing said here trumps WP:NPOV. Not mentioning the 40-page campaign response would itself be irresponsible on our part. (Oddly, Loonymonkey and Wikidemo don't seem to have a problem with a similar situation at the article Media Matters for America, which stumps me.) WP:COATRACK only applies when you don't have a good enough reason to mention something in the article -- but WP:NPOV is an excellent reason to have the response to the Obama campaign critique in the article. It is, after all, one of the five pillars. WP:COATRACK is an essay. Nothing said here so far has shown what's wrong with that. You are not going to be able to clean mentions of partisan attacks from an article about a book about partisan attacks and which has in turn received partisan attacks. Stop trying to wash your hands in a sewer and just report the sewage. Noroton (talk) 02:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussing criticism of Obama's criticism is irrelevant to this article. The book is about Obama, and Obama responded. Period. Throwing in a bunch of criticism (which is about Obama, not the book) is exactly the sort of thing that WP:COATRACK seeks to avoid. Should we also add criticism of the criticism of Obama? To what end? (Also, I'm not sure why you're bringing up the Media Matters article thing which has no similarity whatsoever to this situation, but then I was also confused by how uncharacteristically emotional you got there when you realized the majority wasn't agreeing with you.) --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'd be happy to tell you why I'm bringing up Media Matters, but I'll do it on my talk page and invite you, Wikidemo and Gamaliel to read it and please reply there. I guess that might be getting us a bit off track on this page. I also haven't heard a reply as to why WP:NPOV, one of the WP:FIVEPILLARS should be ignored in favor of WP:COATRACK (a page containing the advice or opinions of one or more Misplaced Pages contributors. You may heed it or not, at your discretion.) You ask why I get emotional? I get emotional when I see Misplaced Pages trashed and when I see fellow human beings mocked by name on mainspace pages by editors who hide behind their Stephen Colbert comedic quotes and anonymous user names (sourcing for this is at the "Media Matters" section of WP:BLP/N). That's why I brought it up at the BLP noticeboard and even on Jimbo Wales' talk page. Now why don't you explain why a document written by partisan political hacks in the Obama campaign should be sacrosanct from criticism by professional, respected journalists writing for respected publications or for respected TV news organization? I'd really like an answer to that. Because WP:NPOV (did I mention it's one of the WP:FIVEPILLARS? It is, you know) would suggest that allowing a link to partisan evasions by political hacks is not something that should go unchallenged on a page that's supposed to inform readers. That would make us an extension of the Obama campaign rather than an encyclopedia interested in getting closer to the truth, even if it's just getting closer to the truth about this book. To say that criticism of Obama's criticism is irrelevant to this article is an evasion of the issue: Obama's campaign critique is too important to leave out of this article and to include it is to violate WP:NPOV if we don't note the criticism of it by prominent journalists. The criticism that it has evaded certain points that it purports to answer in the Corsi book is simply too important to leave out. I'm willing to drop other parts of that passage as a compromise, and willing to drop Hewitt since he doesn't work for a respected publication or news network if we can reach a compromise. Noroton (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Before you drag me into it, let me say for the record that I don't necessarily oppose including Tapper (if that is what you are talking about here since it is a bit vague) provided his comment is not given undue weight and the reception of the Obama campaign response is represented accurately. I do not feel that the particular section in question meets those qualities currently. And I will ask you again to keep the discussion limited to the content of this article and do not use this article as a forum for unrelated conflicts. Gamaliel (talk) 03:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Any problems with the Media Matters article should be resolved on that page - and judging from the activity over there, there seem to be some problems. The standards for WP:RS, WP:NPOV, etc., would be the same but obviously the context and the details are different in every article. Coatrack is a meta-issue that relates to NPOV. I do not see any WP:5P problem with limiting the collateral criticism made against commentators. Quite the opposite, as I have argued, including blogs sources to disparage those parties directly involved who are responding to the book runs into verifiability and NPOV problems itself. I really don't understand your sensitivity when political partisans are called out as such but I'll try not to be so strong in my condemnations. There is little civil in the world of politics, and all kinds of people - Obama especially - gets called all kinds of foul names. Wikidemo (talk) 04:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What happens on other pages, as they say, should stay on other pages. Let's keep the discussion limited to content, not personalities. Gamaliel (talk) 02:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Loonymonkey, what WP:COATRACK principally seeks to avoid is the second half of this article. Why do you and Clubjuggle keep reverting? It's obvious that Wikilost doesn't have consensus for this laundry list of trivial fact errors, copied from an unreliable partisan source. Time to take out the trash. WorkerBee74 (talk) 02:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well excuse me, WorkerBee, you obviously fail to understand how consensus works. Here is what happened: You removed the list of factual errors, THEN asked for consensus. I reverted until we had consensus on your proposed change. Then you started coming up with reasons to include your change, first MMA is not reliable, after I found other sources, you decided it was WP:COATRACK, then when I pointed out it's not policy, you started claiming it was WP:OR. Stop trying to bend policy to get what you want. You don't have consensus for your change. Here is the compromise I am willing to make: Let's put the errors on a "List of" page, and add a link to it in the article body, and leave about a paragraph. I'm willing to compromise, you don't seem to be. Rather, you accuse me of (falsely) copying sources from MMA, something I take offense to. Wikilost (talk) 04:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The more I think about the idea of a "List of" page, the more I like it. I think it's a notable subject, but I wouldn't want the list article to include Media Matters material or material from Obama's 40-page rebuttal unless it's also reported elsewhere. I'd want it to follow the points I mention at Talk:The Obama Nation#Proposed sourcing ground rules for this page. Then this article would include the information that many reliable sources have questioned the book's accuracy and mention all the major points about that interweaved in the content section which mentions the major points in the book (these should largely overlap, I think; might be wrong on that). Maybe this idea should be brought up in a separate section on this page. Noroton (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Editors, please respond to my suggestion that we keep Geraghty's and Tapper's comments and remove the rest. We cannot have that 40-pager mentioned without mentioning the criticism of it. Also, I see it's being used in the article without any on-the-page attribution to say Corsi's book is wrong here and wrong there. We can't do that with an unreliable source. We can only mention it with on-the-page attribution and only for the purpose of giving the opinion of the Obama campaign. -- Noroton (talk) 23:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• I have responded four or five times now on this. I don't think Geraghty's blog post can be used as a source at all. It is not reliable as an information source for the reasons I mentioned (blog, Obama opponent, partisan source, voicing opinion, mocking tone does not suggest seriousness) nor is there any indication that this particular act of criticism is notable in itself. The actual article, including the title, is an off-Misplaced Pages coatrack of Bill Ayers. It is a gratuitous attempt to once again tie Obama with Ayers in order to impugn his judgment, a tie that everyone knows will cause the more cynical partisans to think Ayers is a terrorist or is soft on terrorism. As it was previously written the wikipedia content also editorialized on a trivial point, and contained assertions not supported in the source in its attempt to reason through the criticism of Obama for not avoiding Ayers. We do not need to insert criticism of Obama every time Obama appears in the encyclopedia - that is POV, not balance. Obama's response to a book of falsehoods about him is notable; the criticism of Obama for responding is not (although in tapper we do have at least enough criticism). Wikidemo (talk) 23:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

WB74's counterproposals

I have two counterproposals for you. The first is virtually identical to yours. Take your pick:

• Option 1: Delete the entire laundry list of nitpicking. We have links to criticism from abundant notable, reliable, respected sources such as the New York Times, Washington Post, The Guardian, The Independent, the Associated Press, etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum. If you can find one that has a nitpicking laundry list like that, link it. If you can't, then Misplaced Pages shouldn't have a nitpicking laundry list like that either. Take a cue from the reliable, respected sources because that's what Misplaced Pages aspires to become - not a sounding board for Media Matters.
• Option 2: You've got seven paragraphs there. I'll cut it down to 3-1/2 paragraphs, which is exactly half of seven.

Curious bystander made an excellent point yesterday. Look at the Misplaced Pages articles about other books. Any book you choose. They do not contain laundry lists of nitpicking objections that were obviously inspired by unreliable, partisan smear sites. WorkerBee74 (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I looked around for other comparable books by liberal authors. The problem seems to me that there isn't really a comparable book by a liberal author that I could find as an example. I did, however, look at the Unfit for Command page, and that does have a lengthy list detailing the truth of the allegations, even though it isn't in list form. I'll make a compromise edit now, and you can tell me what you think. Wikilost (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Fortunate Son is almost a carbon copy. CENSEI (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hold on, what exactly is being objected to here? The list of errors, or the use of MMFA as a reliable source? If the NYT/WaPo/etc, publish a list of errors, can it be added? If so, what about MMFA makes it such an unreliable source that it needs to be removed from this article? If the problem is the list of errors regardless of the source, then I'd like to know the exact rationale for removal. — goethean ॐ 15:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

In an article about a book where the dominant theme of the media coverage is the veracity of allegations, the reader is going to expect to find detailed coverage of that very thing. While the article shouldn't be overrun with a laundry list, let's not kid ourselves into thinking we can ignore that issue entirely and let's remember that Misplaced Pages is not paper so we shouldn't have arbitrary limits on our coverage. We should certainly have coverage of particular allegations that are discussed in reliable sources, and so should articles on similar books like Fortunate Son and Unfit for Command. Gamaliel (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I've proposed a reduction of the laundry list of nitpicking from seven paragraphs to 3-1/2, then I made the reduction in good faith and Goethean instantly reverted, alleging vandalism in his edit summary. I'd like to know whether such accusations are going to be tolerated under the article probation. For those who can't understand or can't be bothered to read the Talk page, the objection is to both the use of MMA as a source and the extensive laundry list of trivial objections for both this page and Unfit for Command. If the reliable, respected sources like NYT don't indulge in such lists of trivial nitpicking, then neither should Misplaced Pages - unless Misplaced Pages no longer aspires to be a reliable, respected source and prefers to be more like MMA. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You knew that talk page consensus opposed your edit, but you made it anyways. If you go around chopping up the criticism section of other controversial articles in the face of explicit opposition, expect more accusations of vandalism. — goethean ॐ 16:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is contentious enough without accusations of vandalism. Call it something else, please. Now lets get back to discussing the particulars of the edit without worrying what to call it. Gamaliel (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If the reliable, respected sources like NYT don't indulge in such lists of trivial nitpicking, then neither should Misplaced Pages - unless Misplaced Pages no longer aspires to be a reliable, respected source and prefers to be more like MMA.

So it follows then that if NYT/WaPO/etc. do publish a list of clear falsehoods peddled by Corsi, Misplaced Pages can report it? — goethean ॐ 16:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. We should endeavor to follow the lead of very reliable, responsible, neutral, highly respected secondary sources that have been around for 100+ years, rather than unreliable, irresponsible, highly partisan, fairly universally despised websites that have been around for four years. You're a veteran Misplaced Pages editor, Goethean. Wouldn't you agree? Rather than post such a list here, just link to the reliable source. That is my Option 1 above. It's virtually identical to the preceding proposal by Wikilost. But if a reliable, respected source doesn't have such a list of trivial, nitpicking corrections, it's a guttersnipe level stunt by a partisan smear site and Misplaced Pages should not lower itself to that level. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey WB74: MMA is NO LONGER USED as the sole source of the list. Despite your allegations of me copying it from MMA, which I did not, I have replaced all the MMA sources in the list with RS. You just want the criticism gone, because your POV clouds your judgment. I'm willing to make a compromise, now stop ripping on me and a source that is no longer used. Wikilost (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Since you didn't copy it from MMA, it's a WP:OR and WP:SYNTH violation. Thanks for clearing that up. There will still be abundant criticism in the article after the laundry list of nitpicking corrections is removed. At no time have I ever suggested or attempted the removal of noteworthy criticisms from noteworthy, neutral, respected secondary sources such as NYT/WaPo/AP. The first half of the critical stuff can and should stay. My POV, which is allegedly clouding my judgment, is seeking a neutral and balanced article that is encyclopedic and supported entirely by the notable and reliable sources. MMA is not one of them.

