Talk:Ben Carson/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Inforbox photo

Is there some valid reason why the darker version of the Skidmore photo of Carson keeps getting put back in the infobox? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Play

There is no mention of the god awful play on here. Kind of relevent that by the time he was in his 40s he had a play about him that ran for 20 years, until this year, about his life, specifically based on Golden Hands. Many of the elements are in it are questionable as the only evidence about it comes directly from him, or from him in roundabout ways. Anyways, should probably be at least mentioned, and the actor that has played him apparently believes whatever he says, but then he has been playing these lies for 20 years. Parade Magazine is sad. 69.165.158.37 (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Which photo of Carson for infobox?

Should the infobox contain #1, the darker, original version of the Gage Skidmore photo or #2, the edited, slightly cropped and lighting-corrected version? Photo #3 is now an option (color corrected by Wikimandia) Have added #4 with better lighting, no other changes made.

Choices

#1
#2
#3
#4
Infobox images to choose from

23:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Choice #1

  • Support - this is the original. The color is correct. Choice #2 is a very poorly done "retouching" of an image that does not need to be retouched. It causes Ben Carson's skin to appear red rather than its natural color.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support original photo without retouching. No need to "photoshop" Carson- Cwobeel (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - agree this is the original - one on right is unnaturally reddish. Note how pink his white shirt is. —МандичкаYO 😜 00:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – looks the least pixelated on my screen in Wikipedia's preview window. Others claim it is too dark, but in the preview window that is now the default viewer most will click into, the black area surrounding the picture actually helps hide any lighting issue. If it wasn't for a pixelation problem, my first choice would have probably been #3. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Choice #2

  • Support as second (but original) choice. Photo is better cropped, cleaner, and the lighting is better. #1 is too dark and Carson's face is obscured by the lack of brightness and presence of shadows. The edited version is more flattering. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
    • How is the lighting better? White balance is how we tell color. His shirt is now pink! —МандичкаYO 😜 00:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support #2 looks better to me -- but it's not "cropped"; it's resized -- and size doesn't matter when we use the default size. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I think that this photo is better cropped and the lighting is better. Although it alters his natural skin tone a little bit, I think the better lighting makes up for that. He still looks like the same person, otherwise it would be a problem. Photo #1 is too dark and there is not enough contrast. The edited version is more suitable for a BLP page in my opinion. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 20:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Although this is retouched, the retouching is minimal to compensate for photography deficiencies rather than to make him look like someone he's not, as can be confirmed from other photos of the subject.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually, photo 1 is a more accurate representation of the subject. This photo is unnatural. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Choice #3

  • Support I've added a third option for those who felt No. 1 was too dark. The brightness is increased but it is not unnaturally red. —МандичкаYO 😜 00:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

*Support. Well done. It's brighter but not redder.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - This photo has the most correct white balance to my eyes. The contrast seems about right also. Photo #2 has a red cast. Photo #4 would be my second choice.- MrX 00:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC), - MrX 03:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Seems like decent color correction. NickCT (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Choice #4

