Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wikidemon (talk | contribs) at 22:55, 22 September 2008 (→Proposal: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Books B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Template:Community article probation

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

Interview/promotion section

Should we have a section on Corsi's interviews and promotions? There seems to be a fair amount in the press, for example, about things Corsi has falsely claimed in interviews. This Newsweek article deals with one. We66er (talk) 02:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be a fair representation of the mainstream media reaction to the book, if it were put in a separate section called (something like) "Reception to the Book", or alternatively, "Credibility". Given that a number of conservative commentators have recently come out strongly against the book, those are citable sources as well. Arjuna (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? As I've said earlier, I don't think commentary is a good source for anything except the opinions of the commentator. --GoodDamon 21:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think opinion blogs are good for anything but the opinions of the commentator, but news articles mentioning the general reception a book or its author has received seem entirely legitimate. Arjuna (talk) 23:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Commentary isn't good. Reporting that the media says certain claims are false is. We66er (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, just a general observation triggered by reading the Newsweek link. To support claims of inaccuracies in the book, I think the gold standard is Factcheck.org -- they are non-partisan and about as NPOV as one could ever hope to find. Arjuna (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Ooo, good call. They keep both sides honest, they've got a very good reputation, and are scrupulous in their attention to detail. So, does everyone concur that factcheck.org is a good, reliable source? --GoodDamon 18:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The reliable source you've been waiting for

Hendrik Hertzberg has written a piece for The New Yorker entitled Barack Obama must battle the 'big lie' that provides a data mine of information about this "book". -- Scjessey (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. The article is located here. Arjuna (talk) 07:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

So you support using opinion articles as sources of their own opinions, even when critical of WP:WELLKNOWN people such as Jerome Corsi. Duly noted. -- Noroton (talk) 05:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It is no more (or less) usable that the Ryan Lizza piece from the same magazine that you have "cherished" so much. Just making a point. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

An analytical essay (whatever the opinions expressed) published in a RS is quite a different beast than an opinion blog. Arjuna (talk) 07:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Opinion blogs that are published by the same RS that publish magazine pieces are not "quite a different beast" at all, only opinion blogs published by the opinionator is a self-published, generally unreliable source, as WP:RS#News organizations (When citing opinion pieces from newspapers or other mainstream news sources, in-text attribution should be given.) and WP:BLP#Reliable sources as well as WP:BLP#Criticism and praise clearly state. And even an independent blog is a reliable source for the independent blog's own opinions (not for facts), at least for non-biographical subjects. There's nothing especially "analytical" here that couldn't also be in a blog -- and many blogs do the exact same thing as is done here. The venue (published magazine, magazine website, magazine-hosted blog, independent blog by known reliable journalist, independent blog) is a rough guide to reliability. -- Noroton (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm unclear what you mean -- the essay is NOT a blog, which seems to be one of your assumptions. Herzberg has a blog, but this essay is published in the actual physical magazine. Arjuna (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece (mostly) so I don't think it's useful as a citation. If it's a good read for you, wonderful, but not a great source. Wikidemo (talk) 08:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. It is a serious mistake to treat Corsi's book as a "normal" book, and the article needs to demonstrate the overwhelming mainstream consensus as to what this book represents. Hertzenberg's essay is demonstrative in this regard, and thus citable as to the book's reception. Arjuna (talk) 11:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Arjuna and Scjessey -- although the article is just as much opinion as analysis (it's both). It's reliable in terms of presenting a notable opinion, and if Hertzberg, a longstanding, respected opinion journalist (worked for major publications; wrote well-respected books of commentary) finds important flaws in the book, I see no reason why we can't include something from his work, treated as an "opinion" is treated by WP:ASF. Since Misplaced Pages can report on the opinions of others (see WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:WELLKNOWN), Wikidemo, you've got to show some overriding reason why we can't use this. I'm not sure about saying "Hertzberg says there is XX fact wrong in the book" -- I think that's at least borderline, but "According to Hertzberg, the volume reads like a telephone book" is fine. Any facts he asserts should be something asserted by sources reliable for facts. I'm not sure whether or not Wikidemo and Arjuna agree or disagree with what I've just said, but the policies I've cited seem to agree with it. Others may want to check to confirm that. Noroton (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll be more specific. Per policies and guidelines, the portion of the article that is clearly opinion is citeable only as such. One has to be careful in using it for that purpose even - there are many opinions on the subject, so quoting this one rather than others should only be done if this opinion is notable (using the informal meaning, rather than WP:N - if our mentioning this opinion is of due weight relevant to the notability of the subject matter). We should also be careful that any citation of this opinion has the effect of describing the opinion itself, not arguing the underlying point. The article is reliable to the extent it mentions simple uncontroversial facts (e.g. Mary Matalin is the editor-in-chief of Threshold Editions, and former chief of staff of the Republican National Committee) because the author is respectable and we know that the New Yorker applies heavy fact checking, even to its editorials (its cartoons too, apparently). Nevertheless all of these simple facts are probably well covered elsewhere so it is not necessary to use this as a source - one could find a neutral citation as well. Finally, the article is rather good at using the coded language I describe to distinguish between when it is reporting facts and when it is arguing a point. It states simple facts in a straightforward way, whereas facts that are not grounded are expressed in colorful terms using hyperbole, alliteration, attribution of clearly unknowable personal thoughts or intentions to people, metaphor, and so on. For example, Obama was "trying to remember what it feels like to get a good night’s sleep" (doubt they fact-checked that Obama actually engaged in this attempt to remember something; likely the author made that up, but in any even we will never know), book charges that Obama was "mentored by a menagerie of Marxists" (not reliable source for whether the book alleges mentoring by a diverse group of people who were specifically Marxist, much less a captive collection of wild animal Marxists), and so on. Unlike some more partisan outlets that label advocacy as news, the publication is responsible in distinguishing the two and labeling the piece as "commentary." The problem is the in-between items, those that are debatable factual points such as the assertion that Corsi's book is #1 on the New York Times bestseller list "thanks to" bulk sales. That's coded language again - they would have used "as a result of" if they knew for sure. For things like that the piece is only semi-reliable and I would hunt for better sources to support that sort of claim. Wikidemo (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd rather see a non-opinion piece covering the same material. I'm very much against the use of opinion pieces in articles that are even peripherally associated with WP:BLP. --GoodDamon 19:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of WP:Original research passages from "Disputed accuracy" section