Only MMA indulges in such a laundry list of nitpicking, trivial corrections. It's the wrong way for an encyclopedia that's truly trying to be neutral, and truly aspiring to be a respected, reliable source, to go. If a respected neutral source such as NYT/WaPo/AP has published such a list, then I withdraw my objection and we can link it. But if they haven't, we cannot appear to be following MMA patterns and practices. That's not what Misplaced Pages is about. WorkerBee74 (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you dial the rhetoric down a notch? It's not doing you any good. — goethean ॐ 17:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No comparisons to other articles. Yes, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but that doesn't mean anything. An article hould be based on WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT, and wherever those leads the article so be it. Alo let's not use conservative or liberal blogs to criticized positions. It's silly and downgrades the quality of the article. We66er (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Comparisons to other WP articles are in fact valid, We66er, particularly if they are Good Articles or Featured Articles. If every WP article about every book ever published is done in a particular way, and this one isn't, then this article needs modification to conform with well-established practices. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't just an ordinary political book, and the wiki article doesn't need to treat it like an ordinary book. The people who wanted to defame Obama needed to legitimize the smears and gossip by having them packaged in a "book." We should make a list of all those who acknowledged that the "book" is full of false allegations - NYT, WaPo, etc. - and another list of those who frequently refer to the "book" but never find any fault with it - Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, etal. Let's stop trying to seek artificial balance. It's not left and right in this case. It's right and wrong. I've stopped making edits (aside from minor ones) because I can't guarantee NPOV. Others here who have strong points of view might just recuse themselves and let neutral editors reach consensus. --Ohaohashingo (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That seems like an eminently sensible proposal.

I don't see how the Geraghty bit is at all relevant to this article. We can assume there are thousands of blogs out there attacking Obama. Why would this one fringe opinion need to be included? It seems to have less to do with clarifying anything in this article and more to do with simply "piling on" the negative opinion. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed content

I'd like to note that one of the facts removed by the current edit is that Corsi claims that Obama wants to remove troops from Afghanistan, which is not only clearly false, but an issue of greater substance than some others. This is what WorkerBee74 refers to as a "laundry list of nitpicking" and "the extensive laundry list of trivial objections"? It's more accurately described as a serious distortion of Obama's views. — goethean ॐ 16:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a copy of the book in front of me right now, and would like to know what page Corsi make the claim that Obama wants to remove troops from Afghanistan? Not that I would ever accuse someone with David Brock’s reputation for fair and accurate reporting or anyone he associates with of making something up or distorting a source not readily available, but I cannot seem to find it. CENSEI (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, CENSEI. I have also read every page of the book, have a copy at home, and do not recall that particular claim being made by Corsi. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I know that you're a relative newcomer ;-), but we rely on reliable sources, not original research. — goethean ॐ 17:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

From Commentary magazine, that bastion of commie-pinko propaganda: As for the book: it seems to be riddled with factual errors–some relatively minor (like asserting that Obama does not mention the birth of his half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, in Dreams from My Father; Obama does mention her), and some significant (suggesting that Obama favors withdrawing troops from Afghanistan; he wants to do the opposite).

It isn't Commentary magazine. It's a blog by one of the writers, bypassing any fact-checking mechanism. I suggest it may not be reliable, particularly since neither CENSEI nor I can find the alleged Afghanistan claim by Corsi, and we both own the book. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

A quick google search turned up this:

Obama can be expected to invoke more explanations, attempting to sound patriotic in his unwillingness to abandon U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan now that they are there, but he will still be explaining himself. A presidential candidate in a close general election campaign who is forced to spend time explaining contradictions between his words and actions is, by definition, losing ground.

Since becoming a U.S. senator in 2004, Obama has not introduced a single resolution or bill calling on President Bush to end the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, only a January 2007 bill to de-escalate.

Will Obama still run against the war if the reports coming from Iraq and Afghanistan continue to validate the Bush administration's military policy in the region? If McCain wanted to stay the course until he could declare victory and stage an orderly withdrawal, why would Obama object? Would Obama do anything different?

— goethean ॐ 18:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, very good, Goethean. Precisely what Corsi wrote. Please explain how this claims or purports that Obama wants to withdraw US forces from Afghanistan. "Run against the war" doesn't cut it since the author is obviously referring to the war in Iraq. (Context context context.) I repeat my suggestion that a blog by an unsupervised writer at Commentary magazine, without any fact-checking that the magazine itself may have, may not be a reliable source. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If a commentator for a mainstream magazine believes that Corsi is deliberately obfuscating Obama's record on this issue, that is certainly legitimate ground for this article to cover. And if a source is considered reliable under Misplaced Pages policies, the all of the products produced by that source can generally be considered reliable. A "blog" from a mainstream media source like Commentary is perfectly acceptable and all products from a reliable source are generally considered to have the same level of editorial oversight. Gamaliel (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't it Groucho Marx who said, "Who are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes?" That's what an intrepid blogger who happens to work at Commentary magazine seems to be saying. Corsi does not "suggest" that Obama wants to withdraw US forces from Afghanistan. He says that Obama is "running against the war" but when we read that remark in context, it's obvious that Corsi is referring to the war in Iraq.

Even if we accept the intrepid blogger's claim as reliable (despite what my lying eyes and CENSEI's are reading in the book), that still doesn't get us past the hurdle of having a laundry list of nitpicking corrections in a Misplaced Pages article when reliable, respectable sources don't engage in such practices. If the New York Times, Washington Post or some other truly respected and neutral source is doing it, then all we need to do is link it. But if they aren't, we should not be looking to partisan smear sites for guidance on how to write a neutral encyclopedia article. WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

We believe reliable sources and we generally don't conduct original research to disprove their claims. In regards to the rest, readers will expect information on specific allegations. We can limit this to a reasonable length, but we can't excise it completely. I see a lot of editors making broad position statements (myself included), but we seem to be (with the exception of bits here and there like this mini-discussion about Commentary) doing very little discussion about what should actually go in the article. Not broad statements about laundry lists and vandalism, but nuts and bolts. Gamaliel (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps these sources are not as reliable as we are made to believe? If MMFA said that Corsi wrote that Obama said X, Y and Z, and that could not be substantiated in the book how reliable s the source? Going back to the book is not original research. This bring me to another point I made earlier on the talk page, namely that we are presenting material critical of the book as if it were an undisputed fact, and this is a gross violation of WP:NPOV. These sources pushing this, the Obama camp and its various media organs have been caught stretching the truth. When we say that MMFA "has pointed out numerous instances of inaccuracies in the book and in Corsi's statements promoting the work" a simple look back at the book, as I have done on the Afganistan issue can show this to be MMFA’s opinion, and not any kind of verifiable fact even though we are presenting it as such. CENSEI (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

On the Afghanistan issue, you are right in that should be labeled in the article as the opinion of Commentary. Note that the writer mentions Corsi "suggests" such a thing. If you think Corsi doesn't suggest it, then you haven't proven Commentary wrong, you just disagree. But you are wrong when you try to expand that to suggest that all the documented inaccuracies are incorrect or opinion oriented. Gamaliel (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I never stated that all the documented inaccuracies are incorrect or opinion oriented, but its becoming pretty damn clear that alot of it is, and there are no deliniations between the two, despite efforts to make some. CENSEI (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It gets very tiresome trying to keep up with this discussion and all of the false statements and distortions from unreliable sources. If it isn't New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, The Independent, AP, or one of the four main network news organizations (CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, certainly not Fox), then it shouldn't even be here. I am a lifelong Democrat and an Obama supporter and it's clear to me that in this "counteroffensive," what we're seeing is a right-wing partisan smear that took a few liberties with the facts, counterattacked by a left-wing partisan smear that's taking a few liberties with the facts. We must insist on the very best and most reliable sourcing, or this is a completely pointless exercise that will repeatedly degenerate into edit-warring and flame-warring. Who needs it? This is an encyclopedia. Let's limit this to the best and most reliable of all sources. Curious bystander (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

We can't limit our sources to an arbitrarily chosen list. If it is a reliable source on Misplaced Pages, there's no reason we can't use it here. Gamaliel (talk) 22:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Is a blog by a non-notable writer at Commentary magazine really a reliable source for a claim that Corsi wrote xxxxx? Both CENSEI and I are saying, "Corsi didn't write xxxxx in his book. I've got the book right here in front of me." Goethean, to his credit, has found an online excerpt that mention Afghanistan. But it doesn't say xxxxx either, and Goethean hasn't come back and said, "YES, he wrote xxxxx in his book, right here on page yyyyy." WorkerBee74 (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Commentary is a reliable and notable source, just as much as, say, Jake Tapper. As noted above, the Commentary writer is saying that Corsi is spinning Obama's actions in an unfavorable and misleading way. Apparently you and Censei feel he is not, but that doesn't make it a factual error. Gamaliel (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Seriosuly, I am flabergasted to see this crowd embrace a source like Commentary magazine. CENSEI (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Gamaliel, the Commentary writer did not say "spinning." He said "suggested," which is a synonym for "said," not for "spinning." Corsi did not "say" that Obama seeks removal of troops from Afghanistan, therefore he didn't "suggest" it. This "suggested" statement by our intrepid blogger is a statement of fact, not an opinion; and it's provably false.

If the Commentary blogger (Peter Wehner) had said "spinning," or "implied," or "innuemdo," then it would actually be his opinion; and we should be talking about his complete lack of any notability. My Nexis search shows virtually nothing at all for this guy in the mainstream media. An op-ed piece in WaPo and another in WSJ. He's nearly the equivalent of Evelyn Pringle at Scoop.co.nz - do you remember that discussion at Talk:Barack Obama? Now the shoe is on the other foot. WorkerBee74 (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

In regards to your first comment, let me remind you again of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL.

I realize he did not say "spinning"; note that I did not put the word spinning in quotation marks to indicate that it was a direct quote. And you seem to have compared many things to your attempt to use the unreliable Snoop.com.nz as a source for the Barack Obama article, and in this case, as in the others, it is hardly an apt comparison. Peter Wehner is writing for the undeniably reliable Commentary magazine and is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and former Deputy Assistant to President Bush and former White House Director of Strategic Initiatives. Scoop.co.nz is an unknown, unreliable website and Evelyn Pringle is...who exactly? Gamaliel (talk) 00:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If Commentary is "undeniably reliable," then National Review is 100 percent reliable, don't you agree, Gamaliel? WorkerBee74 (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

So you've dropped your objection to Commentary then? Gamaliel (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm demonstrating that the people who object to the use of National Review as a reliable source can't have it both ways. Commentary has a conservative perspective. So does National Review, but it's been publishing for half a century and it's well-known and respected. If NR must be dismissed, then certainly Commentary must be dismissed as well. WorkerBee74 (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not just make a post saying in response to someone discussing the National Review? Why bring it up in an unrelated discussion? Gamaliel (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Because it is a related discussion. I am tired of seeing editors policy shop when it suits the inclusion of material they want to see in an article or the removal of material they don’t want to see in an article. Be consistent people and debates like this will largely evaporate. CENSEI (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

And I am tired of potentially productive discussions here being derailed by tangential issues or conflicts imported from other articles. We're not going to accomplish anything if we keep distracting the issues with this sort of nonsense. Commentary is a reliable source or it isn't, the quote from Commentary is usable here or it isn't, and those questions have nothing to do with what somebody else on some other article thought of the National Review or Scoop.nz or whatever. This isn't a message board. Keep to the relevant issues or this article will never get unprotected. Gamaliel (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of several external links

I removed the following links for various reasons as noted:

I followed this link. All it does is have a page (elsewhere on the website) that links to the Obama and Media Matters responses:

• Truth Fights Back, John Kerry's response

Neither of these have anyhing to do with the subject of this article:

• Obama's Challenge: America's Economic Crisis and the Power of a Transformative Presidency, new book by Robert Kuttner
• Change We Can Believe In: Barack Obama's Plan to Renew America's Promise, forthcoming third book by Barack Obama

This one I didn't remove because I think the Media Matters response to the book has been prominent and worth mentioning, so I'm on the fence about the external link -- but it's worth considering for removal:

• "Corsi's The Obama Nation" topic at Media Matters for America

We're talking elsewhere on the talk page about WP:COATRACK and we've got real examples right here. I say we keep the first three off the page. Thoughts? Noroton (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I'd say is that the John Kerry Link is pointing out his website that is mentioned here, as I suspect most people haven't heard of it. As for the rest of the links, I have no objections Wikilost (talk) 04:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of Muslim background

Does anyone find this statement rather odd:

One of Corsi's statements is that Obama's childhood friend, Zulfin Adi, had stated that Obama was a practicing Muslim; this claim has been refuted by multiple newspapers and people close to Obama.

