Talk:Ben Carson/Archive 1

Link
I removed the drbencarson.com link since it is no longer upVickfan This link is now working (checked 7/17/2007) Teamember 02:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Logic Party
While in principal I dig the idea, I have a really hard time buying it from a guy who is a Seventh Day Adventist. Such a belief system for a neurosurgeon is...illogical. Quigonpaj (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Quotes
I went ahead and removed the quotes section of the article. None of the quotes seemed too terribly important to the article, and no citations were provided for any of them. —Mears man 00:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Questions about Ben Carson
Ben Carson's mother (Sonya Carson) to be so successful   21:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Not NPOV
This article is not NPOV, and missing significant criticism of Carson. Here are some sources that could be used in this regard.


 * http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/two-background-players-join-the-2016-fray-carly-fiorina-and-ben-carson/
 * http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmakers/201504/ben-carson-tea-party

-  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just because an article doesn't have every single bit of criticism of a public figure doesn't mean it's missing a neutral point of view. This article has a lot of criticism directed towards him in it, particularly towards his comments about gays and pedophiles, as well as the SPLC labeling him an extremist. Putting every bit of criticism of a public figure in a Wikipedia article would be too much recentism, and it would be criticism overkill. There's too much criticism of him to fit in a Wikipedia article, all of it doesn't have to go in. HydrocityFerocity (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Moved the tag to the political position's section. I still think that there is more than can be reported on his views, and now that he is a presidential candidate, our readers deserve having all pertaining information about his views and how these have been received. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Poor political views section
The political views section is very poor. It engages in gotcha quotes, without providing any indication of attempts to represent that actual nature of Dr. Carson's views on the various issues mentioned.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it's very poor, but there is probably room for improvement. Carson's views on same-sex marriage and homosexuality are not accurately described as support of man/woman marriage. That's like describing someone's dislike of chocolate ice cream as support of vanilla ice cream.- MrX 19:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Carson clearly supports marriage as a man/woman institution. This is the way he and his allies view the issue of what is at stake. That is what he supports and what his goals are. The goals are centered on making marriage have specific limits which have more to do with keeping it in those limits than anything else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I support man/woman marriage too. I also support woman/woman and man/man marriage. He does not. He opposes it and has implied that love between sames sex couples is equivalent to pederasty and bestiality. I'm not aware of any notable movement to eradicate man/woman marriage, so claiming to support it as if it were at risk of disappearing can only be construed as opposing other forms of marriage. The same argument about making "marriage have specific limits" can be applied to any struggle for equal rights under the law in which one group strives to limit the rights of another.- MrX 14:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Ben Carson's views on czars and gun control
Hello. Before, I added information on Ben Carson's views regarding czars; it was removed because I only referenced one third party source. However, wouldn't that mean that his views on gun control also should be removed? There is only one source given for his views on gun control, and other than it, it doesn't seem that there is much in the media on his opposition to conservatives' views on gun control. Do the two issues stand and fall together? If so, should we have his views on both czars and gun control in the article, or should we do away with them altogether? —The Sackinator (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a diff so we know what edit you're referring to?- MrX 23:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm refering to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ben_Carson&diff=prev&oldid=649464713. —The Sackinator (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think either of the sources that you cited are reliable. Certainly we would want at least a couple of mainstream media sources that cover his views on Ebola czars, otherwise it would seem to be WP:UNDUE. Up until recently, I would have also considered his gun control views not notable, but it seems there has been some recent coverage:  - MrX 02:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I see what you're saying. I'll see what I can do with sourcing both his views on gun control and his views on ebola and czars, if I'm able. —The Sackinator (talk) 02:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2015
I would like to add that Dr. Ben Carson announced that we will run for President on Monday, May 4th officially and made a speech at the Detroit's Music Hall Center for the Performing Arts.

IllegalTrash (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

First sentence in section "Carson Scholars Fund"
Hello. I found the citation to verify this statement. However, it's already used in this article (it's the 110th citation/note, specifically the first sentence of its third paragraph), and I don't know how to cite a single reference multiple times in an article. Help would be greatly appreciated! —The Sackinator (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. (You give the ref a name, see WP:REFNAME :) Melcous (talk) 02:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks a lot! —The Sackinator (talk) 03:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Featured article status
Do you think this article could have a chance as a featured article? If so, what needs to be done? A response will be appreciated! —The Sackinator (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2015
Awards and honors

Carson is a member of the American Academy of Achievement, and the Horatio Alger Association of Distinguished Americans. Carson has been awarded 38 honorary doctorate degrees and dozens of national merit citations.[31]
 * In 2000, he received the Award for Greatest Public Service Benefiting the Disadvantaged, an award given out annually by Jefferson Awards.[28]
 * In 2006, Carson was the recipient of the Spingarn Medal which is the highest honor awarded annually, by the NAACP since 1915, to a man or woman of African descent and American citizenship who attained the highest achievement during the preceding year or years in any honorable field of human endeavor in tribute to a lifetime of growth and singular achievement, from the bottom of his fifth grade class, to become the youngest ever Chief of Pediatric Neurosurgery in the United States.
 * In 2008, President and Mrs. George W. Bush presented the Lincoln Medal, an annual award given by Ford's Theatre, to Carson. It honors those who, through their accomplishments or personal attributes, illuminate the character of our most beloved President.[1][2]
 * In 2010, he was elected into the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine.[30]
 * In 2014, an American poll conducted by Gallup ranked Carson sixth on a list of the most admired men in the world.[32]

Ljhammond14 (talk) 01:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC) Specific description for this edit request: 1)  to re-organize this sub-section using the more traditional bullet point display and 2) include the highest honor given by the NAACP in this list of Awards and honors. Also, to include the earlier approved Lincoln Medal from Ford's Theatre. Ljhammond14 (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2015
{{Infobox scientist
 * birth_name  = Benjamin Solomon Carson
 * image       = Ben Carson by Gage Skidmore 3.jpg
 * image_size  = 220
 * caption     = Carson speaking in 2015
 * birth_date  = {{Birth date and age|1951|09|18}}
 * birth_place = Detroit, Michigan, United States
 * party       = Republican
 * spouse      = {{Marriage|Candy Carson|1975}}
 * children    = 3 sons: Murray Benjamin, Jr. "B.J." Rhoeyce

Ljhammond14 (talk) 02:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC) The specific description of the edit request: To correct the birth order of his children from oldest to youngest. Citation is Carson introducing his children and identifying their birth order at his campaign announcement, May 4, 2015, in Detroit, MI.
 * Yes check.svg Done Can use http://www.c-span.org/video/?325722-1/dr-ben-carson-presidential-campaign-announcement as a source to avoid using youtube, and there's a transcript on there too Cannolis (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2015
Personal life

Carson and his wife, Lacena "Candy" Rustin, met in 1971 as students at Yale University. They married in 1975 and have three sons: Murray, Benjamin Jr. "B.J.", and Rhoeyce.[84] They live in West Friendship, Maryland, and are members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.[98][99]

