Talk:Jerome Corsi

Corsi calls for impeachment of George W. Bush

Corsi has called for George W. Bush's impeachment many times. I think this needs to be incorporated into the article somehow. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/08/the-obama-overr.html

Do we have a direct link to where Corsi says this? We66er (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJRYzuLehT8. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.173.150 (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I see someone added it to the article. Has he said this in his WorldNetDaily articles? We66er (talk) 02:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Material from the Freep

It would seem to me that the decision to include Corsi's personal opinions from the Free Republic website is improper material for a NPV article.

why is that? no viewpoint is offered of these political opinions. it simply states that he is controversial partially because these Free Republic postings became publicly known. that's not point of view, it's reporting a highly public controversy and documenting part of the reason. since his work is political in nature, a controversy over his politics seems relevant to me. also, we report perhaps unflattering publlic utterances by many figures, such as michael moore and ann coulter. is it pov to report those?

Corsi has apologized, which means, he admits they were in poor taste.[1] Furthermore, he has been called a bigot.[2][3][4][5] That people have this view of his comments is noteworthy considering this remarks are racist. Such as, "The book includes lines that some might consider racially insensitive, such as, ' Obama's mother chose another Third World prospect for her second husband, a second man of color, to be her mate '."[6] WP:NPOV reads "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" are to be included. Wikipedia does not censor comments that are "mean." We66er (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Concerns about bias

This article is blatently biased against Corsi and is far from NPOV. This is one more example of liberal control over Wikipedia -- a state of affairs which, ultimately, will doom this experiment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.87.255.134 (talk) 04:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The evidence presented at Wikipedia against Corsi is supported in voluminous academic, journalistic, and political studies. Corsi's racially tinged discourse and his politically motivated falsehoods and slander make him the very living definition of racist, liar, and demagogue. This is one Wikipedia entry that is amply and clearly cited, and the tone of the article is judicious -- far too judicious--considering what an execrable character he reveals himself to be via his loathsome revival of unrepentant, long-lived McCarthyism that the Republican Party's Rightwing culture has bequeathed to the nation's politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.167.14 (talk) 05:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying that you think Wikipedia exists to fight "Rightwing" culture? It is amply cited alright, chock full of quotes from "Media Matters," Hillary Clinton's propaganda machine. Aletheon (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not exist to attack any view, but to present things the way they are. Corsi's views are controversial (North American Union, 9/11 Truth Movement, abiotic oil, Democratic politicians[7], etc) and the article needs to reflect that. PS Media Matters, isn't ran by Clinton. On contrary to your conspiracy, it was started and ran by David Brock- author of such attack books as The Seduction of Hillary Rodham. We66er (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The point is that Media Matters should not be used as a credible third-party news source for Wikipedia articles. They do not perform a neutral journalistic function. Their own stated purpose on their website admits that they are anti-conservative, thus, reporting their views on Wikipedia in a context where they appear to be "factual rebuttals" is in violation of neutrality. As for their connection to Hillary, why did she herself claim to have founded Media Matters, if she isn't closely involved? Aletheon (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You got a cite for that? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd like to see a cite for that too. Also I'd like Aletheon to demonstrate, in the particular instances in this article, why he doubts the crediblity of MM. Again, I'm asking for specific demosnrations of the particular claims in this article, not some Bill O'Reilly style attack accusing "the left" of some giant conspiracy. Also since Corsi has publiclty criticized MM's criticisms and even has debated their representatives, it seems like it would only be a political move to remove their criticism because of their "anti-conservativism." But I'll hear you out. Iii33lll (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to say that wherever I find statements and criticisms from MM about anything cited in Wikipedia, it is clearly noted that they are a non-conservative organization and the reader must take that for what it's worth. If you know cases where this is not the case, Aletheon, treat it like any other cite to a strong-POV source, just as you would a criticism from Accuracy in Media. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I cited my source quite clearly, Media Matters' own website. Re-read, carefully, what I wrote above. Neither "Orangemike" nor "Iii33lll" have given a substantive response to my challenge of Media Matters as a credible (read: neutral) third-party source of information. Aletheon (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Provide a direct link where Clinton "herself claim to have founded Media Matters." Also being non-neutral doesn't disqualify it as a source. Should we remove all references to Fox News (Fox News Channel controversies) too?