First of all, the term “multiple sources” is supported by only one source, The Chicago Tribune, which is published in a predominantly Democrat area in Obama’s back yard.

Second, if the “people close to Obama” are his campaign workers, then this information is probably suspect as a reliable source.

Finally, this critique totally ignores the fact that Obama himself, in Dreams From My Father has mentioned that he attended a Muslim school and studied the Koran:

“In Indonesia, I had spent two years at a Muslim school...The teacher wrote to tell my mother that I made faces during Koranic studies.”

Can a past of Islam change the path to president for Obama?, Los Angeles Examiner

I have seen this quote from many sources, but haven’t read the book myself. However, if this is an accurate quote, it needs to be in the article. Thanks. Freedom Fan (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources for all of this. If the book is promoting rumors and distortions to promote the idea that Obama is Muslim, that may be worthaq mention as being among the book's many distortions. We're certainly not going to endorse the book's conclusion on this point.Wikidemo (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The Chicago Tribune, in addition to being a reliable source, is a conservative newspaper. — goethean ॐ 18:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not a conservative newspaper. But it is a reliable source. If it's one newspaper rather than multiple papers, however, then that's what the article should say. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The Trib is a conservative paper? Last sunday on page one there was some rambling piece on another evil "smear" campain against BHO ,and then one of the lead editorials called for an end to the Chicago Air and Water Show because of all that 'Merican jingoism it puts on display. CENSEI (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, from a certain perspective, even Adolf Hitler looks like a leftist. — goethean ॐ 01:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Whose perspective would that be? The Trib is in the nature of an umpire in the game of baseball: equally hostile to both teams. It attacked Republican George Ryan with the same gusto that it now displays whenever it attacks Democrat Rod Blagojevich. But we're getting derailed here. Since it's one paper, and since the "people close to Obama" are not identified by a reliable source, the article should say "refuted by the Chicago Tribune." WorkerBee74 (talk) 01:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Without being uncivil, may I suggest that everyone cut the crap? The accusation that Obama is a Muslim is a slur that has been amply refuted by every reputable publication and source there is. Further remonstrations to the contrary are only evidence of fringe views. Proceed cautiously. Arjuna (talk) 01:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Without exploring whether it is indeed a slur to suggest that someone could be a Muslim, might I civilly suggest that the most accurate statement might be something like: "According to Obama's book Dreams From My Father, he attended a Muslim school and studied the Koran, briefly as a small child, prior to becoming a Christian." I am presuming here that someone can find the page and line containing the quote, and if so that accuracy is more important than partisan spin on this topic. I doubt whether Obama's own words would be considered a fringe view in this case. Freedom Fan (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing accurate about your proposed statement. Going to a Muslim school and studying about the Koran does not make one a Muslim, just as a Muslim going to a Christian school and studying about the Bible does not make them Christian. This is not uncommon at all. And if you still believe your proposed statement to be accurate, then I would suggest you need to read up on Islam. Aloha, Arjuna (talk) 08:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I still believe the proposed statement is accurate. If you don't then re-read the statement; it does not address whether Obama is or was a Muslim. It is merely an accurate paraphrase of Obama's own words. But since there is some question, just use Obama's actual words. The statement as it stands now is inaccurate and partisan. Freedom Fan (talk) 08:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It's still a WP:COATRACK. Any serious discussion of whether Obama is, was, trained as, believes in, prays with, has relatives who are, etc., Muslim, needs to be treated very carefully and should be in the bio section that accurately reports his religious beliefs and background. Any fabrications and distortions on the subject should simply be reported as such, if notable, and we should not be reporting that there are two sides to this question. Anything else plays into the hands of the partisans, and it is a very nasty thing indeed to use a lie about someone's religion as an ethnic slur. Wikidemo (talk) 05:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't believe it is a coatrack, a red herring, or a limp biscuit ... it's simply called truth. Challenge me: Can you honestly state that no where in Obama's book does he discuss attending a Muslim school or studying the Koran? The statement as it currently stands in the article does not present a neutral point of view. Freedom Fan (talk) 08:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Coatracks are true. That doesn't stop them from being coatracks. If they weren't they would be simple lies. This "let the real truth come out" silliness is the stuff of politics, not Misplaced Pages articles. The only lack of neutrality I see is that we're lending credence to the book by actually repeating the book's biased content. I suppose we can't fully describe the book without telling the reader what the book is about. But in doing so we're promoting the book's agenda, which isn't to convince anyone of anything but to plant Earworms into voters to give them nagging suspicious about Obama's religion, patriotism, honesty, etc. Wikidemo (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree; you appear to be getting hung up on the coatrack (so to speak). Readers come to Misplaced Pages to learn the truth; pretending truth somehow is not important is plain silly. If readers wanted partisan spin, they could just read the candidates' web sites. However, since truth can be subjective, Misplaced Pages dispenses with this particular term in favor of the objective standard of verifiability. This standard has been adopted as the best way to present the reader with the truth.

My suggested text meets this objective standard for verifiability WP:Verify.

The 'earworm' comment is tantamount to suggesting that readers are robots or mere children who can't handle the truth.

Allowing a Misplaced Pages article to essentially parrot Obama's campaign statement; that he was never a 'practicing' Muslim yet suppressing pertinent, verifiable statements from his own book; is transparently partisan and contrary to WP:NPOV. Freedom Fan (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not going to happen, and I'll try to explain why. The encyclopedia does not print everything that is true, an impossible task. Instead we create encyclopedic articles. Those articles are organized on different topics and each attempts to fairly, neutrally, and verifiably describe what is worth knowing to get a basic understanding of the subject matter. For that we have various policies, guidelines, and conventions about what goes in and how it is presented. "Truth", or rather, verifiability is one standard but it is only a filter. Nothing is supposed to be allowed in if it is not verifiable, but most verifiable material does not go into an article. Articles are ideally 40,000 bytes or less of text so we must pick and choose. For that we have a concept of weight / relevance, among other things. We report the most important things that are relevant to the notability of a subject, and where we need help deciding we look to external sources to describe how important these things are. This article is about a very controversial book that is, by all mainstream accounts, very poor on accuracy while at the same time being a deliberate attempt to harm Obama's presidential campaign. It has had no known effect on the campaign or on the rest of the world yet, other than to elicit some responses and to sell reasonably well. Thus, that is what the article on the book should report. We may choose to take a few representative, or important, examples of the book's untruths and highlight them here, but only for purposes of describing the book, not for purposes of analyzing Obama. There is a separate article about that, and his religion is described there. However, in the Misplaced Pages articles that do concern Obama and his religion we go with mainstream sources and report all reasonable sides. The attempts to associate him with people American seem to dislike - terrorists, criminals, and Muslims - are notable only for the attempt, and that goes in the campaign article. His actual life - who he has befriended and what his religion is, goes in the bio article. We don't serve up junk to our readers in hopes that they have the smarts to discern facts from misstatements, or notable things from those that are exaggerated. Coatrack is a term we use around here for putting in lots of verifiable, true, but irrelevant material that serves to disparage something in a way not closely related to the purpose of the article. Having the article digress about Obama's supposed (but false) Muslim connections, something that the book and many opponents are trying to do deliberately, is the exact sort of thing the coatrack essay warns us not to do. Wikidemo (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"According to Obama's book Dreams From My Father, he attended a Muslim school and studied the Koran, briefly as a small child, prior to becoming a Christian."

While technically accurate, the sentence is completely misleading. By omission of detail, it implies that Obama was a Muslim who became a Christian. I am the son of a Church of England father and a Roman Catholic mother. I went to a Church of England parish school and attended Sunday School at its associated church (I liked singing hymns). I studied various religions as part of my education, and I used to do some voluntary work for a different local church to help keep kids off the streets. Yet I am not (and have never been) a Christian. Christians and Christianity are part of my history and upbringing, but I have always been an atheist. Unless reliable and corroborating sources exist that specifically state Obama was a Muslim, any text that leads the reader to draw this implication would be a violation of WP:BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Good; there seems to be consensus that this statement indeed is accurate, yet still can not be included in the article, because it is somehow 'misleading' or 'omitting detail' or because 'we can't capture all the truth in the world'. At least we have progressed beyond the point where to mention this fact somehow is tantamount to a 'slur' or bigotry. Putting the statement in context is easy to do if that were the real issue. It's not.

I submit that what indeed would be misleading is to retain the characterization that the book as flawed because Obama was never a "practicing Muslim", while willfully omitting Obama's clear statements confirming an early association with Islam.

I submit that including all pertinent information early is also in the best interests of Obama supporters, because both candidates will be under the microscope and all information about them will surface eventually. Early acknowledgement of all facts gives voters time to digest and weigh them against other information, rather than be emotionally blind-sided right before they go to the polls.

Omitting this pertinent fact lacks neutrality and diminishes the credibility of Misplaced Pages. It is delusional for Obama cheerleaders to believe that Misplaced Pages is a reader's only source of information; readers will compare other information to Misplaced Pages, and accordingly draw conclusions about its reliability as an encyclopedia. Thanks. Freedom Fan (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That's an extremely tortured piece of logic. Briefly going to a Muslim school is not the same as "extensive connections with Islam" is it? Also, "both candidates will be under the microscope and all information about them will surface eventually" is crystal ball gazing that has no place in Misplaced Pages. What "diminishes the credibility of Misplaced Pages" is the attempts by some editors to use Misplaced Pages as their personal soap box, turning the site into an extension of the Republican echo chamber that helps to hype and sell this crap in the first place. Furthermore, calling editors "Obama cheerleaders" and "delusional" displays a startling lack of civility, particularly with this article under probation. Maybe you should take a step back and think a little before commenting again. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Okay, now that you've called other editors "obama cheerleaders" and "delusional" I'm checking out of this discussion - but you should probably consider the proposal to add material about Obama's supposed Muslim background to be rejected. I suggest we archive this discussion as unlikely to generate a constructive change to the article, and too likely to lead to disruption. Also, may I remind the editor here that this article is on article probation - you can see the notice on top of this page. One thing definitely not to do is denigrating people as "Obama cheerleaders" for disagreeing with efforts to introduce disparaging material in this way. Wikidemo (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree strongly with Scjessey and Wikidemo -- this discussion has been utterly pointless and at this point any continuance is little more than disruption. FF's allegation is a violation of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and likely others (in addition to being completely illogical: to reiterate, Obama's quote does not demonstrate anything close to what FF thinks it does, and I will leave it to others to assess for themselves what this illustrates). In short, it is a complete non-starter. The name-calling seems to be evidence that s/he has little else to go on. Arjuna (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Judging by this naked attempt to intimidate me into silence, I must really be on to something. First, of all I did not address any particular editors as anything, and those who over-react to these facts betray far more about their credibility than any silly name anyone could call you. Second, what was recently inferred of my intentions by certain editors was far worse. Third, any attempt to delete this discussion could be grounds for having your user blocked as you have already been warned.

Finally, I have now scanned the current paperback edition of Dreams From My Father and have located this quote on page 154, lines 14-17:

"I nodded, deciding not to ask what a catechism was. In Indonesia I had spent two years at a Muslim school, two years at a Catholic school. In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell my mother that I made faces during Koranic studies."

Now you can certainly argue that this does not support the statements of the author, but to pretend that Obama never had anything to do with Islam would represent an unacceptable bias to this article.