Carson was baptized at Burns Seventh-day Adventist Church on Detroit's eastside. A few years later he told the pastor at a church in Inkster, Michigan where he was attending that he had not fully understood his first baptism and wanted to be baptized again, so he was. He has served as a local elder and Sabbath school teacher in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.[100] His mother was a devout Seventh-day Adventist.[101]

Ljhammond14 (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC) a specific description of the edit request: 1)  I corrected the birth order here as above, of his sons. He introduced them in this video, including their birth order. 2) I changed Inkster, Michigan that to Inkster, Michigan where. 3. Last, I corrected the spelling of his church from Seventh-Day Adventist to Seventh-day Adventist. This is all I know to correct now. No new information included; only corrections. Thanks for your help, editors. :-)    Lois Ljhammond14 (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: Didn't use "B.J", don't see the need for it unless this article is going to go into detail about his children. reworded the Inkster bit slightly differently than your proposal, though you were certainly correct that it should be reworded. Cannolis (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2015
Awards and honors

Carson is a member of the American Academy of Achievement, and the Horatio Alger Association of Distinguished Americans. Carson has been awarded 38 honorary doctorate degrees and dozens of national merit citations.[31]
 * In 2000, he received the Award for Greatest Public Service Benefiting the Disadvantaged, an award given out annually by Jefferson Awards.[28]
 * In 2008, the White House awarded Carson the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor.[29]
 * In 2008, President and Mrs. George W. Bush presented the Lincoln Medal, an annual award given by Ford's Theatre, to Carson. It honors those who, through their accomplishments or personal attributes, illuminate the character of our most beloved President.
 * In 2010, he was elected into the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine.[30]
 * In 2014, an American poll conducted by Gallup ranked Carson sixth on a list of the most admired men in the world.[32]

Ljhammond14 (talk) 06:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It looks like the proposed edit is to add a mention of Carson receiving the Lincoln Medal. This section is not meant to be an exhaustive, all-inclusive list of his awards/honors, some will be left out. I don't see why this particular award is more notable than others he has received and are not mentioned by name. If the Lincoln Medal had passed WP:N and had its own wiki page, that might be a different story. Cannolis (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I take it, then, that you will be removing mention of this non-notable medal from Maya Angelou, as it is such a non-notable distinction?  Scr ★ pIron IV 17:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It would seem fair to me to include Dr. Carson's receipt of the Lincoln Medal because of the precedent set by Zoe Dell Nutter, Board of Trustees, Ford's Theatre Society in 2005; Dr. Maya Angelou, Civil Rights Activist in 2008, the same year Dr. Carson received it too, and Lee Kuan Yew, Minister Mentor of Singapore in 2011. Nutter, Angelou and Yew all appear in Wikipedia and their Medals are mentioned. With your approval, I would like to re-submit a Request to Edit and include this Medal on his page. Also, since you mentioned that this important Medal does not have its own wiki page, I am happy to volunteer to create this new page. I'm please that Wikipedia deemed this a notable honor before, exactly on his year and after. Please, let's correct this omission now and let me know if you would like for me to build the new article. Here's a description of the honor:

The Ford’s Theatre Lincoln Medal is an annual award given to individuals who, through their body of work, accomplishments or personal attributes, exemplify the lasting legacy, and mettle of character embodied by the most beloved President in our Nation’s history, President Abraham Lincoln.

Traditionally, the Ford’s Theatre Lincoln Medal is given to recipients at the Ford’s Theatre benefit, which is held annually in the theatre where President Abraham Lincoln was shot on April 14, 1865.

Recipients Recipients of Ford’s Theatre Lincoln Medals should illuminate or reflect Lincoln’s legacy of leadership, service, humanity, wisdom, eloquence and vision in their body of work, accomplishments or personal attributes. As Ford’s Theatre serves as a connection point and reminder of Lincoln’s legacy, so must the recipients of Ford’s Theatre Lincoln Medals, helping us understand the beloved 16th President’s lasting impact in a contemporary light, and how it continues to inspire generations of Americans.

The Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees of Ford’s Theatre Society evaluates and determines who will receive Ford’s Theatre Lincoln Medals.

Thank you for your consideration. Ljhammond14 (talk) 03:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Done Of course the list of awards will not be exhaustive (if we have a lot of awards), but it only includes 1 other, so I don't think it's a major problem to include just 2. While Lincoln Medal is a redlink now, it might not be forever, and being recognized by the president and several large medical bodies seems significant enough to deserve a brief mention to me. If anyone disagrees, please feel free to revert me and discuss it further. Thanks. &mdash; Jess · &Delta;&hearts; 04:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that the Lincoln Medal is entirely non notable, but as you say, Carson has been recognized with the Presidential Medal of Freedom and by numerous medical bodies, and as an individual of that caliber, I would think to strive to use bluelinked awards. A medal from the board of directors of a theatre, when the medal is redlinked and the medal hasn't even been mentioned on the theatre's wiki page despite the 30-odd years of the medal's existence, doesn't seem to quite fit on the same list as the Medal of Freedom. The Spingarn Medal(as suggested by Ljhammond), seems a better fit, and I will add that now. As to ScrapIron's concerns, Angelou has won the Spingarn medal as well, and I will replace the Lincoln Medal on her page with that. Cannolis (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This seems to me to be an instance of the page meriting being made. And note that this honor ought to be included as well at Hillary Rodham Clinton awards and honors, under "Awards as First Lady" -- as she was bestowed it in 1997. Pandeist (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2015
Please add: The National Draft Ben Carson for President Committee helped successfully make the retired neurosurgeon the first candidate successfully drafted for president since 1964, when Republican Barry Goldwater, an early leader of the modern American conservative movement, won the GOP nomination.

Source: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/inside-the-super-pacs-putting-ben-carson-on-top/article/2566819

Bpw6 (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: I have a question, is the Washington Examiner the only reliable source that verifies this? I am unsure whether this claim should be given weight in the article. Please provide additional reliable sources, so that way other editors can review this edit request.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC about whether presidential candidacy belongs in lead paragraph
Talk:Rick_PerryAnythingyouwant (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2015
The Southern Poverty Law Center libeled Dr. Ben Carson, and when they got called on it, they removed his name from their hit list, and gave a public apology. Those are the facts. Any more than that is merely the SPLC trying to justify its libel, and claim that its position is supported by their nebulous reference to "most people." So as not to make Wikipedia appear to be a party to such speculative and biased opinion, the last part of the quote from the SPLC should be deleted, namely: "We've also come to the conclusion that the question of whether a better-researched profile of Dr. Carson should or should not be included in our 'Extremist Files' is taking attention from the fact that Dr. Carson has, in fact, made a number of statements that express views that we believe most people would conclude are extreme."