We aren't allowed to do WP:OR on mainspace pages. The following passage is not sourced to anything but the source of the Obama policy statement, so it shows no source disputing accuracy. The passage would be fine in the "Content" section if it were important enough, but I'm not sure it is, so I pasted it here:

Corsi claims Obama "has pledged to reduce the size of the military." However, Obama's "Plan for a 21st Century Military," posted on his website, includes this statement: "Expand to Meet Military Needs on the Ground". Adding more troops is a major stressing point in the document.

Also, we don't use the word "However" in cases like this, per Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid#However, although, whereas, despite. -- Noroton (talk) 05:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

More of the same. I didn't notice this before:

Corsi claims that Obama did not dedicate his book, Dreams from my Father, to his grandparents. In the book, however, Obama writes, "It is to my family, though -- my mother, my grandparents, my siblings, stretched across oceans and continents -- that I owe the deepest gratitude and to whom I dedicated this book". Corsi also says that Obama does not mention his half-sister Maya Soetoro-Ng in Dreams from my Father, when in fact she is mentioned on page 47.

And again it's got the "however". And it's also trivial. we don't typically include trivial errata in our book articles (although I kind of like that idea in general), so it looks WP:NPOV and it's certainly a violation of WP:WEIGHT. It should not be a problem to find bigger errors than these. -- Noroton (talk) 05:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support removal - even if sourced these things are trivial, and the "however" part points to the fact that it's synthesis (taking 2 seemingly contradictory claims from different places to prove that one source has inaccurate claims) Wikidemo (talk) 05:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

And here's a third OR passage. The more I look, the more I find. We can't do this:

Corsi also asserts that Obama's father divorced his mother under Islamic law, a claim which contradicts the version of events presented by Obama in Dreams from my Father.