In case you don't want to buy the book, you may confirm the quote by clicking "See Inside" from the Barnes & Noble website, and search for "Muslim school". Thank you. Freedom Fan (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"but to pretend that Obama never had anything to do with Islam would represent an unacceptable bias"

Now I think you are just being intentionally disruptive. Seriously? You seriously believe that attending a Muslim school for 2 years is "extensive connections with Islam"? How come we aren't saying he has "extensive connections with Catholicism" because he spent 2 years in a Catholic school? I was wrong about "tortured logic" - this isn't logic by any measure. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Where did you get "extensive connections with Islam" from anything I said? I am merely suggesting some balance to the somewhat misleading statement that the claim that Obama had been a practicing Muslim "has been refuted by multiple newspapers and people close to Obama". Freedom Fan (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Addressing the question of whether the Chicago Tribune is a conservative newspaper: in its entire history, it has never endorsed a Democratic candidate for president, only Republicans, (and Progreessive Party candidate Teddy Roosevelt in 1912)since the Democratic and Republican parties came into existance or since the paper started endorsing candidates in 1872 . Its long time owner, Colonel McCormick, insisted that Franklin D. Roosevelt was a tool of Joseph Stalin. When the Chicago police assassinated members of the Black Panther party in the 1960's the Chicago Tribune printed pictires of nailheads in the front door of the apartment, and insisted they were bulletholes where the Panthers had been shooting at the police. Pretty conservative, historically, in my view. Edison (talk) 04:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Checking reality

To identify The Obama Nation as a political hit job would require neutral wording, reliable evidence to show it, and so on. But, here in the discussion I'd just like to make sure that we all understand it to be a political hit job and not just a book. Right? Going back and forth on Corsi's made-up allegations probably won't ever make this a great wiki article. The more we try to model this article on articles about other non-fiction books the more we ignore reality (that the real nature of The Obama Nation is in its attempt to defame Obama). It may be too early for us to cover this aspect in the article. But, anyway, just wanted to check reality. There's nobody here who doesn't recognize this as a political hit job, right? --Ohaohashingo (talk) 06:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself obviously: of course it's utter propaganda. But my guess is that there are other editors who would deny this. A list of publications that have gone on record denouncing TON and those that have supported it would be nice, but runs up against a very real risk of violating OR -- it would have to be published by a RS. Not easy. And to your points below, unless very solid RS consensus exist that can be readily cited, it's also violating OR to speculate on what Corsi's motivations behind specific allegations may have been. Arjuna (talk) 08:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I mean, in this article it's not our task to review claims about Obama's religion. That'd be off topic. However, wouldn't you expect this article to explain why some of his opponents want to promote the (fabricated) idea that he's Muslim? That would be right on topic, wouldn't it? --Ohaohashingo (talk) 06:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Imagine you're a transfer student from Holland and you need to write an essay about American politics. You notice all this talk about "muslim" this and "hussein" that, and you wonder, "Why are Americans talking so much about this? Why do some people make a big deal about Obama's middle name but not McCain's? If Obama is a Christian, why so much talk about him not being a Christian? Why would it matter?" As long as reliable sources are there, shouldn't a Misplaced Pages article give some hints? --Ohaohashingo (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

FreedomFan, if you would like to open a request for mediation, you are welcome to do so. Good luck. Arjuna (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It makes me laugh at the lengths to which the right-wing POV pushers go to try to get ridiculous smears about people they don't like into the mainstream. Not even McCain claims Obama is Muslim (anymore). The Chicago Tribune is very much a conservative newspaper, forget statistics, etc, all you have to do to determine that is to open up the editorial page. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 21:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Should the McCain section be in there at all?

Setting aside all the arguments about how many levels deep the responses to responses should go, is McCain's comment even relevant? The section is barely about the book (which, ostensibly, is the subject of this article). It has more to do with the day-to-day sniping between the two campaigns.

What difference does it make how McCain responded? He's not the subject of the book. It seems to be in there just as a pretense for directing some criticism back at McCain. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You have an interesting point. I hadn't thought about it but you're probably right. If McCain actually does respond we should cover it. But he hasn't really responded - laughing, getting criticized for laughing, and issuing press releases on why you laughed is not really a notable response. Wikidemo (talk) 21:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I took it out, just for the sake of boldness. I expect I will probably be reverted, but I wanted to get the process going. I also removed the John Kerry section. That doesn't seem to have any connection to this book whatsoever, save for the fact that Corsi is the author. Since it's already mentioned that Corsi wrote Unfit for Command, there isn't any need to delve deeper into how Kerry responded (that's another article). --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the revert and reasoning behind it. I think a short section (as existed previously) on the McCain campaign response is perfectly appropriate, as long as it is not an opportunity to advance an anti-McCain POV. Insofar as the book is quite evidently being used as a propaganda tool by certain parties, the fact that McCain has not explicitly repudiated it is certainly notable. Arjuna (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Notable to the McCain campaign, probably, but not to the book itself. A mention of the campaign's response and subsequent commentary about that response is probably appropriate to the McCain campaign article, I don't see how it's relevant to this one. --Clubjuggle /C 22:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The book is not just the book, it's now part of the campaign (whether one likes it or not). I fail to understand your reasoning, which seems far too literal. Arjuna (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That comment cuts both ways - that could be a good argument that the material belongs in the article about the McCain campaign. But anyway, there's hardly any material to be concerned about. McCain's entire response was just "Gotta keep your sense of humor" and then a few press releases about what he meant by saying it. Does that really educate anyone about anything? It seems trivial. It says a tiny bit about McCain but not really about the book or its impact. Someone who comes to this article wanting to know what the book is about and how it affect the world is not going to be any smarter after reading that McCain said "Gotta keep your sense of humor."Wikidemo (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain's response, or non-response, and what others think about it is notable per Arjuna. It is sourced, about the book, and been mentioned many places in the press. It's for the readers to decide what to think, just give them the information about it. We66er (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is Media Matter's response more notable than McCains? The article now has a section devoted to a website's criticims and McCain's is absent. Anyone else see a problem with this? We66er (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think they had a notable, initial, lengthy response to the book that is now outdated. I think they're worth a sentence or two, now, but I'm not even sure they're worth that. I certainly think now that we should delete any information sourced only to them. Noroton (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The McCain section is irrelevant to this. The book is not about McCain. What does McCain's response add to this article? What does it tell us about the book or even the book's reception? We don't need to have all information about this book in this article. In fact, we don't have enough room for that. Delete it. Noroton (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Bold, revert, discuss -- A friendly reminder

Bold, revert, discuss does not mean one make a single post and then revert. It means that once your proposed contribution is reverted, coming to the talk page, initiation a discussion, and then allowing the discussion to run its course before editing to consensus. In other words, it's WP:BRD, not WP:BRDRDRDRDRDRDRD… --Clubjuggle /C 21:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll add a request that anyone doing a revert of a bold edit should also post a valid substantive reason in the edit summary or, if it needs more room, here on the talk page. Unless the reason is really obvious, saying something like "seek consensus first" doesn't help anything. If you object to something, please state your objection so it can be discussed or met. Thx, Wikidemo (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

In that spirit, I will post here regarding my revert of Curious Bystander's deletion of a large section of the article. Readers will expect a discussion of specific allegations sourced from reliable sources and there is no reason we should not provide it. Gamaliel (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

How do you know what readers will expect, Gamaliel? I would like to think they'd expect an article that doesn't violate WP:WEIGHT and WP:OR. In this edit, the author of the section admits that it's a WP:OR violation. I pointed out this fact in my edit summary when I removed the WP:OR violation. WorkerBee74 (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that's hardly an OR violation. An OR violation is not using different secondary sources in a section. An OR violation is reading the book, picking out inaccuracies, and researching their factual basis with primary sources. Gamaliel (talk) 03:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, some of the deletions really need discussed before removal. We66er (talk) 23:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Strongly agree. Often it's best to move the text here so everybody can see it. Noroton (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Get consensus before removing large amounts

Can we at least agree that large amounts of information should not be removed unless WP:CONSENSUS, has been reached on this talk before removal? It is quite distressing to see people remove other's hard work. Any major edit needs a consensus achieved over a period of time. That should also include wording that's been in the article for a period of time. Since that implies a consensus to keep it in. We66er (talk) 00:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed sourcing ground rules for this page

By "ground rules" I don't mean anything different from Misplaced Pages policy, but let's make it clear what sources can be used in what ways. Here's my proposal, which takes some points from various discussions elsewhere on this page:

• 1. The book is about Obama and his response to Corsi has a special place for that reason. There are limits, however, as noted at WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source. Reliable sources have called the Obama campaign response flawed. Any time we cite the Obama campaign response in a footnote, it must be accompanied by attributing the allegation from the campaign in the text of the article. We can't cite it as a fact but as an opinion in a contentious debate (therefore it would be better to cite a more believable third-party source, like a newspaper). Suggested language: according to the Obama presidential campaign or the Obama presidential campaign stated that
  2. Our own fact-checking. First, if Misplaced Pages states that something is in the Corsi book, we need to either cite the book itself (by page) or, preferably, cite someone stating that the book says this. If we want to say that the book is wrong on any one fact, it should be a pretty substantial, important fact because we have limited space and can't cover everything (but let's be pretty lenient about this until we get a "Content" section up that points out the important subject areas first). Rather than Misplaced Pages stating that Corsi is wrong, we need to cite a source and simply note a discrepancy between the book and the source, because Misplaced Pages has no right to take sides. We can state it baldly (According to the book According to Obama's Dreams of My Father ). We can write it in other ways as long as we are not seen to be taking sides. (see WP:WTA about potential wording problems.) Please note these important definitions from the WP:ASF section of WP:NPOV: By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute." Usually, facts are simply footnoted and opinions we report on are identified in the text.
  3. Media Matters for America is not generally considered a reliable source in Misplaced Pages. Now that we have plenty of other sources about inaccuracies, let's drop all citing to Media Matters for America other than to cite the fact that they say they found inaccuracies. I think it's worth noting that in the article. Let the footnote for that point to their website and be done with it. If an inaccuracy is important enough, it probably will have been mentioned elsewhere by this point.
  4. No listing of Media Matters for America in the "External links" section because they're unreliable.
  5. Blogs of newspapers that are by reporters and have a strong orientation toward reporting should generally be treated as factual WP:Reliable sources and may be simply footnoted. Blogs of opinion magazines that are generally respected for their accuracy, like Commentary, National Review, The Nation or The American Prospect, or other opinion blogs on the websites of reliable news organizations should be assumed to be WP:RS here and cited the way we would cite opinions (that is, with on-the-page attribution).
  6. Ultimately, any section on the book's inaccuracies should be combined into the section on the book's contents, and as we go through the major points in the book in the combined section, we note where inaccuracies have been alleged. I believe that's the preferred way of doing it, but I don't know where in our guidelines we say so.

If we can come to agreement on some kind of "sourcing ground rules" like these, maybe we can come to consensus easier on various matters. Even if we were to come to agreement on a list like this, editors can always bring up a possible exception on the talk page and ask for consensus on it, and editors can still simply edit the page contrary to this, but they should know they probably won't get support. What do other editors think? Noroton (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have problems with several of your points, but I think that enumerating them may be beside the, well, point. Misplaced Pages already has ground rules and we should just abide by them. Instead of spending several days debating rules, we should be discussing article content. Gamaliel (talk) 00:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, what are Misplaced Pages's ground rules for information from Media Matters, blogs from opinion magazines, and Obama's 40-page statement, for starters? Noroton (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of Noroton's proposal for how to deal with sourcing in this article. Misplaced Pages's rules are very broad and apply to a lot of articles - there is nothing wrong with a group of editors agreeing on how they will proceed in one particular case. I do not think we should treat punditry in partisan magazines as generally reliable, or their opinions as notable or worth citing unless we have third party corroboration from a neutral reliable source that the opinions are notable ones. Also, each source has to be evaluated on its own. Newspaper blogs may or may not be generally reliable, depending on the paper, the topic, and the author. But each particular blog entry, and each fact mentioned in a blog, has its own degree of reliability, which varies quite a bit. You really have to look at the source and what it's being held to say. Even within the same sentence. Say a noted food critic writing for a publication with a lot of fact checking were to write a sentence: "in 1742 Philippe van Streudel first introduced London to the onion torte, and Londoners have been unable to taste good wine from bad ever since" that's reliable as to the year and the food history, but not as to the wine habits or effects of onion on the palate. You often have to drill down to that level and read between the lines. Papers have a lot of conventions about word usage, when opinion can be injected, etc. Wikidemo (talk) 01:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Biographies of Living Persons#Reliable sources. I think a blog from a major newspaper or news magazine is generally going to be considered an acceptable source on political subjects, including this book and Obama's life. That short paragraph also goes into opinion blogs in magazines. -- Noroton (talk) 01:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC) ((corrected the wikilink -- Noroton (talk) 01:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)))