Support FRS, here i support photo #4 as it best represents Ben Carson. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Have added another choice, with lighting only changed. No cropping, nothing else. Lighting on #3 is still too dark and doesn't highlight the subject enough. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
    • So now you are recommending two. You really can't decide which one you want? —МандичкаYO 😜 02:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
No, my comments are clear. I support #2 as my second choice. And don't strike another editor's comments like that again, please. It's not your right to do so. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me, I thought you forgot to strike it. Common sense dictates you pick one or mention a second choice like Mr.X did above instead of adding a bolded support to two different options. —МандичкаYO 😜 07:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
So, you're saying I must do things in a manner that makes sense to you? Like how you violated WP:TPO by striking my comments? No thanks. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
You should seriously get over yourself, especially considering none of this would have been necessary if you hadn't turned the photo red in the first place and then edit warred to keep him in a pink shirt. GG. —МандичкаYO 😜 07:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Wow. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Best overall shape and definition, best color balance in skin tone. SteveStrummer (talk) 05:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - 4 looks perfect IMHO - 1 looks too dark, 2 looks like a glowing christmas tree and 3 looks too grey. –Davey2010Talk 05:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with Davey2010. This picture appears to have the best characteristics of the other three without appearing as obviously retouched as 2. clpo13(talk) 16:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Skin tone is retouched without appearing over edited. Skin color is accurate, there is balance in contrast, and lighting looks the most natural. Meatsgains (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per User:Meatsgains.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Meatsgains. Graham (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support #4.  I've never seen Ben Carson in person so I cannot judge which photo depicts him most accurately. All I can do is decide aesthetically which one looks best. And to me, that is #4 by a small margin. (But I must say I don't see a whole lot of difference among them. I think any one of them would be acceptable.)
    Richard27182 (talk) 10:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Seems like decent color correction. NickCT (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support best lighting and color Hugh (talk) 05:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Looking at various other images, this one seems to be closest in lighting correction to other images. I've never seen Mr Carson in person to compare with though. SPACKlick (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. To me, this looks the most like the many images I have seen online and on TV. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Best, with #1 second choice. #4 appears to nail the color balance (I went and checked other images of the event, the ones with several candidates helped me nail down what color Carson's shirt should be), #2 is too red, #1 is a little too red and a little dark in the shadows, #3 is a little too blue. If anything. I haven't seen Dr. Carson in person. --joe deckertalk 04:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support for reasons given by others. Other choices are overdark/over-tinted. Pincrete (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - as others mentioned #2 is a bit too reddish, however #4 brings in more light without having that trouble. -Darouet (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Best color balance in skin tone, best definition and best lighting. - tucoxn\talk 14:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

The right image is not just cropped. it is cropped (slightly) differently and resized.

Here they are when displayed at the same zoom level:

#1
#2
Infobox images to choose from

Also, I challenge the claim that the image on the left is the original. Count the stripes on his shoulders. There are more on the right image. Cropping can only delete information; it cannot create it. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Original as in original coloring. The one on the right has been poorly edited for color correction and cropped. Look at the description please. THIS is the original file. —МандичкаYO 😜 00:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Got it. They are both cropped, but not the same amount. Could we please have two images that are scaled and cropped the same so that we can compare the color fairly? BTW, In my opinion, if any correction is made, the image should be adjusted to color-match the image at [ https://www.bencarson.com/meet-ben ]. That's a professional portrait that was approved by Carson as looking like him. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think the cropping makes much of a difference. I also think the ones we have now are flattering and look like him. Studio lighting is not going to be the same as arena lighting. He looks a bit more yellow in those pics and adding yellow will distort the blue in his tie. —МандичкаYO 😜 01:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Religion of his father

This article cites another article which states that his father was a Seventh-day Adventist minister. I've read his books and listened to his history. My understanding was that his mother became an Adventist later after they separated. His father's behavior doesn't fit typical Adventist behavior. Could this be looked into? I'll be researching also, but I think either his denomination could be taken out or it needs to be more thoroughly researched. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Momefarley (talk • contribs) 20:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I also strongly suspect the 'fact' his father was an SDA minister to be false. I've heard Carson speak about his childhood long before he entered politics and read several of his books, and he was not raised for one minute in a SDA minister's home. If it's there still, I' deleting it.Legacypac (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
In his extensive search for Carson's ancestors, Henry Louis Gates describes Ben's dad, Robert Solomon Carson, as an Adventist. A source previously questioned by an editor had described him as Baptist, so I eliminated the denomination. http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2011/07/ben_carson_african_american_lives_traces_roots.html Carson has also claimed a Kenyan paternal ancestor but the Gates DNA and historic search disputes that. Activist (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ben Carson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Vegetarianism

This sentence doesn't make sense: "His transition was made easier because he had eaten little meat for aesthetic reasons as a child.[72]" Can someone please change aesthetic to ascetic? The source is no longer active, but I guarantee that he wasn't a vegetarian as a child for "aesthetic" reasons. I'm a new user and so therefore can't update the page since it's protected. It's making me insane. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtfsanjo (talk • contribs) 04:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Carson's Agent and Handler, Armstrong Williams