-- Noroton (talk) 05:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

References;

1. "A 21st Century Military for America" (PDF). Obama for America. Retrieved 2008-08-15.
2. Obama 1995: xvii.
3. Obama 1995: 47.
4. Dreams From My Father, by Barack Obama, pages 125-126, ISBN 1-5683-6162-9

FURTHER DISCUSSION:;

• Support that one too - if sourced the overall subject (mischaracterization of Obama's ties to Muslim faith) is probably worth a summary sentence, but not a point by point argument Noroton is correct in noting this particular passage is unsourced and WP:SYNTH (a type of OR) Wikidemo (talk) 06:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of that material for now. The way it was worded was effectively OR. Use of "however" is to be avoided if possible, but it is a guideline, not a policy, and sometimes -- and this article may be an example par excellence -- it is unavoidable and necessary. This is because presentation of work that is -- by Corsi's own admission -- inherently propagandistic is something of a conundrum for Misplaced Pages articles: to wit, how to represent the book's material in a way that is accurate in terms of what it claims, without doing a major disservice to the encyclopedia by presenting them uncritically and thus being an unwitting vehicle for political propaganda and character assassination. In short, it just will not do to not have counter-evidence disputing/disproving many of Corsi's fallacious and/or scandalous accusations. Such counter-evidence does need to be referenced, but in just what format is appropriate, I'm not sure. Throwing the question open to the floor. Arjuna (talk) 07:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Edited by Arjuna (talk) 11:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC).

WP:OR is a policy. There would have to be a rather extraordinary consensus here to override it. The material is not that important anyway, and there is plenty of sourced criticism and sourced fact-checking out there, so it's no burden to rely on normal Misplaced Pages procedures. And if the content section is beefed up, some of this might be added there -- whatever is important enough to mention in a description of the content can be accompanied by a statement saying that, according to such-and-such (like Obama's own book) something different is said about that certain fact. As long as Misplaced Pages isn't the one saying "Hey this is wrong", we can present that. And we can present it in such a way that any reader halfway alert will be able to draw the conclusion themselves. Noroton (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support removal. It's very likely that reliable sources will make note of the same discrepancies, so the material might come back, but until then, I don't see a need to let OR linger (or malinger, as the case may be). --GoodDamon 17:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support removal per definition of policy.--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

FactCheck.org

FactCheck.org, "a nonpartisan, nonprofit, 'consumer advocate' for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics," (http://www.factcheck.org/about/) has released an analysis of Corsi's book (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/corsis_dull_hatchet.html). Perhaps this should be mentioned in the Disputed Accuracy section? --76.243.205.39 (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I have added FactCheck's own summary statement to the introduction, although it may be necessary to prune some of the other quotes for balance. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. FactCheck.org is the gold standard for truth claims. Other claims that fail to meet that standard must be treated as -- at best -- minority views. Corsi's book is demonstrably "fringe", though since those claims are the subject of the article, WP:UNDUE should apply in describing them. Arjuna (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Obama and Saul Alinsky

An apparent WP:SPA, operating from an account devoted solely to Saul Alinsky has been revert warring to include this edit. I cannot guess what the editor's purpose is in promoting the material but the effect violates WP:NPOV by using this article to coatrack disparagement of Obama. The Obama/Alinsky thing is the latest anti-Obama talking point, an effort by conservative bloggers and the McCain campaign alike to paint Obama as a community organizer, and community organizing as a bad thing. See currency here. Corsi's book contains dozens to hundreds of separate disparagements of Obama, some true and others contrived or fabricated. To focus on one relatively minor one makes little sense here. I suggest we remove this, and would myself, but I am at 2RR in 2 days and refuse to get into an edit war here. I've warned the editor about Obama article probation and suggest that we not tolerate any further disruption here. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Any objections or should I just delete this again? Wikidemon (talk) 08:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No objection from me. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It was suggested I post my response to Wikidemon here as to actions taken against me by my addition of a one sentence reference to Alinsky CONTENT in this subject book, The Obama Nation. I think Wikidemon is going overboard and using the probation tool to protect the definite anti-book and author bias in this article about the book and to surpress major content found in the book, i.e., discussions of Obama's connection to the Alinsky school in South Chicago. In fact this probation and Wikidemon's relish in protecting this article the way it is may be contributing to bias against the book and it shows to me that Wikidemon is personally probably biased against the book and author. My name has been added to this list for reverting and have been labeled by him as an edit warrer, and now here with innuendo as to my motives, by the simple adding of one simple line about content of the book regarding the links discussing heavily in the book of Obama as a community organizer in South Chicago to the Alinsky schools and organizers in South Chicago. It deleted by Wikidemon first on the grounds of being poorly sourced. Admittedly, Saul Alinsky is a major interest of mine. I have read his books and studied his methods. The source I used was the Washington Post. And this book discussed the Alinsky connection in great detail. So I thought adding a line about Alinsky in the content was very appropriate. Alinsky school connections with Obama is discussed in the book on many pages. As to the quality of the source, many other negative comments of the book are to newspaper articles and they are not being removed. The Washington Post article discussed the link and how Obama got hired by Gerald Kellman, and Alinsky organizer.