RHVF (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ - Please gain consensus for your proposed edit. This has been discussed before. The opinions of the SPLC are properly attributed. It is a fact that Carson has made some extreme public statements, as can plainly be seen in the well-referenced material in the 'Marriage and homosexuality' section.- MrX 17:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Abortion and human fetal tissue
I have added a short section on Dr. Carson's position on abortion and use of fetal tissue harvested from abortions in medical research. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2015
In External links, below his campaign website link, please add this template:



71.23.178.214 (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- Sam Sailor Talk! 17:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2015
"The speech was garnered Carson considerable attention" should be changed to "The speech garnered Carson considerable attention"

86.138.44.143 (talk) 23:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. Bede735 (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Organization of writing
Greetings. I would like to suggest that Dr. Carson's writing be all in one place at the end of the article, as it is in every other Wikipedia article. A list of journals and a list of articles does not belong under "Medical career". Also, why do you list every book he wrote twice? Once in the prose and once in the bibliography. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I moved all this stuff down to Bibliography. May I use "cite book" for each book? It would be nice to preserve the prose portions along with the ISBNs. The first book is in a template so you can see what it will look like. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

✅. Sorry to anybody who dislikes templates. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2015
Under the Abortion heading, there is misleading information about the subject's views. The source cited itself proves that the statement in the article, "advocates tissue harvested from abortions for medical research" is inaccurate, as the source [59] states that he advocates using tissue from already dead tissue rather than aborted tissue, implying that miscarried fetal tissue or other deceased tissue not from abortions. Please fix this misinformation.

Myson1202 (talk) 02:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the section needs to be rephrased, but I'm not quite sure how to word it. What wording do you propose?- MrX 02:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

✅ Thank you for identifying this issue. I have edited the page to match recent statements and to clarify with neutral material. If you have any further recommendations please open a new request and be specific on what to place on the page with good references. This will help other editors make the changes more quickly. Inomyabcs (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia photo policy compliance issue
The photo of Carson in scrubs in the "Medical career" section is dated 2013. While the NIST website says the file was created in 2013 by V. Aceveda of the U.S. Air Force, that doesn't appear to be when the photo was taken. A June 2009 article by Veronica Aceveda on the Air Force website includes it as the second photo in a clickable gallery, but the article doesn't indicate Aceveda ever met with or spoke to Carson, as the article is about a son of a military member who was given an award at an event where Carson was in the audience. It's not clear if Aceveda was the actual photographer or if there was a mixup with the photo credit, because a CNN article from February 2009 credits Johns Hopkins University for what appears to be another photo in the same series, with the same backdrop, outfit, facial hair style and length and minimal gray hair pattern and hair length. Indeed, that Johns Hopkins-credited photo appears on a page on the Johns Hopkins website that is copyrighted 2004. The version of the photo used on Wikipedia even appears to have been included in a 2003 article in Philanthropy magazine, though perhaps the photo was added afterward. The "Sears portrait studio"-style background seems a lot more likely to have been for a staff photo (like from Johns Hopkins) than for a photo taken by a reporter. If this is not actually a photo taken by a government employee for a U.S. government publication, it may not comply with Wikipedia's image use policy. Pdxuser (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The Big Bang theory
I have added a very short section on Dr. Carson's view of the Big Bang theory. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 09:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The sentence indicating that Carson believes that retrograde orbits are a violation of conservation of momentum is accurate, but doesn't take it far enough. He believes (same reference) that such orbits are proof of the invalidity of the Big Bang theory. Jestertrek (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten parts and put it in the "religion" section - this is related to the Muslim issue. He said
 * The ABC interview mentioned sharia and the effect on women and gays: ABC
 * In my opinion, it's fair to note that Lawrence Krauss has argued that there is an inconsistency with subjecting the religious beliefs of other candidates to scrutiny, but demanding not criticism of your own. -- Callinus (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, it's fair to note that Lawrence Krauss has argued that there is an inconsistency with subjecting the religious beliefs of other candidates to scrutiny, but demanding not criticism of your own. -- Callinus (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, it's fair to note that Lawrence Krauss has argued that there is an inconsistency with subjecting the religious beliefs of other candidates to scrutiny, but demanding not criticism of your own. -- Callinus (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Separation of conjoined twins
This article on Ben Carson perpetuates an oft-repeated error when it says: "He is known for being the first surgeon to separate conjoined twins. . . "

Dr. Carson is definitely not the first surgeon to separate conjoined twins. The earliest successful separation of male conjoined twins occurred in 1952. The earliest successful separation of female conjoined twins was in 1961. See web page Conjoined Twins Info, as of August 2007

Oldest Conjoined Male Twins (Living) - 1952 – Ronnie & Donnie Galyon (USA, October 28 1952). They are omphalopagus. Oldest Conjoined Female Twins (Living) - 1961 – Lori and Reba Schappell (USA, September 18 1961). They are craniopagus.

The twins in the Carson surgery were conjoined at the head but Carson is not the first surgeon to separate twins joined at the head. The first successful separation of twins conjoined at the head occurred in 1955 at Mercy Hospital in Chicago. The Chicago Daily Tribune reported the surgery on April 22, 1955. The web page, Conjoined Twins in the World, As Of August 2007 ,includes this event in its list: "Andrews (Illinois, October 1 1954) girls, Deborah, Christine (craniopagus, separated April 21 1955)."

Carson's noteworthy accomplishment was the separation of twins joined at the back of the head. But it wasn't just his accomplishment as the surgical team included 70 people.

2601:441:C100:5AE1:D127:3E00:2417:C7AC (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Rosemary Schwedes
 * Fixed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Recentism and religion section
For context, the content removed is this, dealing with the separation of church and state: "A conflict between the views of Carson and the GOP base has been noted: "... Dr. Carson's primary challenge is going to be his struggle to marry the Adventist view of separation of church and state with the counter view of much of the Republican base, which calls for tearing at the wall between church and state."

there's some crufty material in the religion section - Carson stated in the 2013 interview that his "debates" with Dawkins and Dennett in 2006 netted him negative attention - it violates WP:RECENTISM to push opinion pieces from the last month only.

Per WP:ONUS the onus is on people proposing the addition of material to justify it's importance and relevance in ten years time. Weasel phrases like "it has been noted" are a common way to couch bullshit.

SDA theology has a lot of unscientific beliefs, there needs to be primary sources on what Carson has said and reactions should be kept to a minimum - and ones that should be included need a clear standard as to why it matters and others don't.-- Callinus (talk) 06:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see how RECENTISM applies to an apt opinion piece (and your objection to an opinion piece is not from policy, because it's okay to use them if they are on topic) which deals with how Carson will have to deal with the conflict between his own beliefs on separation of church and state, and the views of the GOP base. There is an obvious conflict, and the comment is very insightful. There is no other quite like it. It fills a hole in the coverage of that subject.
 * "It has been noted" can easily be changed. That is no excuse for deleting the whole thing.
 * Carson has tended to be a bit shy about his religious beliefs (even SDAs are a bit unsure about them!), so we need such content. We are just using what little is available in RS. If you find more, you are welcome to add it.
 * We are trying to build, not break down, the encyclopedia, so rather than remove reliably sourced content (often seen as vandalism), try to frame it better. By following WP:PRESERVE, you honor the efforts of all editors who are trying to do their part. Failure to do so denigrates other editors' efforts, discourages them, and violates the spirit of Wikipedia. You have been doing a pretty good job of framing content, but now you're paring down and paring down, all the way to the quick, until it bleeds for lack of aspects which you have removed. You may not see that, but others do.
 * We each do our part, and even though we may not see the merits of why someone else added something, we should still try to preserve it, unless it grossly violates policy. The whole is much larger than the part we add, and Wikipedia is made less when we remove what others have added. Try to imagine that your best efforts were being trashed; then apply the Golden Rule and honor others' efforts as you would want them to honor yours. -- &#123;&#123;u&#124;BullRangifer &#125;&#125;  { Talk } 07:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * A lot of articles have had bad information stick around for years before it's challenged. Wikipedia has a religion specific NPOV section specifically drawing a distinction between academic study of religion and populist religious sentiments. In my opinion, there is a vast gulf between popular opinion columns and professional legal/human rights groups when describing "persecution". In my opinion, public interest in death penalty cases like Pastor Saeed, Mariam Yahia Ibrahim Ishag, Asia Bibi are reduced by populist tabloid columnists in the Daily Mail writing that Christians are "persecuted" by jokes on TV (Rowan Williams made the point). In my opinion, the chasm between popular understanding of religious liberty and academic understanding means that academic sources should be used exclusively, and popular opinion columns avoided wherever possible.