The article is lacking Williams role of promoting Carson's political rise and I will contribute to remedying this deficiency. Carson's endorsement of Trump has intensified scrutiny over the connections and rise of Williams and Carson. As a matter of fact, it could be speculated that Carson is the Trojan Horse to destroy Trump. Trump needs to wrestled the black voter from HRC and this may be seen as the tool. --Wikipietime (talk) 13:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Ben carson, in the news conference endorsing Trump, introduced a new issue. The issue of their being two Donald Trumps is not out of the bottle. Follow up questions, addressed this issue several times. Donald Trump had previously called Dr. Carson psychotic and the alleged schizophrenia condition of Trump will put some real meat on the bones of critics. The fact that Carson is a Doctor, making this accusation is especially notable and as soon as citations from sources appear; I propose a section to the main article.--Wikipietime (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Trump offered role to Carson

Carson states that he was offered a role[1] in the Trump administration upon endorsement of Trump for 2016 presidential election. He did not rule out that, the offering, may be a cabinet position. His endorsement of Trump was widely covered. Trump has had a number of black ministers appear at rallys and with Carson onboard, it would appear that Trump is mounting a counter offensive to HRC support of the black electorate. This, at this point, is POV; but, as it unfurls in the media, the POV may very well turn into solid facts and I would like to see a section pertaining to this in the article. Dr. Carson has been an early juggernaut in opposing President Obama.--Wikipietime (talk) 12:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Combine "Challenges to biographical narrative" section under personal life?

Many people have had many challenges to their biographical narratives, but they don't have an entire section for it. Hillary Clinton, for example, has numerous challenges to her narrative, but she doesn't have a section about it. Maybe it should be combined somewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marquis de Faux (talk • contribs) 15:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Necessity of Controversial viewpoints and statements section?

Many public figures have had many controversial viewpoints and statements, but they don't have entire sections devoted to it. Not even Donald Trump has a section for it. Why is it necessary for Ben Carson to have one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marquis de Faux (talk • contribs) 15:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Surgeon NPOV

Is this in place because of the excessive quotes? Does anyone know?--WatchingContent (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Politician

Carson is no longer a politician - his infobox should be for a private person and has been changed accordingly. Also, it seems the section on political positions should be removed and remain in the Carson 2016 candidate article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

New RfC opened: Should current and recent candidates for US President be called "politicians"?

Should current and recent candidates in the 2016 US Presidential election include politician among their notable occupations in the lead of their biographical articles, even if the candidate eschews the term? Please participate in a new Request for Comment on this question. General Ization Talk 12:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Sources for infobox religion?

I am going through the entire list of all forty candidates for US President in 2016 (many now withdrawn) and trying to make sure that the religion entry in the infobox of each page meets Wikipedia's requirements.

Here are the requirements for listing a religion in the infobox (religion in the body of the article has different rules):

  • Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 126#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes: "the 'religion=' parameter and the associated 'denomination=' parameter should be removed from all pages that use Template:Infobox person. Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability. Inclusion is permitted in derived, more specific infoboxes that genuinely need it for all cases, such as one for religious leaders." Please note that if nobody has bothered to mention religion in the body of the article, that is strong evidence that the subject's beliefs are not relevant to their public life or notability.
  • Per WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements". The "relevant to their public life or notability" clause should be interpreted as follows: Would this individual be notable for his/her religion if he/she were not notable for running for US president? Are we talking about someone who is notable for being religious, of someone who is notable who also happens to be religious?
  • Per WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." In other words, if someone running for US president has never publicly stated on the record that they belong to a religion, we don't take the word of even reliable sources on what their religion is.
  • Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox. That RfC has a handy list of religions and nonreligions to avoid the inevitable arguments about what is and what is not a religion. Everyone who !voted on the RfC saw that list and had ample opportunity to dispute it if they disagreed with it.