As a suggestion for balance in this article, the article should have sections for "favorable responses" to the book and "unfavorable responses" to the book, in addition to the Obama response section already there. The "other" response section of this article is simply filled with more anti-book responses. Read the article carefully. I don't think there is one source or link to a favorable newspaper review or external "other favorable review" of the book or its author in the article. I believe the "probation" status is actually a "protection" status to keep this article "frozen" in a very, very anti-"The Obama Nation" the book bias and status and to further smear the author, Dr. Corsi, and thus his book. That is an Alinsky rule and tactic, personify the attack on your target, which in this case is his book, by attacking the person who wrote it. For more on my objections to being put on the warning list see my talk in the Obama Nation article. I am new to Misplaced Pages. But so far my experience is to see a lot of left of center bias in the editing allowed, especially with this book, The Obama Nation. Wikidemon tries to portray himself as fair and balanced with this article. But I don't see it from my first experience in trying to add one sentence to the Content section. It is there now but it took what he describes as an edit war to get it there. And now I'm on the warning and watch list. Wikidemon should be on the list. I ask again to be removed from the warning list above since I feel I was unfairly put there. I hope I have placed my concerns in the right place this time. --Mtngoat63 (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a few thoughts. First, on reviewing the sentence you were trying to add, I question the relevancy of such a small element of the book's content. The article is about the book, it's not a coat rack for the book's claims about Obama. Second, that particular detail is not even one of the book's most notable claims. There are several more notable ones in the article already, and there's no particular need to expand on them. Third, the sentence as you wrote it was grammatically incorrect and clumsy. Fourth, the claim is contentious, as it's a guilt-by-association argument, and may tread in areas covered by WP:BLP; it's like playing Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon and then ascribing guilt to someone because he's only three steps away from a criminal. --GoodDamon 19:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