The Media Matters links in there: 1) on their criticism for Unfit to Command 2) one identifying Media Matters, with their platform, 3) on their criticism of Obama Nation 4) on Corsi's controversial internet postings (which is cited alongside other sources) 5) on Corsi and a MM representative debating on Larry King. You need specific examples that contradict or discredit what's in the article (only 5 MM links out of 88). MM doesn't cite anything that others haven't said. Their view gets heard too. We66er (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

So no source? I didn't think so... We66er (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

To the quibbling and equivocating anonymous pontificator from New York, you, also, fail to give any cogent reason why Media Matters should be considered a credible (which in this context means neutral) third-party source of information. Aletheon (talk) 07:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

We frequently cite the likes of The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. Well, both of those media outlets have lied to me. I cannot recall any instance in which a Media Matters for America statement proved to be inaccurate. JamesMLane t c 10:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Aletheon resorts to the very same low-road, high cant as does his putative "tribune," the extremely mendacious Jerome Corsi, to wit: When challenged on the logical fallacies and blatant mendaciousness of his "arguments," Corsi resorts to the risibly ridiculous riposte that his critics engage in "quibble" and "equivocating." And now we see that Aletheon resorts to same said "strategy." Now that we have established the slatternly slavishness of said Aletheon with respect to his "tribune" of choice, let us further educate Aletheon thus to the fallaciousness of his "reasoning": "To quibble" is to make a "slight objection or criticism." But in fact, this "pontificator" of New York excoriated Corsi for his (a) "racially tinged discourse and his politically motivated falsehoods and slander,” which make him (b) “the very living definition of racist, liar, and demagogue.”

But then, perhaps Aletheon, like so many Right wing Conservatives, consider racially tinged discourse, politically motivated falsehoods, and slander merely worthy of, well, a "quibble."

As to the demonstrably false charge of "equivocating," I riposte by way of repost, as it were: Voilà, three academic sources that both provide illuminating histories about the origins of the paranoid style of American Right wing politics while exposing, cataloguing, and critiquing their debasing, destructive means and ends: 1) "Anatomy of Fascism," Robert Paxton (Columbia University) 2) "Suburban Warriors: The Origins of the New American Right," L. McGirr (Harvard University) 3) "The Paranoid Style in American Politics: And Other Essays" (Richard Hofstadter, late of Columbia University).

With respect to the utterly unrespectable and coarse Corsi, the Wikipedia entry on his infamy provides ample citation, of which I not only alluded to in my original posts, but also provided the aforementioned academic works for contextual support.

By contrast, Aletheon has made only baseless – not to mention base -- charges that Hillary Clinton "founded" Media Matters. Upon this crude canard, Corsi's acolyte then claims, laughably, that Media Matters is thus not a valid source. Au contraire. First, Media Matters for America (MmfA) a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization founded in 2004 by journalist and author DAVID BROCK, a former Right wing hatchet man, is not a Hillary Clinton vehicle. MMfA bases its withering critiques on a range of sources that includes the mainstream media of record, e.g., The Associated Press, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post, and the actual documented historical and legal record versus the lies and paranoid hysteria Conservative demagogues trade in as a matter of course (see the aforementioned classic, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics: And Other Essays").

For example, in a recent article, MMfA refuted a false claim by David Freddoso, a Conservative partisan, in which said partisan charged that the Illinois Department of Public Health and a letter from the Illinois attorney general's office takes to task Obama's statements with respect to the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975. Much to Feddoso's chagrin --assuming he has any sense of shame ––i MMfA reprints the germane section of the letter, which clearly shows that Freddoso willfully "misrepresents" (e.g., distorts, lies, prevaricates, etc.) as to what said document actually states (refer to http://mediamatters.org/, last accessed 8/20/08).

So, let us look at the score: 1) New York Pontificator proves that he EXCORIATED Corsi, not "quibbled" with the sot, as Aletheon so falsely claimed. 2) New York Pontificator demonstrates that Aletheon either does not know the meaning of "quibble" or willfully misuses the word to advance a false notion. 3) New York Pontificator demonstrates that Aletheon attempts to misrepresent the facts yet again in his false charge of "equivocation," given that Big Apple’s Pontificator has posted this extended, annotated riposte, and finally [home run] 4) New York Pontificator cites definitive works by noted scholars, whereas Aletheon merely restates his earlier falsehoods, as if repeating Rightwing twaddle would somehow convince the readership that down is up, rubbish is gold, and Conservative demagoguery is the light of reason.