 * Bull, to be blunt, you've seen a lot of bad edits to Planned Parenthood articles. If someone added to "Cecile Richards" the claim "It has been noted that 'pp sells baby parts hurr durr'" you would nuke it because you know PRESEREVE can de ignored for red flag claims on controversial topics on BLP articles.


 * To your other points I'll say this - you have a reasonable point, but look at the number of articles in Category:BLP articles lacking sources going back to 2006 - a lot of bad information in mainspace persists much longer than people's feelings of being disrespected by their BLP contributions being challenged. -- Callinus (talk) 23:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Callinus, I'm confused. I thought we were talking about the "separation of church and state" content which you deleted. Your edit summary and wording above indicated that it was that content we were discussing. Now you are drifting into generalities, or something else. I'm not even sure what, because it doesn't seem to apply to this content. I have placed a copy, with the diff, at the beginning of this section for convenience.
 * The SDA position on the separation of church and state is a very old one and a central pillar of SDA's understanding of the importance of religious liberty in America, and anywhere, for that matter. The opinion piece accurately points out that this creates a conflict between his religious views and those of the GOP base. That's indisputable fact.
 * I don't see any "bad information", recentism, BLP, sourcing, or other problems with that content. It's an accurate description. So, what's the problem?
 * BTW, for attribution purposes, the quote is from Preston Foster, professor of public policy at the SDA Oakwood University, a subject expert. His background is described here. --   02:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Education Policy
Why in the hell aint there a section on this guys views about Education? He plans on having the US Department of Education monitor political speech in universities. Why isn't that in there? You people! https://reason.com/blog/2015/10/21/ben-carsons-education-department-would-p — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.172.156.159 (talk) 04:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No reason to get upset. Thanks for the suggestion. --  05:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ --  06:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Impeachment
Bill Clinton was not impeached by Republicans for an extramarital affair. He was impeached for lying under oath about a U.S. citizen, Paula Jones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.74.131 (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have inserted a little bit of detail (here italicized): "In the 1990s, Carson, who had been registered as a Republican, changed his registration to independent after watching Republicans impeach President Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice regarding an extramarital affair; 'I just saw so much hypocrisy in both parties,' Carson said." I think this usefully clarifies the grounds.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

This Wikipedia page in the news
I just saw this rather odd story on Twitter: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/27/wikipedia-trolls-tie-ben-carson-pedophiles-top-google-search-results/

I am posting it here because it's about Ben Carson's Wikipedia page. Kind of strange. Schematica (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I have removed the link to NAMBLA from the quotation. Per WP:LINKSTYLE, items within quotations should not generally be linked. &mdash; goethean 21:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Advocacy of questionable medical practices
While Dr. Carson was obviously a talented and pioneering neurosurgeon, the article fails to mention that since his retirement he has embraced a number of highly-questionable anti-science positions. These include an at least partial anti-vaccine position:

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2015/sep/23/ben-carson/carson-wrong-vaccine-claim/

...and personal involvement with a snake-oil supplement company, Mannatech, currently being investigated for making illegal "cancer cure" claims for its products:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/396193/ben-carsons-troubling-connection-jim-geraghty http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/10/09/mannatech-ben-carsons-lack-of-critical-thinking-skills-extends-to-medicine-as-well/

It seems like these significant deviations from standard medical practice and research ought to be at least mentioned in the article, for the sake of completeness.

I would have added them myself, but editing for this article seems to be broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 23:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2015
Ben Carson's office calls people with the number. It is an automated call,with a recording that does not really work. People find it annoying. It is a spam. Please tell Ben Carson to stop calling people with the Thank you.

24.177.118.100 (talk) 04:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I suspect, based on your request, that you found one of our over 4 million articles and thought we were affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is the talk page for the article Ben Carson. It is for talking about the article and suggesting improvements to the article.  We have no contact with the subject nor can we pass along your message.  We have no special knowledge about the subject of your question. --Stabila711 (talk) 08:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Summary style
Per WP:Summary style, it looks like time to start Political positions of Ben Carson, which currently redirects back here..Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I copied everything in the present "political positions" section to Political positions of Ben Carson without making any edits to that material in either article. So, the "political positions" section of the present article is now ready to be replaced with a summary, by whoever would like to do that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have done this several times, so here's what needs to be done. You need to create a proper lead there. That will be the best summary of the article it's possible to get. Then take that lead (summary) and use it, with refs, for the content in your section here. Also add a hatnote with a "main" link pointing to the sub-article. --  06:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's certainly one way of doing it. Another option is to provide a separate summary of each subsection, and I have given that a try.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that might work. Whichever gives the best summary. That's the goal. --  18:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It should be possible to sum up each paragraph in one or two sentences. Just mention that he has opinions on the subject. We want to inspire readers to go to the sub-article, not give them the information here. --  18:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Many readers need just a quick summary of the topic's most important points, so we shouldn't assume or urge that they visit the sub-article. That being said, there's a lot of flexibility in how WP:Summary style is implemented.  At an article like this one, a valid reason to move stuff out of here and into the sub-article alone might be to avoid big fights here about how exactly to present it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Potential additional information: Mannatech

 * "Ben Carson Has Had Ties to Dietary Supplement Firm That Faced Legal Challenge: Republican candidate and retired surgeon has given speeches for Mannatech, which faced scrutiny over health claims", Wall Street Journal, October 5, 2015: http://www.wsj.com/articles/ben-carson-has-had-ties-to-dietary-supplement-firm-that-faced-legal-challenge-1444057743


 * "A Mystery in Ben Carson’s Ties With Supplement Maker Mannatech", Wall Street Journal, October 8, 2015: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/10/08/a-mystery-in-ben-carsons-ties-with-supplement-maker-mannatech/


 * "Well three years ago I had an endowed chair bestowed upon me,” Mr. Carson said in his “Keynote Address” at a 2011 Mannatech convention. “And uh, it requires $2.5 million to do an endowed chair and I’m proud to say that part of that $2.5 million came from Mannatech.”