And another thought, this time on negativity: This article is largely negative because the reliable sources it uses are negative. The book really has been dismissed as an inaccurate and poorly-documented hatchet-job by almost every respectable and respected journalism outfit, not in opinion pieces but in actual reporting. To put it bluntly, the journalistic consensus is that it is a lousy piece of fiction poorly disguised as research. --GoodDamon 19:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You are factually incorrect. A major discussion piece in the book The Obama Nation is the connection of Obama to the Alinsky school in South Chicago and his being hired as a community organizer by Gerald Kellman. http://www.barackopedia.org/page/Jerry+Kellman And, Gerald Kellman is the Marty in Obama's earlier books who Obama says hired him. Jerry Kellman, aka Marty, was an Alinsky organizer. Gerald/Jerry Kellman has confirmed the fact that he was the Marty that Obama referenced in his book and which Corsi details in his book, the subject of this article. A fact confirmed by Obama's campaign. Your characterization of the overall book, imo, is a reflection or your bias against it and your bias against the author and your obvious pro-Obama position in attacking this book and supporting the attempts to keep even one line in this article referencing the lengthy discussion in the book about the Obama and Alinsky School connections in South Chicago. The article is currently on "probation" and thus in "protection" to freeze its current state of unbalanced pros and cons commentary about the book from both sides. If Misplaced Pages's article is to be fair both pros and con commentary about the book should be permitted. And certainly more information about major content and chapters in the book should be allowed to be displayed. I guess the goal of you Obama supporters is to hide facts and truths. My simple sentence was factually true about a major content discussion in the book. My simple sentence was finally permitted. But not until I was placed on a watch list by Wikidemon. I guess I will have to stick to my article on Alinsky , a major contributor to the field of mass organizing for power and the founder of community organizing, and let you folks have the trashing of this book all to yourself.  ;-) --Mtngoat63 (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"...my article on Alinsky..."? Interesting. I suggest reading WP:OWN. --GoodDamon 19:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It is hard to respond generally, except to urge the editor (a new single purpose account so far devoted entirely to Saul Alinsky matters) to review more thoroughly the matters at hand - Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, article content, and the various talk pages. As a matter of fact I am on the list of editors on notice of article probation. Article probation was begun before the book was published and extends to all Obama-related articles. The notice was placed here by the original author of the article who, though by no means a fan, was relatively kind in his treatment of the book and its author. The overwhelming reaction to the book among serious reliable commentators is indeed negative, and we would have to strain hard to present an evenly balanced account. Balance is not our goal - neutrality is. Sometimes the facts are not balanced. The article probation and revert notice were aimed at the problem of WP:edit warring, which is a behavioral issue unrelated to content. Whatever your position is on what the article should say you are not supposed to repeatedly revert an article to your position. That is unarguable. However, on the content side the statement was, and remains, poorly sourced. Initially there was a claim that the book tied Obama to Alinsky supported by a bunch of citations that simply did not show what the sentence claimed - they did not show that the book tied Obama to Alinksy. They were sources that predate the book, and were tying Obama to Alinksy. That is a classic WP:coatrack. Now there is a citation to the book itself, which is a weak source. We generally do not cite a primary source as a claim of what the source says. That introduces editor bias, and also fails to establish the importance. If we see lots of reliable sources (e.g. the New York Times book review, a neutral scholar commenting, etc) commenting that Corsi ties Obama to Alinsky, we know that a reliable source thinks the thing is important enough to comment on. If we as editors simply read the book and choose things to highlight, that leaves no reliable way for us to filter out the notable information from editors idiosyncratic viewpoints. Wikidemon (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point, and I hadn't caught that. This is an important distinction: Those articles themselves tie Obama to Alinsky. They are not valid citations for any statement saying the book ties Obama to Alinsky. --GoodDamon 19:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well GoodDamon are removed my simple sentence as to major content in the book along with other content that others listed previously. Way to go with the probation status and neutrality agrument for this article. If you read the book, Rules for Radicals, you will see that Alinsky taught to practice deception to achieve your goals. You fellows are good students of Alinsky methods, even if you don't already know it, or will admit it. Here is what GoodDamon just edited out: "his taking a community organizer's job in South Chicago offered by Jerry Kellman an ideological disciple of Saul Alinsky . This is all major content of the book and belongs in the paragraph about the book's CONTENTS. I cannot revert it because Wikidemon warned me I could be banned from Misplaced Pages posting if I did. See the talk for more on that. Wikidemon is obviously protecting the trashing of the book and trying to hide contents of the book discussin facts not in dispute by anyone. He is using the rules of this system against me. http://www.semcosh.org/AlinskyTactics.htm . That is an Alinsky tactic. Wikidemon and now helped by GoodDamon are engaging in deception. --Mtngoat63 (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Your baseless accusations (WP:AGF) and incivilities (WP:CIVIL) directed at other editors are another violation of article probation. Calling other editors "Obama supporters" and attributing bad faith motives to their edits, simply for opposing your position, is the kind of disruption that article probation is supposed to calm. Please either make a constructive, reasoned suggestion for improving the article or drop the matter. Wikidemon (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Mtngoat63, I'm going to suggest reading the following guidelines and policies:

Behavior:

• WP:CIVIL - Please remain respectful. Assume we have good reasons for the edits we make, and discuss disputes reasonably and rationally.
• WP:AGF - Assume we mean well, until proven otherwise.
• WP:NPA - No personal attacks.

Content:

• WP:RS - Reliable sources. Use sources that have a high reputation for fact-checking and quality. In a nutshell, when given the choice between a peer-reviewed academic journal and somebody's opinion blog, use the journal.
• WP:NPOV - Neutral POV. We present the facts as reported by reliable sources. When the reliable sources take an overwhelmingly positive or negative view of a subject, that is the view Misplaced Pages will most thoroughly represent.
• WP:CITE - Cite your sources. Make sure the citation specifically supports the text you're adding. This is the most major failure of the additions you have been making: The cited sources do not actually report on the content of this book. They report separately on ties between Obama and Alinsky.