No. they aren't.

Well, gee, Aletheon, you are down not by just three, but all four points. If this were baseball, the New York pontificator would have made all of the bases and strolled safetly to home. And you? You struck out and then some. "Damn Yankees," huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.167.14 (talk) 17:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Quoting someone who calls Corsi a neoconservative and a conspiracy theorist is a joke. Why don't you quote me while you're at it. That's not a legitimate source of information or a fact at all. Comments like that have no business being on this site and should not be presented as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.164.156 (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV marker

An NPOV marker has been applied to this page, but there is no ongoing discussion. What is the problem? -Willmcw 08:18, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Unless there is further discussion, I'm pulling the NPOV tag. -Willmcw 23:26, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I certainly thought it is pov. But not because of the quotes, but because it lingers on negative things about him. Эйрон Кинни (t) 03:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it is less POV now. HKT^Talk 18:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

So long as they're presented in a factual, balanced manner I don't see the problem.

I added some of the plagiarism allegations that Debbie Schlussel has made against him.

I also think there should be some more material about his impromptu alliance with Jim Gilchrist, and his work in the Iranian freedom/no nukes for Iran movement.

Personally, I think Corsi is a complete and utter fraud, who latches onto noble, popular causes, e.g. the campaign against John Kerry, the fight against illegal immigration, the movement against the IRI, etc., in hopes of enriching himself and attracting publicity.

That being said, I won't insert my own admittedly biased opinions into this article.

Ruthfulbarbarity 05:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I have not read Corsi's books and have no view which of his criticisms of Bush, McCain, Kerry, Obama and others are valid. But I was immediately struck by how much this article is an "attack piece" prior to an important election:

1) NPOV doesn't require "further discussion" to stay. Once it's been shown not to be neutral, the point doesn't need to be made again.

2) But just in case the reasons this article is not NPOV have been missed, here are three principles: (a) If someone's views have been attacked and you cite the attacks, you should also cite the defenses offered by the person himself or his supporters. (b) If you select criticism of his views of Kerry or Obama, you should also cite some of his strong arguments against those men so the reader can judge. (c) the neutral way is not to give a laundry list of criticisms of a political activist, but to simply say some have one view, some have another. And you either omit BOTH or you include BOTH.

3)The article includes -nothing- supporting anything Mr. C says and is full of quotes or statements of people who have a viewpoint but *only* those who criticize his views, his integrity, etc. (I suspect if you went to the National Review or WorldNetDaily or even the Wall Stree Journal on the right, to balance the New York Times and mainstream press on the other side, you would have been able to find pages and pages of his arguments and of support for his arguments.)

Here are examples from the article of 'piling on' with only critics being cited.

Below, in brackets, I indicate why the NPOV of view is violated no less than six separate occasions:

i) “ [his books] have received much criticism, including allegations of serious factual errors”

--- [Has it not also received much praise? Including claims that he is –accurate- on many serious factual matters?

ii) “The book was criticized for containing interviews with people who did not serve with Kerry, and many who did serve with Kerry called the book's claims false.[28] Of those interviewed for the book, some asserted that their statements were edited to strip out material favorable to Kerry.[29]”

--- [Is it invalid to include comments about Kerry which relate to issues outside of his military service, or to raise questions about him by people who did not serve? What about those who “did serve with Kerry” who called the books claims true? Do footnotes prove that this is the only point of view possible?]

iii) “a number of controversial comments — some interpreted to be anti-Islam, anti-Catholic, anti-semitic and homophobic[30] — made by Corsi”

--- [What were these comments? Is it worth including if someone ‘interprets’ something but someone else would interpret it in a very different way? Or is this just a smear given permanence in a Wikipedia entry?]

iv) “The Obama campaign issued a 40 page rebuttal called "Unfit for Publication" on his website FightTheSmears.com, alleging serious factual errors.[41] The Democratic National Committee responded calling him "One of the most vile smear peddlers of the 2004 election" and he was "too crazy even for Swiftboat liars."[42] According to various American news sources, many of the accusations made in the book are unsubstantiated, misleading, or inaccurate.”