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Since this came up in the debate, here are some more sources (including one about this coming up in the debate):


 * http://www.nationalreview.com/article/396193/ben-carsons-troubling-connection-jim-geraghty
 * http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/trackers/2015-10-29/cnbc-questioner-booed-asking-carson-about-mannatech-link


 * http://gawker.com/ben-carson-denies-involvement-with-nutritional-suppleme-1739310975


 * http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/10/09/mannatech-ben-carsons-lack-of-critical-thinking-skills-extends-to-medicine-as-well/


 * http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/01/12/did-ben-carson-violate-fox-news-policy-on-produ/202092


 * http://www.businessinsider.com/ben-carson-debate-question-booed-cnbc-2015-10

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'll add:


 * http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/29/politics/ben-carson-mannatech/index.html


 * http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/28/carson-denies-obvious-ties-to-controversial-supplement-maker.html

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC) This news story from October 29 seems useful too: Carson's position is evidently that the only thing he was paid for was speaking per standard speaking fees he received from other groups.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * https://www.yahoo.com/politics/ben-carson-is-calling-for-a-new-debate-format-173437145.html

Evolution
In the section on "political positions" there's a subsection titled "creationism". I deleted it because, as I said in the edit summary, it's "peripheral to section titled 'political positions'. This info can be found at main article on political positions." This whole section on "political positions" is supposed to be a mere summary of what's at political positions of ben carson, per wp:summary style. This detailed material about evolution is at best peripheral relative to his political positions, and therefore it's not necessary in a summary of those political positions. The info is available in the article political positions of ben carson, and I support keeping the info there in that article, because it is related (tangentially) to Carson's general opposition to what he deems excessive "political correctness". There is much material there in that article that is not suitable in a summary here in this article. Moreover, there is no separate section or subsection for "creationism" or "evolution" in political positions of ben carson, so the material that I deleted here in this article seems contrary to wp:summary style for that reason as well. (Incidentally, I don't think that the word "creationism" is as familiar as the word "evolution" notwithstanding that "creationism" would come before "evolution" alphabetically.)Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently, people prefer to just edit war rather than discuss here at the talk page. So, what I've done now is to try a different approach.  I've modified the section header to say "Political and other positions" instead of "political positions", because his views on evolution seem peripheral to politics.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * His public views on evolution vs. creationism are noteworthy for inclusion in his bio. I'm not sure they are really political positions though.- MrX 14:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that they're noteworthy for inclusion in Wikipedia, though I don't think they are suitable for this main article on Carson. Having them at Political positions of Ben Carson seems enough to me.  Many candidate BLPs don't even have a detailed section on political positions (see, e.g., the Hillary Clinton article which has a section on "political positions" that is only 251 words), but for Carson we make sure to include every tangential thing he's said that makes him sound weird.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * LOL! Yes, that struck me too. The fact is, we document the "sum total of human knowledge" as it's found in RS. If it's weird, it will be covered "even more", and that's why we cover it "even more". It's what we do. We don't cover it because "we" think it's weird, we cover it because "RS" think it's weird. --  19:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that at the Clinton article. Anyway, the sources for Carson's 2011 speech are very weak: Talking Points Memo (a liberal American political blog) and YouTube. Do you object if we delete this crap (retaining it at the political positions of Ben Carson)?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Anythingyouwant, you're apparently the only person who thinks this is "crap." --- "Carson claimed that evolution, as explained by Darwin, was actually the work of the devil." or "Similarly, Carson, a noted creationist, said he believed the theory of evolution was encouraged by the devil." -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We're using crappy sources like blogs and primary sources and opinion pieces, in order to paint this in the worst possible light. If you would consult an actual news source, even a sketchy one like the Daily Mail, you would see that Carson has clarified and walked back a lot of this.  See also this story in the Detroit News.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Ethnicity
This article lists Ben Carson's ethnicity as "African-American".

This field is not required for other people, specifically Bobby Jindal who would be listed as "Indian-American".

Yet the article does not state which of Ben's parents are African to warrant the term "African". His skin color is not enough justification to speculate on ethnicity. -- 14.3.207.97 (talk) 13:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * What happens at Bobby Jindal has no effect on this article, but it would be proper to list Jindal's ethnicity as Indian American (for some reason it's there, but doesn't show).
 * I see you are editing from Japan, so you would not be expected to fully understand American terminology and culture, unless you are an American expat. (BTW, I was born in Tokyo to American missionary parents.) Carson, in this racist country, is considered African American because of the degree of his African genetics. I believe both his parents were African American, IOW of mixed European-American/African heritage. The color of his skin has little to do with this. His genetics is included in the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Idiotic statement, initial point in this section. Sorry but that is so. Carson is African-american by any conventional measure, like him, don't like him, don't agree with him, doesn't matter 10stone5 (talk) 09:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Facebook for sourcing?
This article uses Facebook for sources, such as for saying that Ben Carson supports civil unions. I attempted to use Facebook to be more specific on Ben Carson's fetal tissue-controversy—to show that he says his only involvement was "supplying tumors ... removed from ... patients" and that neither he "nor any of the doctors involved with this study, had anything to do with abortion or what Planned Parenthood has been doing." May I use this source? If not, are there any more reliable sources that depict his response this specifically? —The Sackinator (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Facebook postings are not reliable sources, especially for contentious material in biographical articles. We should not be using it here. (It's depressing to have to say this out loud on a website which ostensibly aims to create a serious, reputable reference work, but apparently it's necessary). If there's something relevant and notable, then it will be covered by real, independent, reliable sources. MastCell Talk 22:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Education
There are inconsistencies on this page regarding Ben Carson's college education. First paragraph is incorrect. It states, "Born into poverty in Detroit, Michigan and a graduate of the Yale School of Medicine,"

Dr. Carson did not graduate from the Yale School of Medicine. The synopsis on the right margin of the page has the correct information.

Dr. Carson got his undergraduate degree from Yale University, and his M.D. from The University of Michigan.

Doriansnow (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)doriansnow

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2015
Hi there,

Please change "Born into poverty in Detroit, Michigan and a graduate of the Yale School of Medicine" (found in the introduction to the article)

to "Born into poverty in Detroit, Michigan and a graduate of Yale University and the University of Michigan Medical School".

For reference, see here. Furthermore, other references from his Wiki article confirm this fact.

Thanks!

