Talk:The Obama Nation/Archive 1

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 Wikipedia. That is immature, puerile behavior, and violates Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. --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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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[s] 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.[1] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 "[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55945 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. Wikipedia'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. Wikipedia 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[2] 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 Wikipedia 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: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia: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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 [http://wnd.com/index.php?pageId=59850 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 Wikipedia, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia's own Mike Godwin. --Clubjuggle ^T/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 Wikipedia, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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) Wikipedia 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 ^T/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 Wikipedia 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)[3]. 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 Wikipedia articles must be backed up with WP:RS reliable sources, which the NYT most certainly is, whether you approve of it or not. Wikipedia 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 [1], due in part to higher bulk sales.[17][18]". I think this gets the point across without being objectionable to anyone. Arjuna (talk) 02:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

New Wikipedia 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."[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=71655] 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 ^T/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[4] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)[5] 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?"[6] 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[7] 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[8] 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 Wikipedia 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",[45] has pointed out numerous instances of inaccuracies in the book[46][47] and in Corsi's statements promoting the work.[48] Paul Waldman of Media Matters appeared with Corsi on Larry King Live when they discussed the claims.[49] MSNBC's Contessa Brewer confronted Corsi with these alleged inaccuracies; Corsi disputed Media Matters' allegations.[50] -- Noroton (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Protecting Obama is not our priority. Offering Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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-Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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.")

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, [[WP:BRD is an essay, not a policy, I'll keep it in mind. Including Obama's campaign views is part of WP:NPOV. You threw WP:AGF out the window when you started accusing me on my talk page. Rather than discuss the issues on this talk, you went to my talk page and attacked me. Shame on you. Wikipedia includes significant view, that even means Obama's. Iii33lll (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

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

McCain and Obama material

I agree with Iii33lll's edits here.[9] 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 Wikipedia "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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia'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, [[WP:WEIGHT} and WP:BLP issues that it has. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia contributors. You may heed it or not, at your discretion.) You ask why I get emotional? I get emotional when I see Wikipedia 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-Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia shouldn't have a nitpicking laundry list like that either. Take a cue from the reliable, respected sources because that's what Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia - unless Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia - unless Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

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)

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 ^T/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)

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)

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)

Alinsky

I've no view either way but I notice that a search for "Obama Alinsky Corsi" now brings up a number of Reliable Sources including FOX, Boston Globe and The Spectator. As that seems to be the only objection to its inclusion presumably it can be reinserted with these new sources. I don't know what the particular significance of Alinsky is but it seems to relate to Obama's community organiser background which has become more of a talking point of late so possibly worth a mention. - 88.212.144.188 (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have some specific links? I'd like to see what a reliable source -- and please make sure it's not an editorial -- has to say on the book's contents in regards to Alinsky. --GoodDamon 20:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Andy Martin

I think it is significant that this book quotes Andy Martin (U.S. politician), so I mentioned a quick note of that.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)