--- [What about those news media or even websites or bloggers who have a different point of view? Surely they EXIST for a book atop the best seller list with thousands of enthusiastic readers?]

v) “The Obama Nation has been criticized by Paul Waldman as being "filled with falsehoods", [56] and in a debate with Corsi on Larry King Live, Waldman accused Corsi of using baseless innuendo as a tactic to 'smear' Obama.[57]”

--- [What about a differing point of view? What about some of arguments the author himself offers?

vi) “...has accused Corsi of plagiarizing”

--- [What about a defense? Hasn’t anyone defended him on this charge? If you are going to include one, why don't you slip in the other?]

<>Ulysses

Errmmm... because it's difficult if not impossible to find a reliable source that backs up his claims? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

What one needs to do in NPOV is either not present unproven opinions at all (accusations of plagiarism without proof would certainly be an unsubstantiated opinion, as well as all the exclusively negative reviews of this individual) or present reasonably articulate representatives of both sides.

Not cherry pick to find only those who support a POV on a controversial person or issue and then label only them (and all of them) as 'reliable sources'.

And, just to avoid straw men, one needs to allow the person being attacked to have his -best- arguments quoted. To speak articulately for himself.

Remember that if the viewpoints on the other side are weak or poorly reasoned, the reader must be allowed to see them and weigh them for himself.

Otherwise, Orangemike, you are engaged in manipiulation - something akin to brainwashing or thought control in the guise of an encyclopedia article.

(Respond to my previous post in more detail if you still want a serious argument.)

<>Ulysses

Military Service?

I see no mention of Jerome Corsi's military service, which I believe is fair as he besmirched one of American's Viet Nam heroes (i.e. John Kerry).Sea Wolf 01:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a source covering his military service, or lack of it, then add it (with neutral wording). However we shouldn't editorialize by drawing a connection betwqeen his own career and that of the people he criticizes. Movie reviewers don't have to have made films, and pundits don't need to have been politicians. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Will is right, of course; I may suspect Corsi is just another chickenhawk, but that suspicion has no place here unless it is both true and a major source of criticism in verifiable venues. --Orange Mike 17:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Will, Oh, I truly think a connection can be drawn between his own career and those he criticizes with erroneous data. I believe a far more eloquent Will once wrote, "He jests at scars that never felt a wound."Sea Wolf 01:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It's been mentioned in the press that one of his books is about veteran's views even though he isn't a veteran. We66er (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Corsi's statement that Barack Obama endorses abortion even after the birth of the child

The item which repeats Corsi's statement that Barack Obama endorses abortion even after the birth of the child is entirely correct. I witnessed just tonight Sean Hannity repeating that charge (out of many) from Corsi's book on Obama, to which Corsi instantly agreed and confirmed that was his charge.

It would seem obvious that this charge is contained in Corsi's recent hatchet job book on Obama as this was the topic of discussion when the claim was made.

The article says citation needed. I suggest that Corsi's book be used as the citation, though no amount of money could get me to read it myself. Perhaps some other more daring soul could find this charge within the book and then provide the citation called for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.69.209 (talk) 10:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Include Corsi's 9/11 conspiracy interview/ research?

As reported in the press, Corsi's interview with Alex Jones about a 9/11 conspiracy is popular on the internet. Should we add a link under "external links" (listen here) to the offical interview? Or to the youtube audio mentioned? --Iii33lll (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Has this been posted anywhere with a bit more editorial oversight than a blog? It might be suitable for a mention, but I'm dubious. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

A google search for ("jerome Corsi" "alex jones") turns up 23,000 google hits. Just today its mentioned in the press here: [8][9][10] and on Obama's page. Since this appears to have been recently discovered, likely by his critics, it seems relevant to mention and will likely draw interest in the next coming weeks. It's silly not to include this given the interest in Corsi's research and work. Iii33lll (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Fair enough. I see you also linked the same on The Obama Nation and haven't yet been contested (it may be more appropriate over there, in the long run?). I'll put it back in, for now, pending any further discussion or opinions from other editors. Thanks. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Also the story popped up in the foreign press. Iii33lll (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It also in [11] and is mentioned in Obama's rebuttal.[12] We66er (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

North American Union

Maybe the article should discuss the North American Union conspiracy more? He talks about it a lot: [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] We66er (talk) 04:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I just expanded it. We66er (talk) 04:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Even more Corsi talking about a North America Union. Corsi radio, "conspiracy", on criticism from conservatives over it, defends Paul on it, replace the US and Republicans and the conspiracy. As Corsi even notes, people have called his claims on the North American Union "a crazy conspiracy (conservatives criticism him here).