Dranian (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC) Dranian
 * Yes check.svg Done Cannolis (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

"you know"
Hello. In this article we have a quotation where Carson says "you know" three times, in addition to the false start "it's just, we're changing..." Such a quotation would normally be edited in the printed press, without ellipsis I believe. I checked our manual of style though, and did not find anything on the matter. What do you think? Biwom (talk) 09:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * All 3 sources cited included the "you know"s and th false start in the quote, so it would seem inappropriate to edit those out IMO. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * From my point of view the current quotation reflects poorly on the sources and more importantly on Wikipedia - through what is a highly popular article. Can we not use this and this instead of the 3 sources that are currently in the article? My two links point to articles that have an edited version of the quote. But I am unfamiliar with and unsure of the quality of the publishers (huffingtonpost.com and newsmax.com). Thanks, Biwom (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * How could it possibly reflect poorly on the sources, much less WP, when they quote Carson verbatim? Use of the actual quote, rather than replacement of "you know" with ambiguous ellipses, is the way to go. Media sources across the political spectrum have used the exact quote, so the precedent couldn't be any clearer. And BTW, Newsmax is not an ideal source, especially in this case. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, with much pain I have finally found a book that discusses this topic, but it doesn't give a definitive answer, far from it. Anyone interested, type "in addition to humiliating the source, that would distract the reader" in your favorite search engine. Anyway, that will be my last post on this topic, unless more people join in. Regards, Biwom (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Section on personal beliefs?
Some of Carson's beliefs are quite extraordinary, such as. A section about these views would be a great addition to this article. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It could go under "Political and other positions".--Jack Upland (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Pyramid dates contradict his theory
Winkelvi Can you stop with this Undue business? The Bible is a Jewish book, it's quite relevant that he's contradicting the actual book he's trying to quote! Ariel. (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It may be relevant to you, it's not relevant to the article, . Will you stop edit warring over it now?  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  19:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * What edit war? Of course it's relevant to the article! I'm quite certain Ben Carson will not disagree with the dates Jewish belief assigns to Josef, so the only option is that Ben is ignorant, or he does not believe with the dates assigned to when the pyramids were built. Either option is quite relevant to the reader. Are you having a problem with the word "Jewish"? Ariel. (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Please stop with the pointy-ness, pushing your own agenda and trying to add irrelevant content to this article. Also, feigning ignorance of edit-warring isn't becoming or helping you.  You've been here long enough and know how it works.  If you keep up what you've been doing, you will very possibly be heading toward your first block.  Please don't.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  19:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There isn't just one "Jewish thought", either, since Judaism (like most other religions) is not monolithic. The Karaites reject all extrabiblical sources; likewise the Samaritans have their own version of the Bible that actually differs in some respects textually. And then of course the Ethiopian Jews have quite a few unique beliefs and practices too. That's to say nothing of all the extinct Jewish sects that once existed (Essenes, etc.) but no longer do. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

News is that some of these claims are disputed
This section needs to be rewritten:

In his book Gifted Hands, Carson relates that, in his youth, he had a violent temper. He once tried to hit his mother over the head with a hammer over a clothes dispute and, while in the ninth grade, he nearly stabbed a friend who had changed the station on the radio. After this incident, he began reading the Book of Proverbs and applying verses on anger. As a result, Carson states he "never had another problem with temper". MaynardClark (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * A lot of this is bogus and just the typical political season crap. Until we get reliable sources saying he admits to lying about anything, the content should stay as is. See this for more of what's being touted as the "truth" today being shown to be false and that Carson's accounts of these things are accurate and truthful. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  01:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that the disputes are in dispute, but there's still ample empirical evidence of dispute, however many layers of dispute there may be. MaynardClark (talk) 09:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Quote farm
The article is quickly becoming a quote farm. We need less quotations from Carson in this article, not more. Time to write it in prose, not just endlessly copying and pasting quotes. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We should use the word 'fewer' rather than 'less' (unless you're measuring space used BY the quotations). I agree that this and other Wikipedia articles ought not to become 'quote farms' (a Wikipedianism).  Readers don't live by quotes alone (but by very penetrating but defensible analysis of the currently evident situation overall). MaynardClark (talk) 09:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Whatever. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  08:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2015
CLIMATE CHANGE SECTION: Carson rejects the scientific consensus that human activity causes climate change; in November 2014 he said that "there's always going to be either cooling or warming going on" and that he found the debate on climate change to be "irrelevant" and a distraction from protecting the environment.[84]

In 2015, after Carson expressed his disbelief about the scientific consensus on climate change, at a Commonwealth Club forum in San Francisco,[85] After this statement, Governor Jerry Brown of California sent Carson a flash drive containing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Synthesis Report, which details the scientific evidence of human impact on climate change.[85][86] Carson response, to the San Francisco Chronicle, was that "There is no overwhelming science that the things that are going on are man-caused and not naturally caused."[85][86]

GRAMMAR CHANGES BELOW:

Carson rejects the scientific consensus that human activity causes climate change; in November 2014 he said that "there's always going to be either cooling or warming going on" and that he found the debate on climate change to be "irrelevant" and a distraction from protecting the environment.[84]

In 2015 Carson expressed his disbelief about the scientific consensus on climate change at a Commonwealth Club forum in San Francisco.[85] After this statement, Governor Jerry Brown of California sent Carson a flash drive containing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Synthesis Report, which details the scientific evidence of human impact on climate change.[85][86] In response to the San Francisco Chronicle Carson said, "There is no overwhelming science that the things that are going on are man-caused and not naturally caused."[85][86]

RK4uIek9cN (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

PROPOSAL: Section title change for "Media challenges to credibility"
Discussion for proposal for section title change -- the title centers on "the media" which is so specific that any comments from outside "the media" would not be proper in this long-ish section. Also, saying "credibility" is perhaps too harsh and focuses on the person, rather than the statements. Something like "historical accuracy" would focus on the comments and claims themselves, rather than the "credibility" of Carson the person. Therefore, some alternatives: Feel free to propose other alternatives. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 16:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Challenges to historical accuracy
 * Challenges to Carson's accuracy
 * Challenges to Carson's statements


 * Challenges to Carson's biographical narrative -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC) -
 * Challenges to Carson's biographical narrative is my preference. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think this section illustrates two separate issues, 1) the possibility that Carson has simply invented parts of his personal narrative that is central both to his campaign and his self-promotional business model, e.g. stabbing leading to religious epiphany, and 2) Carson's penchant for making ridiculous assertions of facts, e.g. pyramids as granaries. I think "credibility" is the accurate descriptor in both cases.  If he's making up stories about his biography, he's not credible.  If he's saying incredible things, he's also not credible.  "Accuracy" is a weaker word and inaccurately suggests carelessness rather than culpability or credulity.  I'd like to stick with "credibility."Lahaun (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have split the pyramids issue to a separate section. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC) -

Section Ben_Carson a mess
Ben_Carson - This section needs a lot of editing consolidation and cleaning up. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 02:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've consolidated and cleaned it up, and removed your tag. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Paternity suit
In an April 2014 Op-Ed in the 'Washington Times', Carson wrote that he was the victim of an apparent shakedown by an unnamed woman in Florida who claimed he was the father of her son. Carson said he refused to submit a DNA sample to the State of Florida, on the grounds that the government (in general) was so irresponsible they would probably have linked him to a murder somewhere, and the paternity matter was resolved without further complications. The 'Washington Post' has also covered this story, emphasizing that, if the story (which was previously unknown to journalists) is true as Carson wrote it up, it's a rather bizarre way of making a "humblebrag" about having only slept with one woman in his life, his wife. Not sure if or how we should include this story, though it may help explain Carson's comment last week that the media thinks "there must be nurse out there somewhere". But if it gets more traction, we'll need a short section. It doesn't help that his credibility and biographical anecdote-telling is under fire. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