The forty candidates are:

Extended content

Source of list: United States presidential election, 2016

  • Name: Farley Anderson: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: Jeb Bush: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism Religion name mentioned in Body? Yes, but all links cited are dead. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Ben Carson: Infobox Religion: Seventh-day Adventist. Clearly meets all requirements for inclusion, nothing to do.
  • Name: Darrell Castle: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Lincoln Chafee: Infobox Religion: Episcopalian. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Darryl Cherney: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Chris Christie: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Catholic.[1] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Hillary Clinton: Infobox Religion: Methodist. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Methodist.[2] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Ted Cruz: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Southern Baptist.[3] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Sedinam Curry: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: Carly Fiorina: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Jim Gilmore: Infobox Religion: Methodism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Lindsey Graham: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Religion name mentioned in body, but citation fails direct speech requiement.[4] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: James Hedges: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Tom Hoefling: No Infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Mike Huckabee: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Clearly meets all requirements for inclusion, nothing to do.
  • Name: Bobby Jindal: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as "Evangelical Catholic."[5]
  • Name: Gary Johnson: Infobox Religion: Lutheranism. Religion name mentioned in body, but citation is a dead link. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: John Kasich: Infobox Religion: Anglicanism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Christian[6] but citation doesn't have him specifying anglicism in direct speech. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Chris Keniston: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: William Kreml: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: Gloria La Riva: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Lawrence Lessig: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: John McAfee: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Kent Mesplay: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Martin O'Malley: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, comes really close to self-identifying[7] but I would be more comforable if we could find a citation with unambigious direct speech. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: George Pataki: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Rand Paul: Infobox Religion: Presbyterianism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Rick Perry: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Perry now attends Lake Hills Church more frequently than he attends Tarrytown, he said, in part because it's closer to his home"[8] and assigned him as being a member of Lake Hills Church based on that slim evidence. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Austin Petersen: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
  • Name: Marco Rubio: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Rubio... attends Catholic churches as well as a Southern Baptist megachurch."[9] and assigned him as being Roman Catholic based on that slim evidence. Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Bernie Sanders: Infobox Religion: Infobox religion already decided by RfC. See Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 13.
  • Name: Rick Santorum: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body. Many citations about him being catholic, but I couldn't find a place where he self-identifioes using direct speech. Religion name mentioned in body,
  • Name: Rod Silva (businessman) No Infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Mimi Soltysik Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
  • Name: Jill Stein Infobox Religion: Reform Judaism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
  • Name: Donald Trump Infobox Religion:Presbyterian. Infobox religion already decided by RfC. See Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 1#Donald Trump Religion
  • Name: Scott Walker Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as "born-again Christian".[10] Discuss on article talk page.
  • Name: Jim Webb Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Note: Citation in infobox fails self-identification requirement.

My goal is to determine whether Wikipedia's requirements are met for the above forty pages, and to insure that we have citations to reliable sources that meet the requirements.

You are encouraged to look at and comment on the other pages, not just this one.

Please provide any citations that you believe establish a direct tie to the person's notability, self-identification in the person's own words, etc. Merely posting an opinion is not particularly helpful unless you have sources to back up your claims. I would ask everyone to please avoid responding to any comment that doesn't discuss a source or one of the requirements listed above. You can. of course, discuss anything you want in a separate section, but right now we are focusing on finding and verifying sources that meet Wikipedia's requirements. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ben Carson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2016

"Carson proposed raising the minimum wage to receive Social Security benefits" should be: "Carson proposed raising the minimum age to receive Social Security benefits" 162.251.9.177 (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

thanks, done. Brianga (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Good "canary" for WP Edit Policies & Best Practices

How salient the critics of B.C. should and shall be in the WP bio is an interesting case study. Probably some of the more livid editors we can anticipate might benefit from neurosurgery but let's take a wait and see. It is not often we have a bio like those presented by the Trump transition and the trolls will likely be out in force trying to tilt the record. Per usual, the saner minds of WP are likely to prevail.Wikidgood (talk)