Criticism towards Corsi about a North American Union: [22][23][24][25][26] Iii33lll (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Corsi talking about a North American Union[27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41]

Corsi being criticized for it:[42] [43][44][45][46][47][48]

Combining these, it seems like there a lot here for a larger portion to be added. Iii33lll (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Abiotic oil is a fringe view

Corsi's view of abiotic oil is a WP:FRINGE view and must be reported as such. 1) The abiotic oil article gives the history of the concept and explained it only has standing in certain circles in Russian-Ukrainian (former Soviet Union). 2) As the article cited on the Corsi wiki page reviews the history of the idea, the actual science behind the theory is lacking. Thus, by WP:ATT the dispution to the author it makes it sound as if this theory is accepted when in fact he reviews the history to say it does not have consensus in academia. The source for the claim and other information is wiki-linked, demonstrating the fringe view. Corsi is not a scientist and wikipedia must present claims based on due weight.

Until Corsi or others convince the scientific community Petroleum#Formation is wrong the article will present Corsi's claim as WP:FRINGE. We66er (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Corsi and claims that the government planned 9/11

From THE NEW YORK TIMES http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/14/anti-obama-author-on-911-conspiracy/

Mr. Corsi says, “The fire, from jet fuel, does not burn hot enough to produce the physical evidence that he’s produced,” Mr. Corsi said. “So when you’ve got science that the hypothesis doesn’t explain–evidence–then the hypothesis doesn’t stand anymore. It doesn’t mean there’s a new hypothesis you’ve validated. It just means the government’s explanation of the jet fuel fire is not a sufficient explanation to explain the evidence of these spheres–these microscopic spheres–that Steven Jones has proved existed within the W.T.C. dust.”

This needs to be mentioned. His connection to the 9/11 Truth movement has been cited in many stories in the media, lately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.173.150 (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It's in there, read the article. We66er (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The Obama Overreach: Refuting A Few of Corsi’s Smears By Re-Writing History (ABC NEWS)

See http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/08/the-obama-overr.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heardt (talk • contribs) 23:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

What should we included about it? The author calls Corsi a 9/11 Truther and highlighted an issue and said "But that’s one man’s opinion." Then, "Certainly it’s not “baseless” to question why Obama was using Patrick’s words as his own without crediting him . . ." Should we also included the same allegation made against John McCain?[49] I don't think either is valuable enough for an entry mention.

That article hightlights that issue "it doesn’t belong alongside the more unhinged Corsi smears." It also says Obama's response confused "anti-Israel" with "anti-semite." Though the author concludes, "I’m not defending Corsi. Much of what he writes is troubling and fictional."

I don't see where we can add these two minor issues since they have little value, especially when that article calls into question Corsi's work. But I'm open to hear some ideas. Iii33lll (talk) 23:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist

Him being a promoter of conspiracy theories needs mentioned in the lead not only because of many sources, but because the majority of his books, four, are about it compared to his political attack books, two.

• Black Gold Stranglehold: "expose[s] the fraudulent science that has been sold to the American people in order to enslave them."
• Atomic Iran: Democratic politicians are corrupted by Iranian money and are helping the mullahs, who seek nuclear weapons, in Tehran.[50]
• The Late Great U.S.A.: The Coming Merger With Mexico and Canada: "I began to see a pattern of North American integration under SPP that developed into the major argument of my current New York Times best-selling book, "The Late Great USA"[51]
• Minutemen: The Battle to Secure America's Borders: "President Bush most likely continues to consider groups such as the Minuteman Project to be "vigilantes," ... His secret agenda is to dissolve the United States of America into the North American Union."[52]

Thus, the lead needs to explain what some, in this case the majority of his work has been called. The four books are conspiracies. And that doesn't even include all of this internet columns linked above. We66er (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced Material

1) Barack Obama is NOT in favor of abortion after birth... that is stupid, ignorant, fallacious and an absolute lie and should be clearly identified as such. To allow such a falsehood to go unchallenged is inexcusable. Obama's votes of "present" in the Illinois Senate, while seemingly evasive, are quite politically adept. Such votes are neither "yes" nor "no". Simultaneously protecting vulnerable members in conservative districts and avoiding personal attacks from the majority Republicans. see http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/obama-abortion-.html

2) Poor Corsi couldn't perform in the service of his country :( He has eczema according to his appearance on "CPAN This Weekend" this morning (8/16/08). I personally watched it.

