Talk:Political positions of Ben Carson

t

Religion section
Several points:
 * MOS:PARAGRAPHS "Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading" - subheadings should not be used for short paragraphs. Subsections do not need to be endlessly listed - readers should have the intelligence to read a section as a whole (this is related to WP:CSECTION - political critique on one issue does not deserve a subsection). Including the word "Flood" in capitals violates religion NPOV.
 * WP:IMPARTIAL "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes" - Some anti-Republican and anti-Carson opinion outlets have published opinion pieces alleging that Carson's religious beliefs are inconsistent with his political positions. These should be framed as alleged inconsistencies - it is not the goal of BLP articles to act as a bully pulpit to make moral pronouncements on whether Carson's beliefs line up with what liberal opinion pieces say is Adventist tradition. Note that articles on liberal politicians do not have lengthy sections devoted to conservative opinion pieces pronouncing that their positions on abortion are inconsistent with what conservatives allege historical Christian beliefs are. If opinion pieces need to be included at all, then alleged inconsistencies should be presented as alleged, not asserted as fact. On issues like divorce, the public figure policy is to say "John Doe divorced" rather than describe divorce as "messy" or worse, try to moralise over who caused the divorce.
 * It violates POV to say that Carson's beliefs are "Adventist beliefs" - they are his and his alone - it is a fundamental principle of Western, liberal democracies that people can act on individual conscience, not moral pronouncements by leaders at to what "historical" religious positions are. Again, articles on liberal politicians are lot places for long diatribes on how Christian leaders assert that the "historical" position is on one side of the political battle.


 * I am not an American and I don't vote in U.S. elections - I don't have an interest in whether this article makes U.S. readers more or less likely to vote for Carson - something that cannot be said for Bullrangifer, who seems to have an unhealthy interest in trawling the internet for as many anti-Carson and anti-Republican opinion pieces as possible - then trying to pack all of them into the overstuffed "religion" section, with fatuous and simplistic repetition of everything that liberal opinion pieces.
 * The article Political positions of Hillary Clinton has a whole of three sentences - none of it negative, none of it interpolations of opinion pieces.

Bull - see the small size of Political positions of Hillary Clinton and the lack of smear tactics on that article - the "religious beliefs" section does not exist purely for political smears. You're pushing for a vastly oversized "religion" section - I'd ask you to seek a third opinion before reverting. -- Callinus (talk) 07:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

respond here. -- Callinus (talk) 15:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * (Context). I share Anythingyouwant's concerns. The sub-article should not be summarized at all. It should contain ALL details, ALL the original formatting, including [many of the] headings, etc.. Use your summarizing skills on the main article. The summary should be one section, with 2-4 paragraphs, and no subheadings. The proper thing to do is to start by making a good lead of the sub-article, and use that for your content. I explained how on the talk page there.
 * Another thing that's worrying is that your deletions look very much like censorship of the sub-article. Don't delete that content. It's a violation of NPOV, and we don't compare other articles in that way. Articles develop differently, and what happens elsewhere (bad things thought to be good things) should not be considered a model for doing the same bad things here. --  15:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that we could dispense with some of the headings for very small paragraphs.
 * I also agree that if there are instances where Wikipedia's voice is used to say non-neutral things, it should be fixed. We do that by attributing it, not removing it. Removal is censorship. Attribution is the way to solve those problems.
 * We don't care what happens in other articles. From your description, it sounds like there is an NPOV violation in Hillary's article, either by omission or commission.
 * Please move very slowly, with no big deletions. This is controversial stuff and WP:PRESERVE definitely applies. --  15:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Bull, your use of rollback violates ownership behaviour, and I ask that you seek a third opinion on this content issue.

"Another thing that's worrying is that your deletions look very much like censorship of the sub-article. Don't delete that content. It's a violation of NPOV, and we don't compare other articles in that way."


 * "violation of NPOV" - your content, which you are demanding ownership over, violates NPOV by making assertions about what his religious beliefs should be and are extensively one-sided in including only moral pronouncements by critics of Carson as to what they allege his religious beliefs should be.

"I only wanted to include the whole quote documenting his divergence from SDA beliefs on the age of the earth."
 * Violates SYNTH and editorialises over the issue - It is not the right of wikipedia editors to make pronouncements that Carson is a heretic - such a pronouncement violates WP:LABEL and the claim that he has "diverged" from SDA is original research - and a personal opinion - that comes close to violating LABEL.

It is not your right to add moral pronouncements on what Carson's religious beliefs should be - or whether you personally think that his beliefs "deviate" from scripture - Note that NPOV says explicitly "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes"

It's a violation of original research to declare that Carson's beliefs are distinct from SDA - and it's a linguistic synonym of pronouncing him a heretic - something that you're pushing from synthesis.