  • I'm not even sure what you're talking about, but a lot of the edits you put in were pretty POV. Some were factually incorrect, others redundant. It was almost as if you hadn't read the rest of the article. You even tried including a satire piece as a source. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Trump Supporters Now Sanitizing Wikipedia Articles? Is that what you are up to? It would surprise no one. If Jim Wales and his supporters care enough, you will not succeed, but if you do Wikipedia will be another casualty in the shenanigans of censorship and harassment of critics of Trump Train.
This is an obvious case of sweeping facts under the rug - distortion by selective inclusion of the facts. Just because the facts are not to your liking does not mean that they are "POV". To the contrary, you delete the salient issues that are discussed. Washinton Post & New York Times are not "parody" sites you need to be specific. You appear to be yourself pushing a POV agenda, openly claiming on your user page to be a member of the "Right Wing" and displaying pistols on an "encyclopedia-building" project. I may not have as much time on my hands to push back against your apparent POV sanitization of the WP pages but this Talk page is evidence Trump supporters, as you appear to be, are openly engaged in obstructionism, attempting to obscure the record and tilt WP to covering up embarassing facts of record which are not convenient for Trumpsters. You may succeed in blockade of legitimate journalistic entries onto this and similar pages, but the historical record will be clear that in addition to trolling and threatening anyone who criticizes Donald Trump, the Trump backers may be successfully in completely ruining Wikipedia by overwhelming legitimate NPOV editors with an onslaught of POV spin, which may or may not be funded.
If you dispute this, please state (1) what reference you claim is a "parody", (2) what fact or facts you claim are incorrect with regard to said reference. (3) What is your basis for claiming there is anythng "POV" in stating what Carson himself has publicly proclaimed, that he lacks experience managing large bureacracies or whatever else it is that you object to. Note also this bio is still very softball, ommitting a lot of issues which have come up with Carson, have not been disputed, and have never been refuted.
If the Wikipedia mechanisms are inadequate to prevent Trumpsters from spinning WP and erasing the inconvenient facts, Wikipedia will lose. I will do my part to prevent it but if other editors are asleep at the wheel then it will be their kids and grandkids who will live in a world of obscured history...not my problem. Go on Niteshift, knock yourself out. Insulate Carson from the truth of his own record, and ruin Wikipedia. But when you look in the mirror, know that you are conducting a disinformation campaign and you are looking at the face of a statist propagandist and the Trump World you are helping to create will be a variant of totalitarianism. If you ever really were a sworn officer, you should know better. Wikidgood (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikidgood (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Careful sport. Don't start this "Trump supporter" nonsense because you know exactly nothing about who I support. You DID use a parody page. The New Yorker is a RS, but the Borowitz report is clearly labeled as a satire piece. The fact that you used it, despite the fact that it is clearly labeled as one makes me question your understanding of what constitutes a reliable source. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I will look at it. But it is a side issue. You reverted 100% with no granular detail. Let's move on. I am not out to get Carson, I somewhat grudginly somewhat like him, but it is all over your user page that you do identify as right wing so why are you alleging POV? Be specific about what changes you want don't just delete everything.The New York Times and the Washington Post are generally RS. Ben's spotty record of reference certainly lends itself to sarcasm, but assuming even that such sarcastic tone disqualifies one of the many refs does not make it proper to delete all edits including edits using RS.Wikidgood (talk) 03:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I did revert and stated why. Apparently you didn't look at the rest of my page, like under the box that says I'm part of the vast right wing conspiracy, it says (and smart enough to know that there isn't really a vast right wing conspiracy). In other words, it's sarcasm. I'll be happy to discuss what you want to add here, as long are you 1) Stop with this conspiracy nonsense and 2) Stop talking about yourself in the third person. But please, stop forcing material that has been challenged back into this BLP. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed compromise re Carson lede