3) The majority of his sites ("footnotes") are either to himself, one of his blogs, or some right-wing, mostly discredited blogs. He calls himself a journalist (he fails to use the appropriate adjective, yellow). Common opinions identify his "books" to be screeds.

4) Media Matters at least researches their blogs. Lplzydeco (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)lplzydeco in Denver, CO

How do these statements add to the article in question? I see nothing at adds or improves upon it simply a defense for Mr. Barak Hussein Obama. This is not a place for discussion or topics only about improving this article.Jason 14:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well sourced material material from reliable sources may be a "defense" for Obama in your book, but its wikipedia policy and common sense. You can't just make stuff up because you don't like a canidate. We66er (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama "questioned whether the born alive legislation would impede the right to abort and doctor/patient decision-making. He and an American Civil Liberties Union attorney speculated Born Alive would force doctors to resuscitate nonviable aborted babies." He went on to say "[Let] nature be done" and "What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I can’t support that.” http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000007034.cfm

There is no such thing as "abortion after birth", since abortion is defined as "the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death." Providing no medical for an infant is homicide, and has been tried as such for those that do not provide medical care for anyone from infants to the elderly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.164.156 (talk) 01:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Nationality

Can somebody re add nationality to the lead. I was removed recently without explaination by an IP. Thank you. --70.181.45.138 (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

What's an explaination? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.72.125.82 (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Today's Irish Times cites this article

I never heard of this Jerome Corsi guy, but his claims are the subject of a very critical article in The Irish Times this morning. 'Using a PhD as a weapon of mass disinformation': http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/0826/1219679947282.html 86.42.119.12 (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes it's completely inappropriate and misleading self-promotion. Have changed this article's offending first sentence. Nwe (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The controversy paragraph of the article is the more appropriate area to list controversial questions and criticisms. Replacing the lead sentence of this article with negative opinions of the individual, or criticisms, distorts the point of view of the whole article to one which is obviously not NPOV. Such criticism and a reference to the Irish Times criticism are significant, but let's work together to maintain NPOV and list controversies involving the individual where they are in similar biographical articles. Best regards. Rusty Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing even remotely controversial about the straightforward description of Corsi as a conspiracy theorist (see above discussion). --Orange Mike | Talk 17:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

4 out of his 6 books allege a conspiracy. To remove that would be inaccurate not give WP:DUE to what people say about him. He's a conspiracy theorist. We66er (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist?

Nice editorial, dumbasses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.7.51.9 (talk) 02:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not disparage other editors and call them names. I've added a citation supporting this characterization of Corsi. Mike Doughney (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Corsi being a promoter of conspiracy theories needs mentioned in the lead not only because of many sources, but because the majority of his books, four out of six, are about it compared to his political attack books, two.

• Black Gold Stranglehold: "expose[s] the fraudulent science that has been sold to the American people in order to enslave them."
• Atomic Iran: Democratic politicians are corrupted by Iranian money and are helping the mullahs, who seek nuclear weapons, in Tehran.[53]
• The Late Great U.S.A.: The Coming Merger With Mexico and Canada: "I began to see a pattern of North American integration under SPP that developed into the major argument of my current New York Times best-selling book, "The Late Great USA"[54]
• Minutemen: The Battle to Secure America's Borders: "President Bush most likely continues to consider groups such as the Minuteman Project to be "vigilantes," ... His secret agenda is to dissolve the United States of America into the North American Union."[55]

or look at the articles

Corsi talking about a North American Union[56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70]

Corsi being criticized for it:[71] [72][73][74][75][76][77]

There is ample sources calling him a conspiracy theorist, which should be reflected in the lead. We66er (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree the information should be given, but it would be better to describe the topics covered by his books and mention the cited opinions of critics and let readers figure it out themselves. WP readers are smarter than you might think. :-) Redddogg (talk) 04:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Several WP:RS notes he has been called a conspiracy theorist. Certainly a mention of it in the body is relevant to his writings. As such, WP:V is the rule of thumb here in describing his work. We66er (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