I disagree, particularly with some major news organizations like Fox or even CNN allowing their news blogs to be used for open advocacy. WP:RS is not one of Misplaced Pages's better guidelines and it's especially weak on blogs. You really have to look at each specific source, and each article, for what it is, not try to infer standards simply from the parent publication. BLP and RS tend to go too far in the direction of excluding blogs and opinion pieces to the extent they report facts, but then the statement that it's okay to cite opinions as opinions can be read the wrong way to be too inclusive. BLP and RS are exclusionary, not inclusionary criteria and neither overrules the fact that for any opinion to be reported it needs to have some reason to be in the article. Also, as I said papers (the good ones at least) have a lot of conventions they use to signal their readers for when they're in editorial mode versus factual mode. That's a lot more detailed than the guideline can hope to capture, but it's pretty obvious to a regular news reader. Wikidemo (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I changed the link on you just before you responded. WP:BLP is a policy. Of course, this depends on what the subject is. If BLP-related, this is what the policy says about news organization blogs: Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. The words "interactive columns" are a bit odd, but it looks like the point is that news-oriented blogs of news organizations are fine. Are you thinking of Jake Tapper's blog? That seems to be a mix of opinion and news and I'm sure that if Tapper got something wrong there would be no question that his bosses wouldn't like it, and I'm sure editors go over his comments for accuracy (although just for obvious faults). Actually, I think that happens on opinion blogs at the web sites for Atlantic Monthly, National Review and all the major opinion magazines and their websites. When the bloggers make mistakes, they issue corrections, and if they're egregiously wrong, they get fired. They're accountable and they're professionals. Noroton (talk) 02:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

BLP doesn't tell us that any source is okay, it can only tell us a source is not okay. Nor does it supersede other policies and guidelines - it's an additional filter. Something can pass BLP and still be unusable for lack of reliability, or an NPOV violation, or irrelevant, or a weight problem. Plus, again, you have to look at the specifics. BLP would give you the wrong result, for example, in my onion torte example. Also, within an informal opinion piece like Tapper's he can get away with comments like Obama "reinventing history" that one could not get away with in the main part of the paper. Even in places where one can get away with those comments, it's understood by the editor and the reader that these are not meant to be taken as assertions of fact. I'm not so sanguine about the accuracy of news - it really depends. Some people are given a forum for saying all kinds of odd stuff.Wikidemo (talk) 02:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Blogs are never reliable sources for factual material when living people are concerned. This is unambiguous in WP:BLP where it says that "blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." And no, blogs hosted by major publications are not to be considered as reliable as those publications as they are not subject to the same editorial controls or fact-checking. You may be "sure that the editors go over his comments for accuracy" but in fact, they don't. These blogs are a way for major publications to play both sides of the fence. The National Review gets to "publish" the fringe theories of people like Tapper without having to actually answer for them or defend their accuracy (he did, after all, claim that Obama was secretly an illegal alien that forged his birth certificate). In general, we should never use opinion pieces as sources for factual material (if it were true and notable, the information would be easy to find in a news source). --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No, what it says is "Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person" and then goes on to say that blogs published by news organizations are generally acceptable. Gamaliel (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it says that blogs published by news organizations "may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." That is not the case for pretty much every one of the links we're discussing (read the disclaimers on all of the news blogs about the blog entries being the sole responsibility of the writers, etc.) --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't use lawyer boilerplate CYA language to decide whether or not something is a reliable source. If a professional writer for a professional publication switches from an "article" to a "blog", has anything really changed? If a reliable publication hosts an independent op-ed from a fringe character, then those rules should fall into play, but if we try to apply them to Joe Smith reporter for RS vs. Joe Smith blogger for RS, then that is arbitrary, counterproductive, and foolish. Gamaliel (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Loonymonkey makes a fair point. Switching from "article" to "blog" takes the quality of the source down a notch on the reliability meter. Think of it like this (rough concept just to illustrate point):

1. Report (without analysis or opinion)
2. Critical analysis (professional publication article)
3. Informed opinion (professional publication blog)
4. Partisan analysis (partisan professional publication)
5. Partisan informed opinion (partisan professional publication blog)
6. Uninformed opinion (regular blogs)
7. Hatchet jobs and smear campaigns

Only the first three should be considered for BLP-related sourcing, with 4 and 5 considered for non-contentious sourcing and everything else excluded. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Do the semantics really matter? Pundits and analysts and journalists suddenly become less reliable because the word blog is used? Look at The New York Times, which is publishing many online articles under the title "The Caucus Blog", using the same reporters that they do for the same types of politicial articles that are published without the title "The Caucus Blog". Why is one more unreliable than the other because of this title? Gamaliel (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think they do, but only a little. There is definitely a difference between the critical analysis offered in a well-considered piece of investigative journalism, and the "gut feelings" and opinion that would be offered in a blog (which is more like punditry that journalism). I'm saying these types of blogs are a "notch" below the mainstream articles, and are less desirable. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I find it difficult to believe that what we call something suddenly transforms it. We should not substitute sound judgment with semantics. Gamaliel (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to get into this too much (not the right place to do it), but there is a huge difference between a blog column and investigative journalism - it is not a semantic difference. Blogs are 3-paragraph chunks for expressing opinion, whereas full-blown articles are often 3-page tomes featuring deep analysis and factual reporting that draws from all manner of sources. The latter is bound to carry more weight as a reliable source than the former, even though the former is acceptable as well. It's not semantics, it's subtlety. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

And a short, superficial news article versus an in-depth analytical blog entry? Gamaliel (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

there is a huge difference between a blog column and investigative journalism - it is not a semantic difference

Are you familiar with contemporary journalism? — goethean ॐ 00:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

An "in-depth analytical blog entry"? I'm not sure I've ever seen one of those. Now we are getting down to semantics. I know you know what I mean, so I'm not going to just restate the argument. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean, and I'm trying to illustrate that not everything called a blog is unreliable and not everything that isn't a blog (in the context of this discussion) is reliable. I'll just leave it at this: we should not substitute sound editorial judgment with a decision based only on labels and names. Gamaliel (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Illustration of blog entries that cross these definitions: Byron York is both an opinion journalist and a reporting journalist. His articles and blog entries cross those borders, with some being more reporting and others being more opining. I'm not saying the following are proposals for Misplaced Pages mainspace citations but they could be if other news reports don't have the same information. If York got anything wrong he'd need to correct it, and he has in the past (I think David Corn is a good example on the left): and . Keep in mind that York may switch back and forth between opining and reporting, so he needs to be used with caution, but if he's clearly reporting ("I spoke to Charlie Black, and he told me ...") then he should be used for useful facts if we can't find them in a "straight news" story. I'm not looking for pre-approval of anything here, just noting that definitions of reliable sources by blog/non-blog, opinion magazine/news organization are not cut and dried but need to be looked at on an individual basis. York actually does do investigative reporting (which is, really, just intense reporting of facts that someone would prefer you didn't know). Noroton (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey, this is not how respectable publications work, and if you think it is, please find a source that says so because your asserting it doesn't make it true. No publication wants its employees to embarass it with false information. There is nothing at all wrong with using news blogs like the New York Times' "Caucus Blog" for facts unless we find that blog is unreliable. Misplaced Pages simply allows us to report on opinions, and that includes opinion blogs. If you have an objection to an individual citation to a blog, bring it up on the talk page, but you'll need a reason beyond policy and guidelines, because they won't help you here. I quoted WP:NPOV policy at the bottom of #2, but it's been ignored in this conversation. Just because I'm so helpful, here it is again: WP:WTA about potential wording problems.) Please note these important definitions from the WP:ASF section of WP:NPOV: By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute." -- Noroton (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You're making too big a deal out of this. I am not saying that these "professional publication blogs" are no good. I am simply saying that they are a teeny bit less desirable than full-blown articles consisting of proper investigative journalism - even if they are written by the same individuals. I'm not objecting to anything. I was merely weighing-in on something Loonymonkey said. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Then can we agree that reporting blogs by professional journalists are acceptable for fact citations (even though other forms of professional journalism are preferred), and opinion blogs are acceptable if we have reason to mention opinions? The preference in reporting opinions should be toward professional opinion journalists, but only in general. We're getting into a classic situation here of abstract disagreements, and perhaps we're not disagreeing all that much anyway. We probably all have better things to do. I take it that you agree that the Media Matters citations should be dropped for everything but their opinion. Noroton (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

We can agree that such blogs are acceptable, provided they aren't from partisan sources (Keith Olbermann, Bill Kristol et al). I have already stated elsewhere on this talk page that a reliance on Media Matters for sourcing would be inappropriate, and examples should be replaced with better sourcing at the earliest convenience. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidemo. Blogs are rather unreliable in terms of NPOV. I'm not arguing for a blanket ban, but rather their use should be the exception rather than the rule. Arjuna (talk) 01:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree per Noroton, Wikidemo and Arjuna. Newspaper blogs are okay. Magazine, opinion blogs should be avoided. The obvious reason is this article will become a battle ground for inserting random blog opinions from talking heads. We66er (talk) 04:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with using partisan opinion sites like The National Review, The Nation and The Weekly Standard as sources. These types of sites are being described as "generally respected for their accuracy" by Noroton, but I question how any partisan source can be considered reliable - especially in the run up to an election. I have consistently advocated that none of these online opinion magazines should be used for BLP-related sourcing, and that a higher standard is desired. It concerns me that there is a constant attempt to redefine these sources as acceptable. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, Misplaced Pages allows use of blogs by professionals (including professional journalists). We should be able to do what The Christian Science Monitor, one of the most respected newspapers in the United States, did in this news report (from August 17):

Some conservatives have suggested that “Obama Nation” won’t have the credibility of the anti-Kerry book, because “Unfit for Command” was co-written by John O’Neill, who was himself a Vietnam swift-boat veteran and who co-founded Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group that produced ads against Kerry.

If Corsi had written the Obama book with ministers who had worked with Obama in the 1980s, and who felt Obama was unfit for office, then that would be a big story, opines National Review columnist Byron York in a blog. “This is not 2004,” he writes.

Another conservative and a veteran of both Bush administrations, Peter Wehner, warns in a column in Commentary Magazine that “conservatives should not hitch their hopes” to Corsi’s book. He writes that the book “seems to be riddled with factual errors” and then notes wide media reporting on some of Corsi’s unusual interests – such as the 9/11 “truth movement,” which asserts that the World Trade Center towers collapsed from explosions inside the building.

It's almost as if the reporter had read the Misplaced Pages article and the discussion here. So let me give a big thank-you to Linda Feldman! These commentators had newsworthy opinions, she reported them. When they're useful in showing what the reaction was to something, we can cover them the same way. -- Noroton (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this. This is the kind of thing that should be our guide in spotting which sources are relevant and noteworthy and representative. If nothing else, this should drive a stake through the heart of that silly Commentary debate. Gamaliel (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Restating of policy

(Resetting indent) WP:RS#News_organizations: "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact." That is Misplaced Pages policy. Very straightforward. So we can't use conservative or liberal blogs for "statements of fact." Having a section specifically devoted to partisan reactions (with every opinion duly noted as such, with in-text attribution) would be perfectly acceptable under WP:RS, but we must, must, must keep opinion pieces out of anything to do with factual statements. This article is not a biography, but it treads very, very close to one and contains a certain amount of biographical material, so we must be mindful of WP:BLP, and (again, per WP:RS) "When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used. What this says to me is:

• No opinion blogs for statements of fact. At all. None of them are going to qualify as "high-quality news organizations", and they certainly won't trump the actual news sources we have for reliability.
• Limited use of non-opinion news blogs. And by limited, I mean almost none. A news blog better be hosted by an organization like Newsweek or The New York Times, and it had better be an actual news blog, not a mix of news and opinion, before it should pass muster here. I'm afraid that rules out just about every blog mentioned here. Remember, we're not just constrained by WP:RS here, we're also constrained by WP:BLP.
• Limited use of extremely high-quality opinion pieces (cream of the crop blogs and opinion pieces published in the Washington Post, for example) for a section on partisan reactions to the book.
• Partisan reactions must be kept separate from high-quality news citations. To satisfy WP:BLP, we must be absolutely, positively scrupulous in separating opinion from statements of fact, and cannot allow them to intermingle. We don't want to see a sentence with 1 citation to a news source and 2 citations to a blog.