Obviously Carson is not "just" a retired neurosurgeon and to omit referencing his political activity in the lede sentence is simply amateurish. The reverter, who makes the bald assertion that it is "POV" to include known undisputed facts is perhaps however unhappy with use of the term "politician" with respect to Carson. IMHO that is accurate; he and his mentor are both politicians engaged in politicking. There is a phenomena in which they claim to represent "outsiders" and to somehow be exempt from categoization as politicians even though they are exactly that. This editor is aware that there is a movement which believes that the politicians donaald trump and Ben Carson are entitled to be exempted from being labelled as politicians because various propagandists and conspiracy theorists are convinced that politicians such as Democratic and Republican incumbernts are "evil politicians" and Trump & Carson are "non-politicians".

I don't know how much long term wikipedia editors are willing to push back against the onlslaught of opinionated Trump supporters and personally would not object to compromising with these right-of-center editors and not use the word "politician". Therefore, I will use a more "neutral" way to refer to Carson's political activities.

Please not that the self admitted "deletionist" "right wing" reverter (as per his own user page) demands Talk page discussion, but proffers no detail whatsoever to support his broad brush claims nor has he answered any of the numbered questions. I provide RS and detailed reasons for my edits.Wikidgood (talk) 03:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

To wit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ben_Carson&action=history
Anyone objecting to that and related edits is simply acting nutty. Wikidgood (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
This should do for the lede. "Benjamin Solomon "Ben" Carson, Sr. (born September 18, 1951) is a retired American neuro-surgeon who ran for the 2016 Republican Presidential nomination. He withdrew from the primary and was subsequently nominated to become Secretary of Housing and Urban Development." Please don't vandalize that - justify your changes or await consensus,, thanks. Wikidgood (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • You seriously need to stop your bad faith allegations. As I already explained, the part about him being nominated in ALREADY IN THE LEAD. Stop saying it twice. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Definition of lede. : "the introductory section of a news story that is intended to entice the reader to read the full story." The first sentence or two should contain the most important facts. Later paragraphs provide more detail. It is amateurish to open with a sentence that merely says he is a surgeon. Ppl who go to WP will be going because he is a politician. As a grace to the self-describe "right wing" editors I was happy to modify that and not use the word "politician". There is no reason to complain about including the nomination in the lede sentence. By the way, you twice characterised me as somehow ignornat of RS and "unable to grasp" but you are mispelling "lede". Rather than attemppt to impeach one another's intellect, I suggest we focus on the issues in the article. That is the policy. Wikidgood (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I know what the lede is and I'm not misspelling it, you're thinking of the wrong thing. Perhaps you should read the MOS WP:LEAD. The LEAD (not lede) on Wikipedia is "the section before the table of contents and the first heading. The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." It also says "It is not a news-style lead or lede paragraph." You are writing a "lede", while Wikipedia uses a "lead". Get it? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Actually there is a long-standing usage on WP of lede, rather than lead, and the MOS you are referring to is written by newer users. But <sigh> whatever, dude. You can win this one if you must.However, the very same MOS WP:LEAD in which someone you are quoting is attempting to distinguish lede/lead admits, essentially, that there is no sharp distinction" " A good lead section cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article..." What they are trying to distinguish is the encyclopedic quality of detached reasonableness from tabloid journalism such as <never mind that ...> This is not the hill to die for. Out of respect for Dr Carson and WP please stop these side arguments and personalized attacks and focus on putting out a decent piece of work. I don't doubt that you are ery capable at producing good content. Let's do this thing. Wikidgood (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Alleged "inaccuracies" of reverter challenge section HERE

Again, radio silence from self-described "Right Wing Conservative" who deleted all factual entries in an apparent effort to "sanitize" the WP Carson article. This section can serve to call out his allegation that these facts are incorrect.

(1) Secretary of HUD is subject to legislative confirmation, unless WP article is wrong:
United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/.../United_States_Secretary_of_Housing_and_Urban_Develo...
The United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development is the head of the United ... Henry Cisneros became the first Hispanic HUD Secretary in 1993. Julian ::Castro was confirmed by Senate on July 9, 2014 and assumed office on July ...

