quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 No - it's a Doctoral in Physical Therapy, DPT. Identical in status (sort of), but geared more for the clinical level rather than the academic/research one. But yeah, I've had it since last May, and have been fully licensed since July.

Then why the hell are you still in Kansas?

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 Then why the hell are you still in Kansas?

Kansas City is in Missouri beyotch! Fact check not even needed.

sorry man--couldn't resist.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 The fact that this came from World Net Daily was interesting in of itself. But this deserves a little "uh oh" moment, and fuck is it funny: What's missing from this treatise on investigative journalism is the reporter's obligation to disclose when he's engineered events on which he's reporting. In a follow-up e-mail, Klein acknowledges that he should have made that disclosure, but suggests he's guilty of nothing more than an accidental omission in a hastily written story. "It just slipped my mind," he writes. Interesting. Let's look at some of the original text. That's a lot of mind-slippage. You'd think at some point in the writing, Klein would have a revelation, slap his head and say, "Silly me! Here I am writing about my researcher following my instructions, and I'm making it sound like I don't even know the guy! Glad I caught that." The only other example in Klein's article of a user being suspended from Wikipedia also traces back to a Jerusalem21 edit — this time about William Ayers. That example found its way into the Fox News report. But, similarly, Klein forgot to mention that it was the same user — his unnamed researcher — and the same ban: i.e., the one that followed two successive edits accusing Obama of falsifying his birth. If he'd disclosed all that, it might have been a different article. "Man Fails to Get Crazy Conspiracy Theory Into Obama's Wikipedia Entry" is a story not even Fox would pick up.

I'll grant that it is hilarious irony and reflects poorly on Klein. However I do think there is a bit of shooting the messenger going on, unless you believe Klein is the only person that has tried to include any of this material (which fringe or not was certainly a hot button issue during the election yet not a single instance is allowed on the page, which to me seems just a little bit offputting, certainly in light of Obama's mysterious past, but I digress) and had it promptly removed, if it were qualified under Wiki's own published rules. But *sigh*, this is clearly an uphill battle in this forum of Obamamaniacs, so see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

I did think some of the discussion behind the wiki page as to the merits of inclusion was somewhat amusing.

quote:

Personally I think the controversy should go in political and cultural image, and the book title and the mentorship should go in the personal life. The same thing would be done with Ayers who is also missing. I will find the references if they are needed. Also for the WPUE, don't Ayers and Wright have their own articles for the controversies? That's pretty good for weight IMO. Soxwon (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Yes, they do have there own articles. However, having their own articles is not a good argument for adding it here. As far as WP:WEIGHT is concerned, it has to be asked how much impact did these controversies have on Obama's life? When we talk about this, we don't mean what the WND, Drudge report, or any other right leaning internet publication mean's on what is/was important in Obama's life. Brothejr (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Is anyone disputing the facts of the three points I suggested? i think we need to first decide what to include, and then decide how to include it. Bytebear (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC) We are neither proving or disproving anything. It is up to you to prove those points and it is also up to you to provide the refs to back up the point. You will get no consensus or anything likewise without first doing that. Brothejr (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Here are references. I would prefer the first two points have references that are unrelated to Obama's denoouncement of Wright, but they are harder to find. I believe the NYTimes did a series of articles on Obama prior to the blow up, that would be better, and sources on the "Audacity of Hope" should reveal some Wright sources that are more neutral. 1. Obama's mentor, officiator at wedding and baptizer of children. This is in his own biographies, as well as documented here [8], [9] and [10] 2. The Audacity of Hope was a speech given by Wright, to which Obama himself gives credit in his own book. A self source should be sufficient, but here are more [11] [12] [13] 3. The controversy of leaving the church can be found everywhere, but here are some very reliable sources: [14] [15] Regards. Bytebear (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Some of those ref's are a little questionable as they are mostly editorials which is an older version of a blog. But either way, next comes the question of WP:WEIGHT. If you read the article, you will see that there is already a mention of Wright and that there is/was a controversy surrounding him, including a link. So the question now is, you the editor/proposer, need to state the reason for enlarging and expanding the portion. Giving the controversy more weight then might be apparent. Also, you might want to build a consensus and have a good argument/reasoning behind the proposed addition that would make it stick within the article. Brothejr (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I said in my summary that better referrences were needed, but this is just for fact checking. 1) Obama did call Wright his mentor, was married by Wright, his children were baptized by Wright. He did get the title "The Audacity of Hope" from Wright's sermon and there was a plethora of controversy that caused Obama to renounce Wright. All of these are facts. That the referrences I cited are questionable is immaterial to the facts, and better referrences can be found. But that does not change the fact that these issues must be presenented in the article. As to the article NOW stating some of this, that wasn't the case this morning. As to undue weight, I don't know how you can diminish the fact that this man WAS Obama's spiritual mentor. He was a major figure in the life of Obama for nearly 30 years. This cannot be ignored or diminished. Bytebear (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC) I agree, Obama has mentioned Wright as one of his greatest influences: [16]. I think that the controversy should go in the political section, but the relationship in the personal for as Obama explicitly said, he didn't seek Wright for politics. Soxwon (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Excellent referrence. I would recommend adding something about the title of Obama's book coming from his mentor and maybe even a quote from Obama about his influence. This does not need to be tied to the controversy, but it will give readers an understanding of Wright's role in Obama and particularly his book. Bytebear (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC) .... I just want to point out how absolutely ludicrous Brotherjr's logic is, and how it just goes to show how absolutely determined he is to keep these obviously important issues out of the Obama article. First, he tells Byetebear that he "[is] going to need to find a couple sources to back each of those parts up." Then, when the sources are acquired, he responds "there is already a mention of Wright and that there is/was a controversy surrounding him, including a link. So the question now is, you the editor/proposer, need to state the reason for enlarging and expanding the portion." My question to you, Brotherjr: Why did you tell him to go get the sources if you already knew that you were going to contest expanding the portion on Wright anyway? Why didn't you just be up front about it? The answer, of course, is that you're never, under any circumstances whatsoever, going to consent to expanding the Wright connection to reflect the actual, accurate connection between the two that a truly non-biased article would reflect. You make me sick and want to not have anything to do with this site/project.Jm131284 (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Now lets be civil. Yes, Brotherjr's arguments are invalid, but we should still be polite in refuting them. Let's work on building a concensus on what is acceptable in the article and make sure it is reliable and NPOV. Thanks. Bytebear (talk) 03:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Once again, this is nothing here to legitimately build consensus about. It doesn't really matter how many WND/FR-directed users come here and pee in the pot, consensus cannot override basic Wikipedia policy...policy that has been quoted ad nauseam here over the last 24 hrs...that guides what information does and does not appear in articles. You and your arguments simply have no leg to stand on. Tarc (talk) 03:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC) See that's the kind of attitude that's both unfair and unreasonable. You're dismissing arguments based on who you think someone is despite an established editing history and/or work in other parts of wikipedia. Perhaps you could entertain the possibility that some of us honestly want to help the article? It's gettting to the point that the only ones you take seriously are the ones that agree with you. Soxwon (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC) No, I am dismissing arguments based upon their inherent unreliability and fringiness. If you are trying to insert fringe points of view into this article, then no, you aren't here to help, whether you've been around 24 hours or 24 months. Tarc (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC) That would be fair if they were fringe and unreliable. But Obama himself has stated that rather Wright helps keep his priorities straight and his moral compass calibrated.