So, what does everyone think of these (now slightly edited and expanded) proposed guidelines? --GoodDamon 14:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Voting is evil. Misplaced Pages already has rules and we don't need special ones just for this article. To take a cue from something Noroton said elsewhere on this page, all of us (myself included, especially) should be talking about what's going into the article, what's wrong with the section that keeps getting removed, and how we can come to a consensus on that. Gamaliel (talk) 03:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not proposing we have special rules. My proposal is that we adhere to the rules that are already in place. All my "guidelines" really are is a detailed restating of portions of WP:RS and WP:BLP. In any event, I think the only "problem" is that the section keeps getting removed at all. I really, sincerely hope the editors who do so under a misunderstanding of WP:NPOV re-read that policy. I don't think we'll get much further than that until we have consensus on what source material is permissible by policy, and where. The policies really are remarkably clear, though, so once people read them, I think consensus should arrive shortly. --GoodDamon 04:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that no voting is necessary: we abide by the established Misplaced Pages rules that GoodDamon has accurately described. In fact, I find it incomprehensible that the matter is even up for discussion. Non-RS sourcing (ex. opinion blogs, etc.) is a violation. Full stop. Arjuna (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Your interpretations of policy -- and that is all they are -- are not the consensus here or anywhere else. You don't take into account whether individual blog posts at reputable websites of reputable publications can be reporting rather than opining, and they can. You well know that there is no absolute boundary between the two in magazine articles that have offered some of the best reporting ever done. New Yorker magazine articles are sometimes all reporting, nearly all reporting, partially reporting and no reporting. The policy is left vague in spots for a reason. The line is not drawn at "opinion blogs" but at particular blog posts from reputable publications, and those blog posts will need to be looked at individually -- the WP:RS language said "opinion pieces" not "opinion venues". We're going to have to take things on a case-by-case basis, but I think editors have a good understanding now of the principles involved. Your second, third and fourth points are your preferences, not policy at all. -- Noroton (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

If an individual blog post on a blog otherwise occupied by opinion qualifies as a news article in and of itself, don't you think we could use, say, a news source for the citation instead, as other news sources will likely have already picked up the story? For that reason, I believe that yes, the line is drawn at opinion blogs. Opinion blogs are only valid sources for the opinions of their writers, not for statements of fact. --GoodDamon 21:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, did I say policy? Sorry. WP:RS is a content guideline a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. We use that guideline with common sense in mind for the best interests of the encyclopedia and its readers. -- Noroton (talk) 16:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean the guideline that is listed as a requirement by WP:BLP? The one that's listed as a requirement by WP:NPOV? That guideline? Come on... How hard is it to just avoid the opinion blogs and cite reliable sources for the same content? Seriously, we all want the same thing here: A quality article. We're not going to get that if we go against policy -- and yes, guidelines -- and start using partisan blogs for citations on statements of fact. --GoodDamon 21:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I remain strongly opposed to opinion blogs for fact citations, and WP:RS is and should remain the standard -- particularly in an article such as this that is highly incendiary and already on probation. It is up to blog adherents to demonstrate why any particular case should be one of the "occasional exceptions". Indeed, if no other citations can be found then it is already highly questionable as to whether that claim is encyclopediac. The common sense position is that opinion blogs are unacceptable for fact-citations, and to suggest otherwise is ridiculous. Arjuna (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed 'References' section

I removed this two-line section titled "References":

• Corsi, Jerome (2008). The Obama Nation. Threshold Editions. ISBN 1416598065.
• Obama, Barack (1995). Dreams from My Father. Three Rivers Press. ISBN 1400082773.

We already have a footnotes section. We already list all the information on the Obama Nation book in the info box. I don't think there are any parts of this article not footnoted. So there is no point to this section that I can see. If no one objects, I'll change the name of the "Citations" section to "References" later. -- Noroton (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"Truth of Allegations" section

I removed this section, based on it being complete nonsense, utter garbage, and not even making logical sense. This was POV material at its worst. Use your heads. Arjuna (talk) 01:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Strikethrough by Arjuna (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the material is notable enough to be included, at least in large part. I was looking it over and I can see some points that are too small to be worth mentioning, but some aren't. I think ultimately this should be incorporated into the Content section. I disagree with removing it and I hope we can get consensus to keep it. Noroton (talk) 01:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Noroton. The material needs to be included, but it needs cleaned up and the title doesn't make sense. Without details on the controversy the reader only sees that various people have criticized the book, but don't know the specifics. I also agree that in some form it belongs under content, or a sub-section of it. We66er (talk) 01:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

None of the points in the material I removed even made logical sense. It merely attempted to create a false impression that there was a substantive basis for allegations that are either trivially true on the basis of how the accusation is worded (ex. Obama didn't deny drug allegations that he had used them recently, because he only said he hadn't used them since his early 20s) or the worst kind of spurious reasoning. Putting any of this material in a section labeled "truth" is morally repulsive and contrary to the spirit and letter of Misplaced Pages. It is POV of the lowest order. Arjuna (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Strikethrough by Arjuna (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that Obama drug allegation is minor at all. Drug use well into adulthood would be a pretty substantial character issue, in my book, and when the book is a bestseller on a BLP its inaccuracies on things like that are pretty important. I think the Muslim-related items are important as well. There was an idea in an obscure spot far up on the page to create a "List of" page for the allegations of inaccuracies. If there are enough, I think that would be a good idea. At the moment, I think we can remove the allegations that are truly minor (getting the marriage date wrong, for instance; I think there are several others); keep the rest; move it all into the "Content" section to be incorporated with a description of what the book says. That kind of interweaving, I think, is the preferred way to do it, although I'm not sure where that is in Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines. Noroton (talk) 02:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think I have made a major mistake, for which I apologize profusely. The section is very poorly titled. "Truth of Allegations" sounds as though it describes points Corsi makes that are in fact "true". I couldn't get beyond the first paragraph as it seemed in support of accusations that have no logical basis in fact, and now that I have read it more carefully, it appears as though the section is intended to address the merit or lack thereof of specific allegations. That said, the section is still quite poorly written and the result is a confused, illogical mess. Still, no excuses and I apologize to the other editors for my mistake, and to anyone I may have inadvertently antagonized. I'm genuinely sorry! Arjuna (talk) 02:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think anyone's going to want to tackle rewriting that section until the edit war stops. Gamaliel (talk) 02:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. However, I would think that all sides could at least agree that use of the word "truth" for this section is a rather poor word choice. Changing it to "Factual Basis of Allegations" would seem both 1. NPOV and 2. possibly even less objectionable to the pro-Corsi (if I can oversimplify) side. So, this is a request consensus before making the change. I won't unless and until this is copacetic to all, since I agree an edit war is highly undesirable. Aloha, Arjuna (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem, Arjuna people make mistakes. We66er (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

::"Censei" has reverted my deletion of the material on the basis of "no consensus". I obviously find this ridiculous and transparently POV. I will not rv again for now in hopes that honest editors will step up and -- at the very least -- edit this garbage to something remotely acceptable. For starters, may I suggest completely dropping any reference to "truth" with regards to anything the book has to say? One may speak of factual statements, not "truth", but even then the logic of the material is, suffice to say, not worthy of something I would accept from a 7th grader. Arjuna (talk) 02:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Strikethrough by Arjuna (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop edit warring

Okay? Whether it should be included or not, wholesale reversion and deletion is disruptive. There is a discussion going on. Please stick to the discussion. Thanks Wikidemo (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There didn't seem to be discussion going, or at least not in a easily referrable section) until I created the discussion section above. Arjuna (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I thought I found a spot earlier, but now that I look again, it's hard to find. I think it's a good idea to discuss it here. We should move the paragraphs here for now. -- Noroton (talk) 02:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Cut the section back in these spots

Here's the text with parts that can be removed. It seems to me that a good rule of thumb for whether something is "major" or "minor" or "trivial" is to ask would this item, if someone thought Corsi was correct, potentially lead to a good number of people changing their votes. Things that touch on topics like Wright, Rezko, military spending, drug use could change a good number of voters' minds, I think, but not the date of Obama's marriage, for instance. Maybe it's a judgment call, but that's what consensus is for:

This ties in with the Rev. Wright, a rather important topic, and adult drug use is important: The New York Times noted the book's assertion that Obama attended an incendiary sermon by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright in Chicago on a date when Obama was in fact giving a speech in Florida. The article further noted Corsi's assertion that Obama had yet to answer if he had stopped using drugs. The The State Journal-Register of Springfield, Illinois reported Obama's response to a question about his drug use: "I haven't done anything since I was 20 years old." Corsi told the Times that "self-reporting, by people who have used drugs, as to when they stopped is inherently unreliable." In the book, Corsi says that Obama may still be using drugs today, but does not provide evidence for this claim.

This picks up on an important rumor out there and should remain: The Times further noted that while Obama is a Christian, the book contains statements arguing that he has "extensive connections to Islam". One of Corsi's statements is that Obama's childhood friend, Zulfin Adi, had stated that Obama was a practicing Muslim; this claim has been refuted by multiple newspapers and people close to Obama.

This paragraph is totally trivialCorsi provides the wrong date of the Obamas' marriage. Corsi also asserts that Obama's father divorced his mother under Islamic law, a claim which contradicts the version of events presented by Obama in Dreams from my Father. Corsi claims that Obama did not dedicate his book, Dreams from my Father, to his grandparents. In the book, however, Obama writes, "It is to my family, though -- my mother, my grandparents, my siblings, stretched across oceans and continents -- that I owe the deepest gratitude and to whom I dedicated this book". Corsi also says that Obama does not mention his half-sister Maya Soetoro-Ng in Dreams from my Father, when in fact she is mentioned on page 47.

I think Rezko is important, so this is somewhat important: When discussing the house Barack and Michelle Obama bought in 2005, Corsi cites a February 1, 2008 Salon.com article for the claim that Chicago businessman Tony Rezko (since convicted of fraud) "found the house for Obama." In a 2007 interview with the staff of the Chicago Sun-Times, Barack Obama asserted that it was his wife who found the house.

Important enough, to me: Corsi claims Obama "has pledged to reduce the size of the military." However, Obama's "Plan for a 21st Century Military," posted on his website, includes this statement: "Expand to Meet Military Needs on the Ground". Adding more troops is a major stressing point in the document. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noroton (talk • contribs) 02:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, since the page was locked because of edit warring over this, anyone want to comment on my compromise proposal just above?

Anybody? ... Beuller? -- Noroton (talk) 23:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The "lock" box at the top of the page does say This page is currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved. So come on, c'mon, editors -- start resolving. I can't save Misplaced Pages all on my own. Noroton (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I support it, although I haven't been active in a few days. I would also like the lead to reflect that the book is non-fiction, as my one edit to the page showed. This should not be controversial.Die4Dixie (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Make sure you've got a reliable source. As has been discussed on this talk page, the mainstream media view is that this book is a deliberate political hit piece, designed to have an effect on the election. Any non-fiction elements may be purely coincidental. — goethean ॐ 21:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Would this source be reliable ?Die4Dixie (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Delete this section

There are several Misplaced Pages policies tha are being violated here: WP:NPOV (specifically WP:WEIGHT); WP:OR and WP:SS. These violations are obvious. They are in your face blatant. Perhaps the worst of all is SUMMARY STYLE. I see a lot of familiar faces here from Barack Obama, where WP:SS and WP:WEIGHT were being constantly shoved in my face. Now the shoe is on the other foot and these Misplaced Pages policies are being systematically violated.

I realize that a few of you have invested a lot of effort in this section. It was like investing a year of your life in building a million-dollar home by hand - on a Mississippi River floodplain. Misplaced Pages policy requires that this section must be deleted. WorkerBee74 (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You know what, Bee? I see your point. It's a waste of readers' time to delve into all these errors in Corsi's book. The lede mentions the factual errors and that's probably enough. Even putting my NPOV aside, I think it's a waste of time for anybody (McCain people, Obama people, Barr people, Nader people) to continue fact-checking TON. Everybody knows it was a political hit job full of falsehoods that nobody will have time to clear up until 2009, so, yeah, I second your opinion (even though you're the editor with the most reverts in page protection report - I worry about guilt by association, like you're Ayers and I'm Obama... oh no!).--Ohaohashingo (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm persuaded now to keep the section in. Corsi's books are in a universe of their own. With the context (released just before the convention, etc.) in mind, and especially with the overwhelmingly large number of the most reliable sources that tore into the falsehoods and innuendos, we have no choice but to include this section if the wiki article. (What was I thinking?) --Ohaohashingo (talk) 03:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Other, very notable, highly respected and very reliable publications - what I like to describe as the "gold standard" of WP:RS - have criticized the factual inaccuracies in the book. It is sufficient to name them and link them through references. They do not need to be quoted, except in their pithy summaries such as the Independent's "hatchet job on Obama." If readers are interested, they can click on the links and read more details. This is the way Misplaced Pages's summary style is supposed to work. OSH, thank you for coming around to my way of thinking on this.