New NPOV

This blatantly partisan article about a Blatantly Partisan individual is borderline libelous. http://www.nndb.com/people/244/000059067/ Jerome corsi is a practicing Catholic that was and is disgusted with the actions of the Hierarchy of his Church, as many Catholics are. I understand that partisans hate him for going after Democrat Party Presidential Nominees, but this isn't the place to vent. They imply that he is comparable to some Anti Papal KKK member that took delight in the Church Abuse Scandal and took candid dialogue out of context. His book The Obama Nation had been throughly lawyered, so by their standard I could go to Obama's Wiki Page and start posting the content from his book, which I'm sure would last all of 5 minutes there. Now that the shoe's on the other foot, you allow them to post innuendo from the Nation and other Partisan Rags with axes to grind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whosthatolboy (talk • contribs) 05:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It appears that you're not raising an issue regarding this particular Wikipedia article; instead, you're talking about some other article at nndb.com, which I don't think anyone here has even suggested is a reliable source. "This is not a forum for general discussion of Jerome Corsi." Mike Doughney (talk) 06:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Corsi has been criticized by liberals, conservatives, media personalities, etc. is of little concern here. Wikipedia articles are based on WP:V from WP:RS. Simply put, the majority of sources regard his work as false, polemic political attacks. Thus, the article reflects that. If you want to discuss making changes to other wikipedia articles, I suggest you discuss that on that repsective wikipedia talk page.

Furthermore, can you give examples of "innuendo" in the article. If you can we can fix it. We66er (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I also posted a POV tag. I don't object to giving the readers any amount of cited information which makes Mr. Corsi look bad. However I think the tone and wording should be a bit more neutral. For instance calling him a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence. Also the incident in Kenya is very minor (unless they kill him ;-)) and should be moved down the page. Redddogg (talk) 04:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed in both cases. Both issues should be moved down, out of the intro. We66er (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I took my tag off, not because the article is perfect but because it is being improved. Redddogg (talk) 06:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

How about the intro?

I really don't think he is a neoconservative, even if one source did say so. Mostly they are pro-Bush internationalists. He seems to be best known as an author, maybe the subjects of each of his books can be mentioned in the intro. Then his conspiracy nature would be evident without having to say so. Could we add something like "activist" to "author" as his secondary notability? Redddogg (talk) 04:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The NPOV thing to do would be to report all sides of the matter. For example, "Corsi has been called 'neo-conservative' by the CSM, and XX by YY." ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems like only one source called him that.Redddogg (talk) 05:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

What do other sources call him? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If they say anything they mostly just say he is on the right. I think "far-right" or "right-wing" would be better than "neoconservative." Redddogg (talk) 05:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I would change it but I just made some other edits to the intro and I want to see how those fly first. Redddogg (talk) 05:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not for us to decide what he is. We're just here to report what reliable sources say. If sources diagree, we describe the disagreement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

We are talking about the fifth word in the article. I don't think we can stop there to give various disagreeing opinions. Either "conservative" or "right-wing" would reflect the general way he is viewed, better than "neoconservative." Redddogg (talk) 06:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

We don't need to describe his political orientation in the fifth word of the article. If the matter is disputed it might be better to move it later in the intro, or even to the main article. It looks now like the article uses the CSM as a source for "right wing", though I don't see that term in the source. Am I missing it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I will take out the word altogether then. I have a feeling that will not be popular with the other editors. In general articles on people like Mr. Corsi have words like "controversial", "neoconservative", "right-wing", etc. as close to the start as possible. :-) Redddogg (talk) 06:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I was't suggesting deleting it outright, just sourcing it properly and describing the dispute, if any. But where it is covered we should only use sources that actually support the assertions we're making, and conversely, we should only assert what we find in sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I like it better without an adjective there. There is not really a dispute. When he attacks the Democrats he is called a right-winger. When he attacks the Republicans he is called a conspiracy theorist. Redddogg (talk) 06:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

What are the first two sources for? I don't see the word "activist" in either source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I think they just establish that he exists. I personally feel that an introduction can be written without every word coming from a source. You can disagree and you might be right. However, what he is doing seems to be activism to me. Redddogg (talk) 06:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

When we delete sourced information we should delete the sources too, not simply move them to other statements that aren't in the sources, as that would mislead readers. I've now deleted them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I took out "activist." The sources almost always call him an author, or the author of such and such book. Redddogg (talk) 07:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It't not hard ot find a source that calls him a "conservative activist". I've added that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Good job. I think the opening sentence now describes him well and I will not criticize your source. :-) Redddogg (talk) 07:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

George Obama

I took out the information that he wanted to give money to George Obama. This is very trivial. Also George Obama's statement that he would not accept the money seems kind of worthless since we don't know the circumstances of him saying that. Redddogg (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Trivial according to whom? Are we only allowed to quote people if we know the full circumstances of their comments? I'm not aware of that policy. ·:· Will Beback ·:·