The content that you're seeking to add violates SYNTH and NPOV. If you want that material to be included, stop edit warring and either get a third opinion or at least address the issues that I have raised above (eg your section titles violate WP:CSECTION and WP:POVTITLE) -- Callinus (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "I agree that we could dispense with some of the headings for very small paragraphs."
 * The inclusion of the word "Flood" in capitals violates WP:NPOV and WP:RNPOV. The inclusion of the section "nonviolence and guns" is simply a single opinion article that is anti-carson - including this in the TOC violates the spirit of WP:CSECTION by including exclusively negative material in one short section. -- Callinus (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * No, the reversion is simple BRD. Let's follow it and then deal with specific issues, because we both want to solve any real problems. Please list the problems below with numbers and sign each one so comments can be placed in between. I'm very willing to work with you on this. We probably agree far more than we disagree. BTW, I have an SDA background (PK and MK), so I have quite a bit of advanced knowledge about them, but it's still the sourcing that rules. --   15:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, the only reason that Flood is capitalized is that it doesn't refer to just any "flood", but to the Great Flood. It's not that big a deal. --  15:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The documentation for his divergence from SDA young earth creationist beliefs was in the source(s). It's not my POV, OR, or an attempt to label him a "heretic". That's your interpretation from not reading the source carefully and not AGF. Be careful about making such strong accusations against another far more experienced editor.

To make sure this misunderstanding does not pop up again, I found more RS which make the point even more clearly. His own words make it clear as well. --  16:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Moving on
Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive - it describes how people act, not pronounces how "officials" say they should act. Many Roman Catholics use artificial birth control - wikipedia articles describe how people act, not make pronouncements by the Church against the practise - the Ireland ref. on same-sex marriage had Roman Catholics both vote for and against same-sex marriage - wikipedia describes how some Catholics vote for same-sex marriage, not prescribe the Church's position against SSM.

The article Andrew Sullivan includes the sentence "He is openly gay and a practicing Roman Catholic." - it does not include the phrase teaching anywhere in the article, or make any statement like "Sullivan deviates from the Catholic teaching that homosexuals are intrinsically disordered" - I think you may understand why POV and BLP is argued to not warrant the inclusion of lines about "teaching" from "official" sources on what religious beliefs a person should hold. The section Andrew Sullivan is written from Sullivan's perspective on the Church, not the Church's "teaching" and doesn't include opinion pieces of people condemning him. Accusations that Sullivan is not a "true" Catholic or not in line with "historical" teaching is not included - BLP articles do not need to be used as a vehicle to promote opinion pieces about alleged inconsistencies between "historic" religious practise and the article subject.

Most importantly, Western, liberal, secular democracies respect individual conscience. Church members all have a secret ballot when they vote - allowing them to vote for a party their preacher said not to - Liberal democracies that respect individual values must allow people to vote for any party that the individual wishes to vote for, for any reason, no matter if a policy is allegedly "diametrically opposed to historic" church teachings.


 * 1) Wikipedia is descriptive, not proscriptive - Statements about Carson's beliefs or political positions should not be framed as allegations, not statements that that he should have other beliefs or "deviates" from a "teaching"
 * 2) "Republican evangelicals" is a neologism not used by polling companies (unlike "White evangelicals")
 * 3) The phrase "Carson has been accused of straying from this Adventist teaching" is POV as it pronounces from opinion pieces what Carson is supposed to believe
 * 4) The comment on Sharia should have his Facebook post that articulates his position with a verbatim quote (FB)
 * 5) Carson has dodged the issue of a 6,000 year old earth in several interviews - Carson in April stated "And people say, 'Well, you believe the earth is 6,000 years old.' I didn't say I believe the earth is 6,000 years old. I do believe in the Bible though. The Bible says 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth,' period. Now we don't know how long lapsed between that period and the next sentence. It could have been five years, it could have been 50 billion years. We don't know the answer to that," he continued. "But I tell you something else: God is God, and He can create the world any age He wants to. It is very arrogant for any scientist to say, just because they can't explain it, it doesn't exist." - this issue is not a big deal to non-Adventist readers and can just be dealt with in a vague way that includes quotes from the April CP interview or O'Reilly - no need to interpolate over that to make pronouncements about Carson's beliefs - Carson speaks for Carson and there's no need to editorialise over whether he has or hasn't deviated from SDA positions - readers who care about that issue (most don't) can draw their own conclusions.
 * 6) The Krauss ref should not be in the first sentence - Krauss is not a subject expert on SDA beliefs - there are other people making the claim.
 * 7) The religiondispatches.org article on nonviolence can be summarised as "Some Adventists have argued that his political positions on gun rights and self-defence are inconsistent with historic Adventist teachings on nonviolence and pacifism" - non SDA readers don't care what the minutiae of SDA beliefs are. The phrase "diametrically opposed to historic Adventist teachings" is POV, because it adopts the language of anti-Carson opinion pieces, rather than just describing a controversy. Carson has a fundamental right, in a secular, liberal democracy, to choose to follow any political position he wants, for any reason - it's not appropriate for BLP articles (cf Sullivan) to write from the perspective that presumes that an individual does not have the freedom to choose their own political beliefs and must be subservient to allegedly "official" or "historic" doctrines (such a position would never allow moral progress on gay rights etc - people must have the freedom to have individual liberty on all issues.)