Let's devote our energies to making this article look like the Misplaced Pages articles Cb mentioned that are really good, and have stood the tests of time: War and Peace and The Grapes Of Wrath. Let's use WP articles about great classic works of literature to show us how to write this one.

Let's make it a Featured Article. WorkerBee74 (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are we even talking about summary style? This is a short(ish) article, with no child articles. Summary style is not in use here. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) This article is not written in WP:summary style, so the guidelines on that page do not apply here. Misplaced Pages:Summary style only applies to articles written in that style, which this article is not large enough to warrant. In addition, War and Peace and The Grapes of Wrath are poor analogies. Neither of those are ostensibly non-fiction books, neither was released for the express purpose of preventing someone from getting elected to office, and neither was almost universally derided by the mainstream media for obvious factual errors. --Clubjuggle /C 15:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

So the fact that it's a hatchet job on Corsi doesn't bother you? The fact that there are positive mentions of the book by reliable sources (that keep getting deleted) doesn't even appear on your radar screen? WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"Hatchet job" applies to an unfair attack, so I think you'd have to prove that to call the descriptions from reliable publications a "hatchet job" on Corsi's book. As a matter of fact, the reports on Corsi's book are a good model: They set out to prove that Corsi's book is a "hatchet job" and they seem to do a pretty good job of proving it with plenty of examples of unfair attacks on Obama. Could you please point out the positive mentions that have been cut from the article? I'd like to evaluate them and try to get them back in if they seem OK. -- Noroton (talk) 18:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

National Review, just off the top of my head. There are others, not necessarily as notable as NYT/WaPo, such as Associated Content. Also, there has been an excerpt from the book itself that has been repeatedly deleted. The result is an article that is virtually 100% attack dog. Misplaced Pages policy demands better from us. I will not comment on the motives of other editors. My motive is seeking a balanced NPOV article. I've also noticed that now, all of a sudden, we are being educated about WP:PRESERVE when no one was even mentioning it at Barack Obama. If this guideline means anything, then criticism of Obama should be just as carefully preserved and prominently displayed as criticism of Jerome Corsi. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting that you say that, because earlier, you wrote that "Corsi missed with his rubber bands and BB guns, but his heavy artillery is right on target. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2008" This suggests that your motivation is to ensure that positive statements be included about the "big issues" (presumably, "Obama's secret Islamism", his "continuing drug use", etc.) It's a free country and you're entitled to your opinion, but this kind of material simply has no credible evidence to support it other that Corsi's own accusations, which have been denounced by every credible RS there is. The overwhelming mainstream consensus is that Corsi's book is indeed a "hatchet job", and if you want to demonstrate that it isn't, you're going to have to come up with credible evidence to support that claim. Good luck. Arjuna (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I will cordially point to the word "presumably" and say, "You presume too much." The heavy artillery is Obama's long and close association with Rezko, Wright and Ayers during his entire adult life. But the "counteroffensive" that we see, led by the Obama campaign and MMA, focuses on such minor details as the candidate's childhood association with Islam and his use of drugs during his late teenage years, Obama's weddng date, and Corsi's erroneous attempts to point out errors in Obama's book. I consider those to be unimportant sideshows and they are a distraction - probably deliberate on the part of MMA and the Obama campaign, which are every bit as partisan as Corsi ever thought of being - from the main events in this circus. Also, some of the so-called "falsehoods" should in fact be more accurately described as a version of "he said, she said." For example, Corsi says Rezko picked out the house. Obama says Michelle picked out the house. Why should we assume that Obama is the one telling the truth, and apply the Misplaced Pages seal of approval to Obama's version by listing it with a litany of provably false but unimportant statements? He has every reason to conceal the extent of his friendship with this convicted felon. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside your blatant "misstatement" that Obama has a "long and close association" with Ayers (or even Rezko, for that matter) are you suggesting that Obama and his wife would leave it to someone else to decide how to spend $1.6 million of their hard-earned money? I'm sorry, but that just doesn't seem at all likely, does it? Given that not a single reliable source supports Corsi's claims, I would think it more likely that Obama was telling the truth. I'd rather take the word of a respectable politician over some crackpot who thinks oil isn't a fossil fuel. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to answer your last point: If Corsi had any credible evidence to support his assertion, that may be notable. In the absence of such, Corsi's own stated motivation that he wrote the book because he wants to see Obama defeated casts serious doubt on the credibility of the claim, and thus it is a violation of undue weight. Put simply, unless there is evidence to the contrary Obama's version is indeed superior to the claims of Corsi, as the latter is demonstrably an uncredible source. Arjuna (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at Umbertoumm's response below. Our job here is not to decide who's telling the truth. Our job is to present the facts with absolute neutrality, let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader decide. But if it's credible evidence you want, the first two people to tour the property were not Barack and Michelle, but Barack and Tony. This sugests that Tony found the property, showed it to his good friend Barack, and then Barack showed it to Michelle. I say again that Obama has every reason to conceal the extent of his friendship with this convicted felon. This is not a "Corsi lied." This is a "he said, she said" and it should be presented that way. WorkerBee74 (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Rezko was acting as a "buyers agent", which would mean he would present the Obamas with a variety of appropriate properties to choose from. This is the way normal people buy houses. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

DFTT. Arjuna (talk) 02:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a platform for the dissemination of the allegations contained in Mr. Corsi's book, and so a "he said, she said" approach is completely unacceptable. Read WP:UNDUE. Because the process of editing exactly which claims are included as well as how they are articulated, it is also inherently prone to OR. This is a total non-starter. I wonder if some of the other editors have considered Conservapedia as a more appropriate venue? Arjuna (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There are others, not necessarily as notable as NYT/WaPo, such as Associated Content.

Associated Content appears to be analogous to Wikinews, as well as being on Misplaced Pages's spamfilter blacklist.— goethean ॐ 19:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

What about National Review, Goethean? Why isn't it here? WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

GoodDamon's response

I'd like to respond to the original proposal to delete the entire section. I think the policies you cited don't quite mean what you think they mean. WP:NPOV does not require that articles represent all views equally. On the contrary, it demands that the tone of the article be neutral, but also makes it clear which views should be given the most weight:

All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. (emphasis in original)

There is simply no getting around this: There is only one significant view in this matter, and it is overwhelmingly negative. The positive views of this book are a tiny minority. That may change at some point -- say, if credible evidence emerges that Obama and Rezko are pinky-sworn best friends forever, and that gets an enormous amount of press. But right now, the non-blog, non-opinion-based, professional news articles are all calling the book things like "hatchet job" and "wildly inaccurate". It would be a violation of WP:WEIGHT to give equal time to the scarcely-held viewpoint that the book is anything else.

The other policies you mention, WP:OR and WP:SS, are not applicable. If there is any original research, please point it out -- and be specific, because it must be pretty small, certainly not large enough to merit the deletion of the largest and most well-referenced section of the article. And as for summary style, that particular style guideline does not apply at all to short articles like this one. WP:SS is for larger articles that need to be trimmed down and branched into multiple topics, which it says right at the top of the page. It doesn't apply here. --GoodDamon 20:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

What about National Review, GoodDamon? Why isn't it here? WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. Did National Review say something nice about the book? It would help if we have diffs or links. Are you talking about Levin's and Geraghty's comments about the Obama 40-pager? I see Tapper's comments on the page, so I'm not too dissatisfied that we haven't warned people that the 40-pager has been called into question as not totally reliable. WorkerBee if you can bring up the diffs of something positive said about the book, I'll look at them. It appears that the reliable sources are generally in agreement that the book has serious problems. The article reflects that. Noroton (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Worker Bee has made some extremely important points here. It is not up to us as individuals to decide and provide summary judgement on a person or a book that the entity is on balance "bad". Corsi and his book are entitled to the same objectivity as are afforded articles on Obama or his book. The present article should have a POV tag placed upon it until the blatant bias is changed and until the weight and coverage is balanced. Respectfully submitted. Umbertoumm (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This is in response to User:Umbertoumm. You are partially correct in that we need to treat Corsi and his book objectively. However, there's some basic misunderstandings of what NPOV means floating around... NPOV does not mean all viewpoints need to have equal representation in an article. If it did, then the article on Earth would grant equal time to hollow-Earthers and other fringe views. It does not, and it should not. When the majority of reliable sources on a topic present a particular viewpoint of that topic, it is that viewpoint that we editors -- without expressing our own opinions on the matter -- must present. And the space we grant minority views must be weighted accordingly. This is difficult in the case of political and religious topics, because no matter the body of material presenting the majority viewpoint, it does not affect deeply held political and religious beliefs. Imagine being asked to edit in support of something you know, in your heart, is absolutely wrong, simply because a majority of reliable sources on a topic disagree with you. Well, that's what Misplaced Pages does. In this case, the response -- even among relatively conservative reliable sources -- has been overwhelmingly negative. However you feel about the book, with the vast majority of coverage being negative, trying to present the book in a positive light would be POV-pushing, instead of balancing. Certainly, the minority viewpoint needs to be expressed, but it must not be given undue weight... even if you know, in your heart, that it's correct. --GoodDamon 21:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well put, sir. I second this perspective. Arjuna (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'd like to point out that the "Content" section of this article needs expanding. If we're going to point out where Corsi is wrong about something concerning drug use or Rezko or the Rev. Wright because these are important mistakes in the book, it tends to support the idea that these are important topics in the book and we should describe what Corsi says about those topics. Eventually, this section should be merged into the Content section, so that we describe what Corsi is saying in the book and interweve criticism and discoveries of mistakes -- that tends to put both the content and the mistakes into perspective, and I think it's been recognized as a "good practice" in the encyclopedia. Noroton (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. What you propose runs a serious risk of becoming, in effect, a platform for Mr. Corsi's POV, in which his discredited views are given equal weight with his NPOV critics who represent the mainstream. I am highly skeptical of trying to make a circle square. Arjuna (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Noroton's idea is ok, but the content needs to be sourced to (preferably high-profile, non-partisan) RSs, rather than being original research by Wikipedians. — goethean ॐ 22:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Arjuna, please review Umbertoumm's post above. He makes my point with far greater eloquence than I ever could. WorkerBee74 (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

WorkerBee, thanks for your comment, and in turn I refer you to GoodDamon's comments above. Aloha, Arjuna (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

National Review Cleveland Plain Dealer For those who disdain Associated Content, the original is on Times of the Internet. WorkerBee74 (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"Disdain" Associated Content? It's a wiki. It's not even attempting to be something that resembles an RS. Stop wasting our time. — goethean ॐ 21:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Is your valuable time wasted, Goethean, by the National Review and CPD? Please stop cherry picking when you're responding. It's really funny how I'm the only one who can find this stuff. And I'm not using Nexis this time. I'm away from the office today. I'm using Google News just like you guys. WorkerBee74 (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait, wait... You're using Google News and these are the reliable sources you came up with? A book-review blog post, and "Times of the Internet"? CPD is fine -- It's a reliable source, and you're welcome to use it -- but you can't possibly think these carry equal weight with the laundry list of sources on the page? TotI on par with CNN? A National Review blog on par with articles from US News and World Report, Newsweek, the New York Times, the AP, the LA Times, and Time magazine? You are wasting our time.

