User talk:Dkeats99

NPOV
One of the core principles of Wikipedia is WP:NPOV. Basically, our articles reflect the views held by reliable sources. With regards to the various Obama conspiracy theories, that means we bluntly say that they are false as that is overwhelming how they are viewed. Ravensfire ( talk ) 05:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with WP:NPOV and that is why I made the corrections that I did. Views held by reliable sources do not make things true or untrue, "views" are still [|opinions]. While I understand that there may be evidence or even substantial evidence to justify a particular belief, it is still up to the reader to determine for themselves whether something is FALSE or not. It is the duty of the contributor to present all known evidence of a theory and allow the reader to determine for themselves. Please don't assume that I made the correction to advance my own opinion, because that is not the case. I simply removed the statements that appeared on the page prior to relevant supporting evidence that clearly showed the author's bias on the matter. As in a [|legal argument], it is not the duty of the contributor to prove, disprove, validate or repudiate any theory- but simply to present the arguments and allow the reader to determine for themselves. It is acceptable to state what common held beliefs are, with citations, but it is not acceptable to give the reader a statement of fact. I appreciate you taking the time to respond, thank you. --Dkeats99 (talk) 22:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Your interpretation is incorrect. Ravensfire ( talk ) 22:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Your understanding of facts is apparently incorrect as well. Dkeats99 (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.Also, all Obama articles are under article probation. Dave Dial (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Understood- I just believe opinions have no place in an online encyclopedia. I won't attempt to change it again- at the reader's detriment. Dkeats99 (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Please read the biographies of living persons policy. In removing the fact that the conspiracy theories are false, you violate the BLP policy and introduce your own opinion in the place of a factual statement. Please do not place a personal interpretation into articles under the guise of your mistaken interpretation of Wikipedia policy.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * That has to be one of the more ridiculous arguments I ever expected to hear about this. I did not assert my opinion, in fact, you are still unaware of my personal belief. Your argument here is completely unfounded and without merit. Furthermore, I didn't remove a single "fact" from the article. The only thing I removed was assertions that disallow the reader to make their own informed decision. It's not that hard to figure out. A theory is a theory because some people have believed it. It is the contributors job to lay out the facts, not opinion. Plain and simple. To argue otherwise is beyond the scope of reason. Dkeats99 (talk) 02:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * In an article where false rumors about a person are documented, Wikipedia policy requires that those statements or rumors be plainly stated as false. Please consider this a warning against violations of the BLP policy.  Acroterion   (talk)   02:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * My edits did not remove any statements of fact. I removed assertions that should have been supported with evidence within the same context. You cannot claim a rumor to be false without compelling evidence from actual facts, not hearsay. If the theory is indeed false, the evidence should and will support it. The simple fact that there is a "conspiracy theory" about it should preclude this informational site, as well as yourself, from claiming FACTS when there are none. The content should be written to state what popular opinion is and what facts are known. Included with that should be the proper evidence, but making affirmative statements to persuade the reader when the author cannot possibly know the truth is blatantly misleading.


 * I am not saying that Mr Obama is not a Christian or that I buy into conspiracy theories- I am saying that no one but he knows that truth. Therefore, it is the burden of the contributor in a "Theory" article to state both sides of the argument and let the reader decide. I wholeheartedly reject the notion that I have violated any policy to convey this point. Articles should be written responsibly for the sake of those who read them and I found this article lacking. Dkeats99 (talk) 02:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Just for example, I went to view another page,9/11 conspiracy theories, that follows my point quite clearly. Whatever the author's belief- in the abstract of the article, they clearly state the following : "Government investigations and independent scientific reviews have found no evidence for the theories. Proponents of these conspiracy theories claim there are inconsistencies in the official conclusions, or evidence which was either ignored or overlooked." Now, that is responsibly written. Why should this article be any different? Dkeats99 (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Please carefully read the "Fringe Theories" guideline page (WP:FRINGE). If you still believe it is inappropriate to say explicitly that the Obama religion conspiracy theories are false, please consider bringing up the issue on the Fringe Theories noticeboard page (WP:FTN).  FWIW, I have stated in the past (see [ this comment] on the article's talk page) that I believe it is unnecessary to say these theories are false, but I recognize that I'm obligated to accept the consensus of editors that this phrasing ought to remain in the article.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The difference between the Obama article and the 9/11 article is that the Obama CT article is about a living individual, while the 9/11 article is not (though BLP rules can sometimes apply). I will note that the distinction is sometimes inconsistent: the article on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion explicitly describes the falsity of the subject, in part because it's a frequent target of anti-Semitic POV pushers who seek to portray it as true or to water it down to a point of ambiguity. A neutral point of view does not require the imposition of a false dichotomy by imposing a fictitious "balance", including credulous commentary about Obama being the Antichrist as if it is actually credible. This is a common error in interpretation of WP:NPOV, which requires that fringe theories, when included, be described as such, and that outright falsehood, particularly when they concern a living individual, be plainly stated as such. In this case we have an article that, without such a preface, is wall-to-wall libel, which cannot be left open to watering-down or to doubt.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all for the input. I understand your points but, personally, I disagreed with how the article read and still do. I didn't see it as objective. That is all. My edits were minor, which you can plainly see if you review them. However, I never anticipated such push back and I believe I have argued my point as clearly as I can. So we must have to agree to disagree. Have a good rest of your week. Dkeats99 (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)