According to the sources George Obama never met Corsi. Why should a statement by him be quoted in this article? I can well imagine that he was told that this American who hates Barack Obama came to Kenya to give him money. What would you expect him to say to that? If he had said, "Yeah, I would like him to give me some money" he might be afraid of being thought a traitor. p.s. The whole stunt was intended as publicity for the book and against Barack Obama. We already say that his reason for going to Kenya was to promote the book and he got kicked out.Redddogg (talk) 07:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the basis for your objection to the quotation. Can we include a quote from one person about another only if they've met personally? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

What does the statement by George Obama that he would not accept money from Jermoe Corsi have to do with Mr. Corsi, who is the subject of this article? I am sure that there are plenty of statements by people who do have something to say that could be included if we feel the article needs more quoted opinions. I think it gives a good picture of Corsi as it is now. Redddogg (talk) 07:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That last is probably the best reason I've heard yet. If we went with a "personal acquaintance" standard we'd have to cut countless quotations from articles across the project. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

How does adding the fact that Mary Matalin is the chief editor for the division that published one of his books help us to give a good picture of Corsi? We aren't asserting that she agrees or with or endorses his book, are we? Should we mention the president of Simon & Schuster too? How is it relevant to his biography? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to that being removed, but then I wasn't the one who put it in. (I just reworded it so that it wasn't an exact quote which seemed kind of awkward.) Redddogg (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It might be relevant to the book, but that's covered in it's own article. I'll remove it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW the "controversy" about Barack Obama's relationship with George Obama is not mentioned on the Obama family article. Why should it be brought up here? (As for myself, I don't have a half-brother so I don't know how I would feel. I do know that historically the relationships of half-siblings have sometimes been difficult.) Redddogg (talk) 08:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to talk about the Obama family go to that talk page. This is the Corsi article, which is about notable things Corsi has said or done. One of those is a PR campaign, which he said he wanted to give money to George and George's thoughts on it. We66er (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't especially want to talk about George Obama. But if I did I would certainly do it on the talk page of his article, as you suggest. Redddogg (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Homophobic?

The article says he has made homophobic statements. I don't think being against the sexual abuse of children is homophobic. I don't really think the whole last paragraph about his web postings is really needed anyway. Redddogg (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Who said he is being called homophobic for "being against the sexual abuse of children"? I think you are confused. He is called homophobic by a variety of sources as "accused Corsi of being anti-Islamic, anti-Catholic, anti-semitic and homophobic, and of exploiting racial prejudices in an attempt to scare white America"."

He has been widely criticized for the comments and thus they are notable. People looking for information on him would find things he has been widely criticized for of importance. We66er (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Please quote one of his homophobic statements then. All that is quoted so far is statements about child abuse. Redddogg (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I, unlike yourself, am not interested in interpreting primary sources. Because the issue is WP:V from WP:RS. Wikipedia is not about "Truth". If you want to investigate the issue for your own interest, I suggest contacting the authors of the newspaper articles that call him that. We66er (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I think that the whole "criticism and controversy" section should be removed. Second-hand allegations and web postings are usually not considered so reliable on Wikipedia. There also seems to be enough solid information on Corsi in the article already. However, I will not make an issue about it if people like the controversy section. Redddogg (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Some needs worked into the above sections. We66er (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Activist?

I'm not denying that we have sources that call him that, but do most sources describe him as an "activist"? ([78]) It almost sounds positive. Khoikhoi 21:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

We discussed this a bit above. If one term is most frequently used then that should be placed first, but we should include all significant viewpoints. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

WP and the TRUTH

See above:

I, unlike yourself, am not interested in interpreting primary sources. Because the issue is WP:V from WP:RS. Wikipedia is not about "Truth". If you want to investigate the issue for your own interest, I suggest contacting the authors of the newspaper articles that call him that. We66er

This is precisely what's wrong with wikipedia and the media. All you have to do is report somebody else's unsourced opinion and that becomes a "fact." Reporters reporting on reporters reporting on reporters. Yes, it's a fact that the opinion was stated, but the opinion itself is not a fact. Face it, whether you like Corsi or not, this article is biased. That's an opinion. That wikipedia is largely biased, however, is a verifiable fact. Sign me "unsigned."