Seriously, I don't mean to mock, but can you honestly say there's even a comparison, with a straight face? Including those (except CPD) in the article would be pretty blatant POV-pushing in the face of overwhelming journalistic consensus. --GoodDamon 21:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have only used Google News for a few minutes and since it doesn't filter out the obvious left-wing attack sites like MMA, Democratic Underground, Truthout and Daily Kos, it's slow going. Unlike many Wikipedians, I do have a day job; the fact that I'm out of the office today doesn't mean I'm not doing it. If a Commentary blog is good enough (see Gamaliel's defense of the intrepid Commentary blogger above), then a NR blog is 100% good enough. WorkerBee74 (talk) 22:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, it's not. I respectfully disagree with Gamaliel on the topic, especially when it comes to WP:BLP issues. From WP:RS:

Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as The Washington Post, The Times in Britain, and The Associated Press. However, great care must be taken to distinguish news reporting from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact. When citing opinion pieces from newspapers or other mainstream news sources, in-text attribution should be given. When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used. (emphasis in original)

That isn't to say blogs of news organizations are unacceptable, but opinion blogs certainly are, and that's what the NR piece is. --GoodDamon 22:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

GD nails it and there's nothing more really to add. Opinion blogs -- either right or left -- are unacceptable. Arjuna (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't nail it: Opinion blogs can be used to show commentary and criticism on a subject. Some blogs, such as National Review's "The Corner" have reporting in them, and sometimes the blog posts are entirely or almost entirely original reporting, such as the Byron York blog posts I've mentioned elsewhere on this page. When reporting is clearly going on it isn't a cut-and-dried case of not touching a particular blog. And National Review and Commentary are clearly the "high-quality end of the market". All these things need to be taken into consideration. -- Noroton (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to continue beating this dead horse, or you can acknowledge that use of such references violate Misplaced Pages policy and will not hold up to scrutiny. Aloha, Arjuna (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Your lack of politeness is not appreciated. My previous posts on this were in the lower half of the "Proposed sourcing ground rules for this page" section above at 19:08, 19 Aug, 18:33, 18:50, 18:12, and, as is always the case, it would profit everybody to read and reread them with the utmost care and reverence. -- Noroton (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you choose to view my comments that way. I am simply trying to get through the repetitive restatements and cut to the chase. Your comments about your own posts are interesting, and I will assume you have a wicked sense of irony. Aloha, Arjuna (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth I have noticed Noroton to have a good sense of humor about Misplaced Pages. Hope this helps. Wikidemo (talk) 01:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, it's great to see WB apparently turn pro-Commentary. Now if we could drop the discussions about fringe news sources like Scoop and Associated Content, we'd have something. Opinion pieces from mainstream news organizations should certainly be used to show the critical consensus about something, such as the Christian Science Monitor article which uses the very sources we are arguing about here to make the same point. And the lines aren't as clear cut as we'd like to think. What's the difference between analysis and opinion? A blog and a column? If a professional journalist makes a statement of fact in one source, why is it different when the same person makes the same statement in another sources? The lines are not as clear cut as some here would like to believe. And while there is a lot of invoking of BLP here, most of the issues we are dealing with here do not apply to BLP. Yes, any statements about Corsi himself absolutely fall under the rules of BLP, but most statements about Corsi and his colorful past and opinions belong in the Corsi article, not here. But certainly BLP isn't designed to protect a person from negative reviews about his book. Gamaliel (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think one can easily find a rule that blogs mean X, opinion columns mean Y, and feature articles mean Z. You're right that the same person writing the same thing on a blog does not automatically make it less credible than in a newspaper article. But sometimes it makes a huge difference that is not an automatic one. Some journalists work in two or more modes depending on the circumstance - dutiful reporter, analyst, pundit, political advocate, party operative, muckraker, press release writer, etc. Many senior journalists appear on debate shows, write blogs, and so on. They do straight reporting all week long then they get on a Sunday show where liberals and conservatives sit around a table insulting each other on all kinds of trivia that doesn't matter to anyone outside of Washington. I can't think of a great example right now...somehow Lou Dobbs is coming to mind. He's a fine reporter and anchor, and well respsected as a financial reporter. But he gets on his populist anti-immigration mode and he's just an advocate. A good journalist, one who writes well, lets you know very clearly which mode he's in. Nothing wrong with offering your opinion as long as you distinguish it from the news. I think there are a lot of journalists who are strongly partisan, and not beyond working as think tanks, paid mouthpieces, political consultants, etc., but also know how to do good journalism too. And they let you know which hat they have on. They don't exactly put a red banner across the top of the column when they're opining but it's pretty obvious - they aren't trying to hide anything. Much of that is a matter of tone, and approach, and wording cues. They'll often introduce an opinion section with a bit of informal speech, or an obvious hyperbole or cliche. Something to let you know they're letting their hair down. Something that starts with "The boisterous old senator had a Paris Hilton moment last night when..." is going to be a lot less serious than "Administration sources who spoke on condition of anonymity have confirmed that..." A few of them even mix both in the same column, but if they're good writers they let you know what's the news and what's their opinion. That's why I think you have to look not only at the publication and the author, but the specifics of each source and also what you're citing it for. Wikidemo (talk) 01:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Enough of this wisdom. We're supposed to be working out how we can come to consensus on this edit-warred section so the page ban can be lifted and we can get back to edit warring. Please see my Solomonic compromise above and comment at Talk:The Obama Nation#Um, since the page was locked because of edit warring over this, anyone want to comment on my compromise proposal just above?. Thank you. -- Noroton (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I do not profess to speak for other editors, but I am skeptical that any progress towards consensus has been made at all, at least with regards to sources. Those disagreeing with the view that opinion blogs are legit seem to have just totally checked out of the discussion -- hence my comment about dead horses -- since it seems an open and shut case that they are not RS. As for progress towards consensus on substance, I haven't seen any of that either, but perhaps I wasn't paying close enough attention. Aloha, Arjuna (talk) 02:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Freedom Fan's Response

I have suggested a single statement to balance the misleading statement that the "has been refuted by multiple newspapers and people close to Obama". See discussion under the section "Alleged Muslim Background".

Specifically I recommend adding the statement:

"However, according to Obama's book Dreams From My Father, he attended a Muslim school and studied the Koran, briefly as a small child, prior to becoming a Christian."

This statement is supported by the primary source, Obama's book, Dreams From My Father, current paperback edition, page 154, lines 14-17:

"I nodded, deciding not to ask what a catechism was. In Indonesia I had spent two years at a Muslim school, two years at a Catholic school. In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell my mother that I made faces during Koranic studies."

This quote may be confirmed by visiting the Barnes & Noble website, clicking "See Inside", then searching for "Muslim school".

This is all I will have to say on this matter, provided I am not personally assailed or forced to prevent further attempts at content destruction on this talk page. Thank you. Freedom Fan (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I certainly hope that you do not interpret argument against your ideas as personal assault in any way. Your "balancing" statement would actually serve to mislead even more and also push the POV of the book, which not even you can say is balanced. It gives the impression of a sentence that says, "Many reliable sources have refuted the claim that Obama was a Muslim, however, they were wrong, and I think that a certain passage from his book supports my ideas." The problem with either interpreting the passage or judging the verisimilitude of the sources is that both constitute original research, which is forbidden by Misplaced Pages's policies. Misplaced Pages reports what reliable sources have said about a subject, not what is said on a right-wing soapbox, no matter how "fair and balanced" it purports to be. Reliable sources say that Obama is not Muslim and never was, and so that is what Misplaced Pages must say. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No. Flat out no. Others have explained why this should not be done, but have yet to cite the most applicable policy (yes, a policy) on the matter. I will. WP:SYNTH: "Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C." What you propose is a gross synthesis of two pieces of reliable information to make your own, inherently unreliable, original research. Statement A, that the claim Obama is/was Muslim has been refuted by multiple sources, is not itself refuted by Statement B, that Obama spent two years in a Muslim school. To compare and contrast them as if they have anything to do with each other is one of the most flagrant piece of synthesized original research it has been my displeasure to lay eyes on. It is an intentional attempt to insinuate a notion that is supported by neither fact alone, and is only supportable when they are improperly conjoined. It is, without any doubt, a violation of policy, and should be disregarded out of hand. --GoodDamon 22:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Erik the Red and GoodDamon have more than adequately laid out the reasons why the proposed change is egregiously unacceptable. End of story, move on. Arjuna (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Page protection / article probation incident

I've filed an incident report at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation/Incidents regarding the recent page protection of this article over the recent edit warring. If you reverted the "factual inaccuracies" section in the last few days you're in the report. I am not sure where to go from here, but if article probation is to mean anything it ought to be preventing this kind of break-down. Wikidemo (talk) 06:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Why did you limit your incident report to that one section? Any problems that exist are taking place throughout the entire article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Housekeeping: Please support bot archiving

To my complete surprise, this page has become a lot longer than, say, Talk:Sherman, Connecticut. Help:Archiving a talk page#Automating archival identifies Mizabot or Cluebot II for cut-and-paste automatic archiving. Looks good to me. That page also says a consensus should be formed by contributors to the page before setting up any particular kind of archiving system.

Unless anyone objects, I think we should go with Miszabot because I like the name better than Cluebot II, which sounds like some Assyrian despot. If anyone has a better reason than that, please comment. Silence will be construed as consent.

I know absolutely nothing about any of this. If someone does, would they mind taking charge and setting up a system? Or you can amuse yourselves watching me mess it up. Up to you. -- Noroton (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I've only done it a few times, and what I did was cut and pasted the bot setup from another article. You have to be careful about setting up the archive pages right, and a link to them somewhere. Otherwise old conversations get sent to Siberia somewhere, never to come back. Wikidemo (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, welcome our new bot overlords. Gamaliel (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's bot-ify this talk page! --GoodDamon 05:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

grammatical error

Under "Reception and critical review": The New York Times notes that the some bookstores report higher bulk sales. "the" should be deleted.— goethean ॐ 21:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Since this is uncontroversial, I decided to be bold and take care of it myself. Gamaliel (talk) 22:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you boldly add in the lead that this is a non-fiction book? this is not controversial.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my boldness extends to typos and grammar only for now. Gamaliel (talk) 01:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I somehow suspect that D4D may have a motivation other than stating the literal definition of "non-fiction". In a more non-literal sense, to which genre Mr. Corsi's book belongs is certainly more debatable. Arjuna (talk) 01:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

1. "Anti-Obama Author on 9/11 Conspiracy". The New York Times. 2008-08-14.
2. "Anti-Obama Author on 9/11 Conspiracy". The New York Times. 2008-08-14.
3. "Unfit for Publication" (PDF). Obama for America. 2008-08-14. Retrieved 2008-11-14. pages 35
4. "Highway To Hell?". Newsweek. 2008-08-14.
5. "There Isn't Going to Be a North American Union". Human Events. 2008-08-14.
6. "Anti-Obama Author on 9/11 Conspiracy". The New York Times. 2008-08-14.
7. "There Isn't Going to Be a North American Union". Human Events. 2008-08-14.
8. Levin, Yuval, "Fighting the Last War", August 14, 2008, 4:53 p.m. post at "The Corner" blog at National Review Online website, retrieved August 15, 2008
9. Geraghty, Jim, "Is the Obama Campaign Asserting The Candidate Didn't Know of Ayers' Past?", August 15, 2008, 8:43 a.m. post at "Campaign Spot" blog at National Review Online website, retrieved August 15, 2008
10. Hewitt, Hugh, "The Obama Push Back: "Ayers and Dohrn Are Members Of The Establishment"", "Hugh Hewitt" blog at Town Hall website, August 14, 2008, 6:55 p.m., retrieved August 15, 2008
11. ^ Cite error: The named reference RutenbergBosman-12Aug2008 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
12. ^ Pickler, Nedra (2008-08-14). "Obama campaign issues rebuttal to book's claims". Associated Press. Google News. Retrieved 2008-08-15. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
13. "Obama and Clinton: Similar views, different approaches to Hispanics". Associated Press. USA Today. 2007-07-22. Retrieved 2008-08-15. {{cite news}}: |first= missing |last= (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
14. Barker, Kim (2007-03-25). "History of schooling distorted". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2008-08-15. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
15. Dreams From My Father, by Barack Obama, pages 125-126, ISBN 1-5683-6162-9
16. Obama 1995: xvii.
17. Obama 1995: 47.
18. Cite error: The named reference MMfalsehoods was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
19. The Obama Nation, by Jerome Corsi, page 165; ISBN 9781416598060
20. Salon.com, "How Close Were Barack Obama and Tony Rezko?"
21. "Complete Transcript of the Obama interview: The Chicago Sun-Times". Chicago Sun-Times. 2008-03-15. Retrieved 2008-08-15. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
22. "A 21st Century Military for America" (PDF). Obama for America. Retrieved 2008-08-15.