This article made the Top 25 Report
This article made the Top 25 Report at number seven with 584,606 views for the week November 1 to 7, 2015. It was also number eleven the week before and number seven the week before that. Congratulations to the editors of this article for the exposure of their work. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨  20:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge the "Homosexuality" and "Marriage and LGBT issues" sections?
Perhaps these two sections should be merged? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Vietnam War
What was his status during the Vietnam War? Born in 1951 he would have been subject to the draft and the lottery.Robinrobin (talk) 02:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * He was an undergrad at Yale from 1969-1973, but the student deferment began to be phased out in November 1969. What was his lottery number? We've heard about him being in ROTC in high school and turning down a full scholarship to West Point (though he never applied). So what's his draft story? Good question Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe student deferment was phased out incrementally, and would have applied to Carson since he was earlier than the class of 75. Here's a source from 71 that supports that: Grayfell (talk) 03:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I added a paragraph about the Vietnam War to the "Early life and education" section like those in the Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, and Bernie Sanders articles. Newross (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Employment among black teens
The following statement is undue and not relevant for inclusion in Carson's BLP:

At the fourth Republican debate, Carson said that just "19.8 percent of black teens have a job who are looking for one", but The Bureau of Labor Statistics says that 74.4 percent of them have jobs.CFredkin (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 20% of African-Americans aged 16 to 19 have jobs and the remaining 80% don't have jobs; many among that 80% aren't looking for jobs, but obviously they would be more inclined to do so if more jobs were available. So Carson almost got it exactly right.  I do not support pointing this out in the Wikipedia BLP, even if we have reliable sources for it, because our section about Carson's political positions ought to just describe them without critiquing or supporting or opposing them.  So, I agree with User:CFredkin.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you know math? Per the source Ben Carson said that just “19.8 percent of black teens have a job who are looking for one.”Not quite. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says that the unemployment rate for African-Americans between 16 and 19 years old is 25.6 percent. In other words, 74.4 percent of them have jobs, almost four times what Carson said. -  Cwobeel   (talk)
 * Carson was making a prepared remark and he garbled it badly ("who are looking for one" is very wrong)--turning it into a false statement. This speaks to his ability to understand major issues, and is highly relevant to his debate performance. Rjensen (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So, what's the political position in this?CFredkin (talk) 18:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Is that a question or a statement? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My previous post ends in a question mark, which indicates that it's a question.CFredkin (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

A correct statement would be this: "Zero percent of black teenagers have a job, who are looking for one". After all, people who have a job are not looking for a job (though some of them may be looking for another job). So I doubt we should say that the correct percentage is 74.4.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

1987 Binder twins surgical outcome
I would suuggest that the Ben Carson article should provide more detail about the outcome of the Binder twins, such as "...In 1987, Carson successfully separated conjoined twins, the Binder twins, who had been joined at the back of the head (craniopagus twins). The 70-member surgical team, led by Carson, worked for 22 hours. Both twins survived, albeit each with significant brain damage." Bee Cliff River Slob (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a happy story. Both suffered significant brain damage and severe developmental disabilities (remember, they went into surgery laughing and giggling). One of the twins died sometime in the last decade. The other is 28 and has full, dark hair, but has never learned to speak.
 * In addition to details about the twins, we learn from the article that Dr. Carson played a cameo role in the 2003 Matt Damon/Greg Kinnear comedy "Stuck On You", about a set of conjoined twins. Carson apparently agreed to the cameo provided the film would premiere in Baltimore. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Bias on Neurosurgery Record
[I just realised there is an edit request, my apologies please add this as an edit request - I am new here ] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorlegend (talk • contribs) 22:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the article is now biased beyond reason on his achievement. This man has for the better part for his life been a world class neurosurgeon who got there by sheer hard work with a poor mother supporting him.

It's wonderful that you think the United States is a meritocracy. Now can we stick to the facts?

As much as I think his political views are insane. I don't think it's fair to reduce his medical career to one or two paragraphs. And for the lines mentioned his expertise with other types of neurosurgery to be left with [citation needed]

It's sad to see people trash this guy just because the media has said one or two bad things about him. I had read this same wiki years ago and his medical career has been completely destroyed unfairly. This is reddit hive mind think at it's worst.

For example the fact that he was the youngest director of neurosurgery ever at the time at John Hopkins at the age of just 33 is completely removed. http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/05/03/403599009/5-things-you-should-know-about-ben-carson

the binders twins didn't get a good outcome, but that bit is stretched way long as if it's his fault. They were told it was a risky procedure the operation paved the way for many successful ones where Carson did the same procedure and the conjoined twins ended up normal and others ones which also failed including one where Carson tried to do a pioneering one on adults where the operating equipment were designed by him and his team.

On top of this Carson performed hundreds of surgeries and also revived/pioneered modern hemispherectomy a procedure that requires removing half a brain and he successfully did it where the children recovered completely to lead normal lives http://hemifoundation.homestead.com/jessiesstory.html

He also contributed to medical research in numerous publications. Authored 100 Neurosurgical Publications http://www.nationalreview.com/author/ben-carson http://www.hopkinschildrens.org/staffDetail.aspx?id=3290

This and many more, he has only a dozen cases of legal cases for somebody who has been doing more than the average amount of surgery " Carson’s career moved along relatively smoothly, even while performing as many as 400 operations per year – a high caseload for neurosurgeons." http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/04/ben-carson-malpractice-claims-doctor-for-president

If anything his stunning record should be displayed as well as the negative things that may have occured.

Maybe this will be removed, but i just wanted to say I would really like a neurosurgeon with around almost 30 years of service as a pediatric neurosurgeon to have more than 1 or 2 lines about his medical career and about 2 pages worth about his crazy political views.Majorlegend (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello. I agree mostly with what you are saying. "Edit request" would mean that YOU write what you want to be added/amended in the article and post it here. You could get inspired by what you see here, it's an old version of the article that has more details about Carson's record as a doctor. This was certainly removed because it was unsourced or poorly sourced. If you are able to provide good sources, then it might be restored. Biwom (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Majorlegend, nobody is going to remove what you wrote above. They are good suggestions and good sources. If somebody else doesn't get to it first I will add the info when I have a free moment (probably a day or two from today)


 * Please feel free to make further suggestions here on the talk page, and as you gain confidence that you understand things like WP:V and WP:NPOV, please feel free to start editing the page yourself. We are always glad to help anyone who wants to improve the page but is new at editing Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Please simply delete the current paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 under the heading SURGEON and, in place of the last paragraph, simply state the date of his retirement. I agree with the comments above, that those paragraphs are obviously worded by opponents and are not objective. They are unworthy of Wikipedia, which is supposed to be objective. The simplest way to deal with them is to delete them.