Go read these, and come back when you're done. We honestly welcome your input, but strongly reject your attacks. --GoodDamon 20:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. I again respectfully request that GoodDamon voluntarily restore the sentence deleted from the CONTENT section of the article. This section of the article is on CONTENT of the book. And the two of the references I provided showed it is in the book and discussed at length in the book. I also provided the third reference to Washington Post article reference which supports the assertions in the book. Many other newspaper article references are used in the book to support their respective edits. I provided both internal and external references to support the facts of my sentence added to the CONTENTS section. I provided three. Also the Obama campaign responds admits that Jerry Kellman, aka Marty in Obama's book and an Alinsky school organizer, was Marty. Jerry Kellman admits he hired Obama as a community organizer in South Chicago. Obama himself touts his work as a community organizer in South Chicago in speeches and in his books. The Obama Nation book is accurate as to those facts. My sentence added to the CONTENTS section was accurate. Again, voluntarily restore it and we can let this all drop. Here is another newspaper article in the Chicago Tribune from 2007 which covers how Obama got his community organizing job working for Gerald Kellman, an Alinsky school community organizer and follower who founded the Developing Communities Project in South Chicago. http://www.barackobama.com/2007/03/30/obama_hits_chicago_during_coun.php You can use this reference in addition to or instead of the Washington Post reference, if you wish. --Mtngoat63 (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't do that. Let me be very explicit here: This is not the article to discuss Obama's connections to Alinsky. This is an article about "The Obama Nation", a book. The book itself cannot be used for citations, because that would be using a primary source. Rather, we are constrained to report what reliable sources have said about the book. The citations you provided cannot possibly have anything to do with the book because they pre-date it. Therefore, they are not valid sources for backing up your sentence regarding the book's contents, regardless of their accuracy concerning Alinsky and Obama. The citations must be about the book, not about Alinsky and Obama. --GoodDamon 21:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

As to positive suggestion you again mis-characterize my prior statements. I gave one. See further up above. But I will repeat it here as a suggestion to improve the articals neutrality by providing a specific sections for pro reviews of the book in addition to the con reviews.

"As a suggestion for balance in this article, the article should have sections for "favorable responses" to the book and "unfavorable responses" to the book, in addition to the Obama response section already there. The "other" response section of this article is simply filled with more anti-book responses."

OK. I respectfully request that GoodDamon voluntarily restore the sentence deleted from the CONTENT section of the article. This section of the article is on CONTENT of the book. And the two of the references I provided showed it is in the book and discussed at length in the book. I also provided the third reference to Washington Post article reference which supports the assertions in the book. Many other newspaper article references are used in the book to support their respective edits. I provided both internal and external references to support the facts of my sentence added to the CONTENTS section. I provided three. Also the Obama campaign responds admits that Jerry Kellman, aka Marty in Obama's book and an Alinsky school organizer, was Marty. Jerry Kellman admits he hired Obama as a community organizer in South Chicago. Obama himself touts his work as a community organizer in South Chicago in speeches and in his books. The Obama Nation book is accurate as to those facts. My sentence added to the CONTENTS section was accurate. Again, voluntarily restore it and we can let this all drop. --Mtngoat63 (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is another newspaper article in the Chicago Tribune from 2007 which covers how Obama got his community organizing job working for Gerald Kellman, an Alinsky school community organizer and follower who founded the Developing Communities Project in South Chicago. http://www.barackobama.com/2007/03/30/obama_hits_chicago_during_coun.php You can use this reference in addition to or instead of the Washington Post reference, if you wish. --Mtngoat63 (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The article reasonably divides the reactions to the book into "responses" by affected parties, and "critical reaction". Dividing it instead by "favorable" and "unfavorable" reactions would open the door to a lot of material of dubious value, set up a pro-and-con format that may be fine for politics but is inherently antithetical to an encyclopedia, and incorrectly suggest that the reactions to the book have in fact been evenly balanced. The "responses" section is necessarily limited to reactions by people who are directly involved. It only makes sense to give Obama's response primary treatment because he is the person the book set out to attack. McCain is included because he is Obama's opponent. We also include reactions from a couple partisan groups, something I don't particularly support. The "critical reactions" section is overwhelmingly negative because the critical reaction to the book has been overwhelmingly negative. If someone could support by citation to reliable sources that a significant number of respected, neutral, uninvolved reliable sources have praised the book then I would consider mentioning that or reporting some of them. Regarding Alinsky, I will accept on faith that the book indeed devotes some of its content to tying Obama and Alinsky. Making that connection that seems tenuous and POV at best given the premise that Alinsky is the "father" of all modern local organizing and that the McCain campaign has seemingly out of nowhere tried to turn that into a bad word. If one wants to look at the world through Alinsky-colored glasses then a significant proportion of today's politicians are indirect "disciples" of the man, and there is absolutely nothing remarkable in pointing out (meaning it is not worth pointing out) that a given politician traces his lineage there. If you can point to reliable neutral critics who take pains to cover that part of the book that would be a reliable source to support the claim that this part of the book is important. However, we cannot summarize all of the dozens of points in the book. What are the main ones? Which ones have the press picked up on? Wikidemon (talk) 20:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