Wikidgood (talk) 03:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

  • What are you talking about? The article says that Trump plans to NOMINATE Carson. It's clear. Sorry you're not able to grasp it. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
It is not at all clear what it is that you are objecting to. It seems that you are trying to advance a theory that this user (1) does not understand RS and (2) is unable to "grasp" something or other. Is there some wording you would like changed? Not every reader, especially in UK, Canada, etc. know that HUD Secy is subjec to congressional confirmation. Are you suggesting that fact be ommitted? Nobody cares what you or are are "able to grasp" that seems like a personal insult. Let's stick to the substantive issues. Personal insults violate WP policy and to state "unable to grasp" is improper even if there is something that was overlooked. If I overlooked something please point out what I overlooked an what you think should be reworded and leave it to me and my neurologist, if I have what, what I am able to grasp and what disabilities I may or may not have in "grasping" ideas. Thanks.Wikidgood (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • In another section, we are talking about your use of a false RS. Don't even speak to me about insults when you've made baseless allegations towards me. The article clearly states he has been NOMINATED in the lead and again in a later section. This BLP is not where we need to outline the process he has to go through. That process is outlined in the link for the office. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I have no problem with omission of the reference to the need for "Congressional confirmation" in the lede. I am baffled that you seem to think otherwise. As for the supposed "false RS" I previously acknowledge that along with the Washington Post, the New York Times and CNN the New Yorker article may have been opinionated or otherwise unsuitable. It is not necessary nor is it appropriate to keep bringing that up as if that somehow discredits any edit I ever make thereafer. For that matter, I am not entirely convinced it was not RS but I conceded the point to you long ago, in a spirit of collaboration. I apologize if you feel insulted in any way or alleged against. It is possible that the tide of insults, threats and assaults which have swept through the United States since election night may have made those of us who edit feel somewhat hypersensitive to the prospect of coordinated attempts to sanitize BLPs of Trump affiliates. Remember the threats made against Megyn Kelly, herself a conservative. And so many others. As I stated earlier, I do not have unlimited confidence that Wikipedia will be able to endure as a NPOV source if there is going to be systematic sanitization and over-control of Trump-associated topics. The best way to debunk that appearnce is to simply DON"T DO IT. Don't try to sanitize the factual record, let the RS speak for itself, and then no one will allege that there are self-described conservatives trying to sanitize Wikipedia page on Doctor Carson. Wikidgood (talk) 04:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The New Yorker article wasn't "opinionated", it was satire. It was clearly labeled as satire. I only mention it here because you did.... I was happy to leave it in the other section. Nothing is being "sanitized" and your bad faith allegations are beginning to become an issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Please enough WP:LAWYERING. Enough about the Borowitz piece. Maybe I erred. It is not 30,000 deleted emails on a government server. Please kindly comment on the below section. I would hope you would have useful insights. Thanks. Wikidgood (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • What lawyering? I didn't drag that into this, you did. Stop talking about it and I won't have a reason to. You definitely erred. There's no maybe to it. The URL even has the word "humor" in it. It would be nice it you simply owned that error. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to delete template or request for clarification

Is it really necessary to template the section surgery? From what I have had the time to read so far, it seems that the template is perjorative and uneeded. I would ordinarily perhaps research more before posting here but I want to get some WP:BRD going and demonstrate my willingness to participate. This page is going to be much more important than it has been so it would be worthwhile to put aside political differences and put out a good WP page. Here is the tempplate I wonder about:

Wikidgood (talk) 04:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

  • No idea why someone put it a year ago. If they didn't justify it here, why not remove it? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
OK so you and I have come to agreement. It seems like garbage. Please go ahead and delete it or I will study the matter and perhaps do so tommorow. There mny thngs to argue about regarding Dr. Carson's biography but that section - Surgery- is not one of them, as far as I can see. BTW let's keep the discussion on this page not each other's talk pages, if you don't mind. Makes it easier for everyone. Thank you in advance.Wikidgood (talk) 04:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit war