Attacks on credibility/credibility
Given the media pile on/serious investigation of Carson's various assertions about his life history and other matters, I think it deserves a separate section, which I created, partly with new content and partly from pasting text from other sections. This is a rough draft and needs obvious improvement. In particular, until this new section undergoes further editing, I intentionally did not delete redundant material in other sections, but, as we edit this article together, I expect that to happen. This is also an especial plea not to revert this long addition to the article. Please, please improve, don't delete. With your help, I will continue to work on it. Lahaun (talk) 03:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is one section there that seems superfluous and I have deleted it. If the story is plausible, there is no need to question it further. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * All kinds of good evidence now out refuting these media attacks. If we are going to include the attacks we need to include the rebuttals. Legacypac (talk) 03:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Totally agree with Legacypac. I have put rebuttals for some of the attacks, but there are still some left, if anyone can do so.
 * Also, I deleted the last sentence of the section about the Yale psychology class. (It read, "However, the link Carson provided is for the course 'Psychology 323b' which was offered in Spring 2002; the 'Perceptions 301' class Carson claimed to have attended was allegedly taught in the early 1970's.") The sentence apparently attempted to counterrebut Carson's rebuttal, but the sources did not do so—unless I missed it. Would this qualify as original research? —The Sackinator (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Restored. It is in the source provided "Allow me also to do the research for the Wall Street Journal reporter. Here is a syllabus for the class you claim never existed. Still waiting on the apology," Carson writes. The link goes to a page for the course "Psychology 323b," which was offered in Spring 2002. Carson claimed to take "Perceptions 301" while he attended Yale in the early 1970s. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  20:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand that I may be wrong, but the link I gave says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." The quotation you have given does not explicitly say that the reference Carson gave was questionable; while it does give the year of the syllabus, it does not explicitly connect this with Carson's usage of it being questionable. In an example on what is original research and what is not, the Wikipedia page on original research uses the United Nations as an example. If sources say 1) that the UN's objective is to maintain international peace and security and 2) that they say that there have been 160 wars throughout the world since its creation, it would be original research to connect the two thoughts in a positive/negative way unless sources do such. In the same way, if sources say 1) that Ben Carson gave a link to a class from Spring 2002 to show that a class on Perception exists and 2) that he allegedly took a class with that name in the early 1970s, it would be original research to connect the two in a positive/negative way.


 * The page even goes as far as to say that if someone is accused of plagiarism, but a Wikipedian believes Harvard's definition of plagiarism to not include it, he/she may only place such an acknowledgement in the article if reliable sources 1) specifically speak of the specific instance of plagiarism by the person and 2) say that Harvard's definition would not fit in the scenario.


 * It is by the above that I conclude that the text in question should be reworded in the fashion that the sources themselves use. However, it appears that a lot of changes have occurred since I've said that. —The Sackinator (talk) 23:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Legacypac . This article seems a little biased for somebody who has for a better part of his life been a world class neurosurgeon,
 * the knifing thing was confirmed by his own mother
 * a fellow doctor robert prince also confirmed that carson told this story way before he became famous for anything
 * As for the Westpoint thing it was also found that they do call it a scholarship, because it is free to attend so anyone that got in would have essentially got a scholarship, it's just a matter of semantics. Carson was a student who would have easily gone into
 * Westpoint so it wasn't far-fetched that somebody told him that there is a scholarship for him. Also he had written these books decades later with a ghost writer. There has been no evidence that any of his claims are untrue...Majorlegend (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that this section should be more concise and more neutral. The Yale Psychology class story in particular is way too long and confusing. Westpoint contains what looks like original research. Biwom (talk) 10:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Outcome of other twin separations, surgical career
Winkelvi reversed my addition (see diff) with a note that said, among other things, that this Wikipedia article is not about Dr. Carson's medical career. I have to disagree, given that, for lack of prior political office, and for the fact his secondary writing and motivational speaking career is predicated on his medical achievements, his record as a surgeon is very much worthy of encyclopedic coverage. I'm up for better NPOV wording if that's what's called for, but I do think the fact that two of Carson's four twin separations subsequent to the Binder operation resulted in both twins dying, and one of those operations resulted in one twin dying and the other left legally blind and struggling to walk, is relevant to his career biography. Particularly so, I think, because he's made his twin separation surgeries a central part of the narrative he's presented to the public as a candidate. I also think yesterday's New York Times article on his surgical career and reputation at Hopkins, from which these facts were drawn, has further utility as a Wikipedia source and its link should not be deleted, even if some of its content might jar with perceptions preferred by the Carson campaign. I'm not trying to create a "fail list", as Winkelvi contends. Perhaps we can also note that Carson took on many cases other surgeons would not touch? Or that he was not the first or only to separate twins joined at the head, but that Hopkins apparently publicized the Binder operation in 1987, in many ways preparing the spotlight for Carson? That's also in this and other articles. Open to discussion... Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello. I support Winkelvi's reverting of your edit, although I don't understand his edit summary. To me, Carson's career as a surgeon definitely belongs to this article and should be even more developed. (see also above the section "Bias on Neurosurgery Record") However, at this point I think the section is unbalanced and biased, with undue weight put on the sad outcome of the twins separation, which now represents about 50% of the section, while Carson was performing 400 operations a year according to sources. I have read the NYT article, and I think it offers a much more balanced view of Carson's record as a surgeon than our article, and that it could be used (along with many other sources) to improve our article, which in my opinion in its current state really puts Wikipedia in a bad light. Biwom (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm all for better wording and NPOV. What about this article puts Wikipedia in a bad light? You seem at least to agree that yesterday's New York Times article on Carson's surgical career is valuable. So how can we use its contents to improve this article? I do think it's wrong only to trumpet Carson's "successes" while avoiding all mention of cases like Ladan and Laleh Bijani, for example, which do not fit the miracle-worker narrative. Once the media spotlight is off, does the welfare of these individuals matter? Of the 10 individuals who underwent Carson's separation surgery, five immediately died, three were severely disabled (one later died), and two are reported to be neurologically normal. I know the surgeries were all different and of course carried grave risks. But that Dr. Carson has frequently drawn the spotlight to his unique role as a neurosurgeon who has separated conjoined twins, even bringing it up at the first debate, I think anything short of mentioning this 5/3/2 success rate is a failure on our part. What, are we supposed just say he successfully separated five conjoined twins? Does the surgery still count as a success, I wonder, if the twins are buried separately? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The section is unbalanced without a representation of his successes. Another editor just chose to restore the content, taking it out of balance further.  There cannot be claims of false balance as there are many more positive outcomes in Carson's neurosurgical career, more specifically with separating cojoined twins, so I'm really hoping no one tries to play that card.  -- WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  01:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Carson career is fair game in his bio, and that includes not only successes but also failures. I am amazed that we are having this discussion. Tagged as such. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  01:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * To be NPOV, the article should list successes and failures, but should also somehow get it across that the first few times someone does a new surgery the failure rate is high. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree with . -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 01:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello. So, two days ago the NYT published an article about Carson which was mostly about his medical career. I found that article quite balanced and informative. The way I remember it, it said that Carson was a star surgeon, and explained why, but also that this stardom was probably not fully deserved, and explained why. Meanwhile, when I read the "Surgeon" section in our article, I found it neither balanced, neither informative. What it says is that Carson was a surgeon and that he was not good at separating twins. My point is, we definitely have to talk about the outcome of the twin separation(s), but if that makes up 50% of the section, it is undue weight. Thanks, Biwom (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Angels of the OR charity
Excellent article covering an attempt by Carson to solving America's health care system: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/carsoncare-the-doctors-needy-patients-fund-that-went-nowhere-216111 - A section on this would be a worthy addition. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)