In the book table of contents in Part Two, Section 5, there is about a 29 page titled and detailed discussion about the ' Ideology of "Change" ' which is an Alinsky school teaching. In this section is where the book shows with documented sources that Obama took a job as a community organizer in South Chicago offered by Gerald Kellman (Marty in Obama's books) who was an Alinsky school follower and who founded the Developing Communities Project. As to what the press is talking about. Is that your suggestion as guidance as to what should be what is displayed as to major CONTENT discoussion of this book? I don't think that is hardly a neutral way of approaching things. Restoring the deletion of my simple sentence to these facts that GoodDamon edited out will solve this and we can move on. http://www.barackobama.com/2007/03/30/obama_hits_chicago_during_coun.php --Mtngoat63 (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we base what we say on what other sources say, not on our own analysis of things. So press reports, reviews, etc., are much stronger sources regarding a book than looking at the table of content or counting pages. Please review WP:RS and WP:NOR in that regard. Wikidemon (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, then restore my sentence to the CONTENTS section of the article. The associations of Obama with Alinsky school organizers and organizations has been discussed in the papers for years AND is discussed in this book. But if you want press references, here are two you can use: http://www.barackobama.com/2007/03/30/obama_hits_chicago_during_coun.php and http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032401152_3.html --Mtngoat63 (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I will not re-add that content. It won't happen, because the content you propose fails WP:CITE, WP:RS and appears to be a WP:COATRACK. Furthermore, the fact that the section is about the book's content does not negate standing Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines regarding citations. Citations in that section must still be on-topic. You are citing newspaper articles that were written before the book was published. --GoodDamon 21:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I dispute your assertions you make which are off-topic and distractions as to your real reasons for opposing the addition to the CONTENTS section of this article about the book. As to a more recent newspaper article reference about Obama's working as a community organizer of the Alinsky school organizations in South Chicago, here is one post publication of the book: http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306457496204115 and of course my references to the discussion of same in the book on pages 128 through 133, and many other pages in the book. The Alinsky ideology connections in South Chicago is a key part of this book: http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/9e358e3ba8.jpg http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/b6f37a9683.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtngoat63 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

None of those three links address the objections that were raised. They are, along with the others, either direct citations to Corsi's book or third parties' attempts to tie Obama to Alinsky. Exactly what do you mean to imply about the "real reasons" behind GoodDamon's edits? We have warned you about assuming good faith and avoiding accusations. If you will not I think the best thing to do is close this discussion as unproductive and move on. Seriously, if you want to contribute to Misplaced Pages, please honor our norms and policies.Wikidemon (talk) 22:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Media Matters is not a reliable source

I know that heading seems funny coming from me, but it's true. I consider MM both accurate and reliable, but it does not qualify as a reliable source per Misplaced Pages's definition. The funny thing is, every citation in the article coming from MM could be replaced with another citation (except in how it describes itself, which is a perfectly suitable use for a citation). Any thoughts on the matter? Any reason why those cites are still being maintained? --GoodDamon 19:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Obama hired by Jerry Kellman an ideological disciple of Saul Alinsky
2. [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/books/chapters/chapter-obama-nation.html?pagewanted=4&_r=1 NY Times Reprint of Chapter 1 of Obama Nation: Obama’s emergence in Chicago politics through the Saul Alinsky school of radical community organizing.
3. For Clinton and Obama, a Common Ideological Touchstone by Peter Slevin, page 3 of article in the March 25, 2007 issue of The Washington Post, Gerald Kellman an Alinsky organizer hires Obama

• B-Class Book articles
• WikiProject Books articles