This is a start.-- Callinus (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:Other stuff exists is relevant here. That's why what we find in other articles cannot be used as arguments here. Instead, we follow the sources.


 * 1. Multiple RS have mentioned his deviance from certain SDA doctrines:


 * A young earth: Traditional SDA belief isn't just that Adam and Eve were created about 6,000 years ago, but that the Earth itself did not exist before that. Better educated and liberal SDAs question that position, and they can even lose their jobs as teachers in SDA schools because of that deviance.
 * Separation of church and state: He deviates from it in certain very fundamental and radical ways. SDAs support for separation of church and state is based on the Constitution, and the understanding that the First Amendment was created to keep religion out of government so that a religious dictatorship could not impose one religion on all Americans. Carson believes (contrarily) that there should be more religion in the government, and that the Founding Fathers (FF) wished this. Nothing could be further from the truth. God is notably absent from the major founding documents; many of the FFs were atheists or Deists who wanted less religion, not more; all the FF learned from the history of religious persecution that America must be protected from that happening again, so they established a firm wall between church and state. Only a secular government could ensure that freedom of and freedom from religion would give the most freedom of religion in America. They were wise. It's worked very well for 200+ years, but the religious right is now threatening to turn America into a Tea Party Taliban nation, and Carson appeals to that group. His view is a strong deviation from SDA beliefs on the subject. Many SDAs are scared and ashamed of him.


 * What we do is document what others say. If we are including such things without sourcing, then, if it's accurate, we must find sources, not delete it. How it is framed is also important. We must not use Wikipedia's voice for extremely controversial statements, when the RSs can be quoted or paraphrased.


 * 2. I agree. Remove "evangelical".


 * 3. See number one above. "Accused" removes it from Wikipedia's voice, so that's proper wording.


 * 4. As long as secondary sources mention that quote, and you use them to back it up, it's okay to then include the primary source, even YouTube.


 * 5. Again, covered in number one above. RS make a big deal of this, and we document it. The reason they make a deal of it is because it's controversial, and we are required by NPOV to include full coverage of controversy. Failure to do so is censorship and violates NPOV.


 * 6. I don't see a problem. The ref documents part of the wording in the sentence. If others also "make the claim", then include them. If they are sufficient, maybe it can be removed, but not before then.


 * 7. Give me time to examine that one.


 * 18:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Religious beliefs -> Creationism, Religious freedom
In the main Ben Carson article I decided on this split, adding a bit of new data. I'd recommend following it here also. The problem is that "religious beliefs" isn't a political position, it's a gunnysack into which you can dump anything and everything with no organization. Wnt (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with having a subsection under "political positions" titled "creationism" because "creationism" is not a political position. It would be much better to have a subsection titled "creationism and political correctness" or "opposition to excessive political correctness", and then the creationism info could be included.  In other words, the subsection title ought to be related to political positions.  (Also, it's better to introduce entirely new subsections here at this talk page, then put them in this article, and then summarize in the main Ben Carson article, rather than the complete reverse.)Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You may be right -- creationism may indeed not be a political position, and therefore might not belong in this article at all. I was trying to organize the material without necessarily considering overall relevance; in the main article I thought about moving the paragraph to a different section.  A key question in my mind is definitely whether his creationism has political consequences, such as on school curriculum.  If we can get such material we should include it ... if not, whatever we have on that should be shipped back to the main article. Wnt (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I recently inserted the following into this article, which I think makes the creationism stuff fit in with his political positions: Carson opposes what he sees as excessive political correctness, regarding evolution as well as other issues.[1][2] [1]Knowles, David. "Ben Carson’s Religious Beliefs Come Under Scrutiny", Bloomberg News (September 23, 2015). [2]Felton, Ryan. "Ben Carson attacks 'political correctness' amid backlash on Muslim comments", The Guardian (September 23, 2015). If you think this works, please feel free to add this material to the Ben Carson article. Please keep in mind that there's not supposed to be anything in the "political positions" section of the Ben Carson article that's not also in this article, per WP:Summary style.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that's pushing into WP:Synth, perhaps impermissibly so, just to try to unify two issues that don't seem that closely allied. What we really need is more data on what his creationism means in political terms. Wnt (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * How is it synthesis? Source [1] says, "Portraying Charles Darwin's theory as unscientific, Carson also railed against what he sees as political correctness directed by scientists against people of faith."  Source [2] discusses his views on political correctness too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion. Four points: This is productive. --  04:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) It's true that his religious beliefs aren't strictly "political positions", and as such it should remain in the main biography, not here.
 * 2) BUT(!), much of this has been in the context of his political debates, and brought up in them, so we need to be careful. Some of it belongs here.
 * 3) His remarks about Muslims and the presidency belong here.
 * 4) His religio/political views on separation of church and state also belong here.
 * I meant to research into this more, but I should clarify for now I don't mean my comment above to count as an "oppose vote" while I'm trying to decide what I think. Wnt (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)