And so on and so forth. There is fringe and there is controversial. I read wiki pages all the time that devote space to material that is controversial. Fringe to me would be something along the lines of the whole birth certificate thing (which is dumb, IMO). However, controversial would certainly encompass topics like Ayers and Wright.

It's a common criticism that this forum is "full of Obamamaniacs" but I simply don't see it. Open supporters of Obama surely include myself, Opus, Josh, Clovis, and Krypton, though each of us have been fairly open about our criticisms of the administration as well. And the nothing-but-criticism folks on this sub-forum are numerous as well, including Shakka, Q, the17sss, Capitalizt, delobbo, Latin (lol), etc.

If you're going to paint things in black and white, then I'd say things are fairly even, or possibly slanted against the administration at this point (by virtue of the numerous semi-anonymous defenders of Ron Paul liberty that crop up to post threads and run). But if you're going to look at things in a nuanced perspective, I don't think there's anybody here devoid of criticism for the new President - it's just that some forms of criticism are taken as more valid than others.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I'll grant that it is hilarious irony and reflects poorly on Klein. However I do think there is a bit of shooting the messenger going on, unless you believe Klein is the only person that has tried to include any of this material (which fringe or not was certainly a hot button issue during the election yet not a single instance is allowed on the page, which to me seems just a little bit offputting, certainly in light of Obama's mysterious past, but I digress) and had it promptly removed, if it were qualified under Wiki's own published rules. But *sigh*, this is clearly an uphill battle in this forum of Obamamaniacs, so see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. I did think some of the discussion behind the wiki page as to the merits of inclusion was somewhat amusing. And so on and so forth. There is fringe and there is controversial. I read wiki pages all the time that devote space to material that is controversial. Fringe to me would be something along the lines of the whole birth certificate thing (which is dumb, IMO). However, controversial would certainly encompass topics like Ayers and Wright.

Here is the discussion on including Ayers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama#Ayers

And Wright
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:B...ntion_of_Wright

Agh, yet again, the never-ending campaign to portray conspiracy theorists as some crazy lunatics or whack-jobs - while often enough the lunacy is done by folks like those Wikipedia moderators.

Surely it is proper to mention claims of Obama's alleged birth in Kenya - since there are many articles and sources to depict that issue, whether it is true or not - it was discussed, and I dont see why it shouldn't be on his Wikipedia page. There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia which use as "sources" such items as editorials, comments and lame articles. But because its not about Obama, its not a big deal.

Obviously it is being removed because the moderators are probably stauch Obama supporters and want people to see a specific viewpoint. Nevertheless, Wikipedia is not "fact", but actions like these are appalling and only further undermine its credibility. Oh - does it have any credibility left? I'd say apart from reading on Napoleonic wars and basic info on algae and chlorophyl there's nothing that can be used as reference or solid source from there.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Agh, yet again, the never-ending campaign to portray conspiracy theorists as some crazy lunatics or whack-jobs - while often enough the lunacy is done by folks like those Wikipedia moderators. Surely it is proper to mention claims of Obama's alleged birth in Kenya - since there are many articles and sources to depict that issue, whether it is true or not - it was discussed, and I dont see why it shouldn't be on his Wikipedia page. There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia which use as "sources" such items as editorials, comments and lame articles. But because its not about Obama, its not a big deal. Obviously it is being removed because the moderators are probably stauch Obama supporters and want people to see a specific viewpoint. Nevertheless, Wikipedia is not "fact", but actions like these are appalling and only further undermine its credibility. Oh - does it have any credibility left? I'd say apart from reading on Napoleonic wars and basic info on algae and chlorophyl there's nothing that can be used as reference or solid source from there.

lol. so we should reward the fear-mongering ignoramuses by allowing their stupid lies a voice in a private encyclopedia? no thanks.

___________________

just curious, is George Bush's history with cocaine on his wiki? haven't read the entire thread so it may have been mentioned before.