I just reverted the article to the revision as edited by DJ-Joker16 at 01:55, 8 December 2016 before the current edit war. Per WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT, please leave the 8 December 2016 version in place, making only minor edits that you know nobody will disagree with, discuss all other proposed changes on the article talk page, and get consensus before making contested changes to the article. Any further edit warring will result in all involved parties being reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I didn't "agree" to the version that just got restored. I still contend that the nomination is already properly addressed later in the lead. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I had posted the following to Guy's talk page. Niteshift36 has advanced the view that it is important to use the term "nominated" rather than "appointed" and I comletely agree. The reversion by User:Guy Macon replaces "appointed" with "nominated". I completely agree with him in that regard. For some unfathomable reason, this important distinction has now been eclipsed so that the lede/lead sentence, rather than succinctly stating who Dr Ben Carson is, now simplistically states that he is (merely) a retired surgeon. Niteshift36 and I had gone a long way toward establishing a constructive dialogue and Guy, you jumped in, unaware of the nominated/appointed issue, reverting the consensed change. It seems that, for what may be good faith reasons, you are more interested in taking a role as "interveneor in an 'edit war'" but the result is to chill and inhibit the progress on the article. What I suggest/request is that you participate in the Talk page dialogue and refrain from making threats of reports to the notice board until exhausting the remedies of dialogue on the talk page. If you are not interested in the page and the issues that face the page, then it seems that you should withdraw from taking a side and injecting yourself. Niteshift has been on WP for a long time and is very assertive if not aggressive. For instance, he templated my talk page with an angry warning template which I left there. He deleted my polite requests for collabboration on his page. You then come in, see a template on my page, see nothing on his, since he deleted them, and then inserted yourself by providing a 3rd revert on his behalf. ALl in good faith, but the net effect is that the uneasy peace that the parties had worked out has now been disrupted, placed under a threat, and the quality of the article has been diluted. TO FIX the PROBLEM I would suggest changing "nominated/appointed" back, which was wrecked despite consensus, and weighing in on the talk page sections. If a rigged administrative process or any blocks are put in place, the whole matter may be referred to the press and/orUS congressional committee persons as suppression of public dialogue so any admins please think long and hard before any bossy blocks or annoying and uneeded administrative processes. How about we go back to WP:BRD and lay off the WP:WIKILAWYERING.Wikidgood (talk) 05:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I remove most things from my talk page when they've been addressed. My "angry warning" is the standard template in Twinkle. I didn't design it or choose it to be the one in the tool. To suggest that Guy and I are working in concert is laughable. I never "agreed" to leaving "..and was subsequently nominated for Secretary of HUD." I still oppose it and I've explained why it doesn't belong in the lead/lead. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Accusations of editor misbehavior on article talk pages are against Wikipedia's policies. It is best not to respond to them. If the behavior continues I will respond with an appropriate warning, followed by an ANI report if that doesn't work. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

FINAL WARNING: Leave the 8 December 2016 version in place, making only minor edits that you know nobody will disagree with, discuss all other proposed changes on the article talk page, and get consensus before making contested changes to the article. Any further edit warring will result in all who edit the article without consensus being reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. We can do this the easy way (no more edits to the article other than ones nobody disagrees with) or we can do this the hard way (a series of escalating blocks until the disruptive edits cease.

BTW, I don't care who is right, I don't care what you edit warred about, and I don't care whether any editor misbehaved. You are both required to stop edit warring. Right now it looks like one of you has. If you think another editor has misbehaved, report it at WP:ANI. Misbehavior by another editor does not justify edit warring. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikidgood, this would be a really good time and place to suggest a specific change to the 8 December 2016 version and see if others here agree with the change. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Off topic duplicate of question asked and answered on user talk page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hey there Guy Macon instead of putting block threats on my page, which I resent of you, how about reading how I made two specific changes to the 8 December version and was engaged in constructive dialogue with Niteshift. If you are truly motivated by WP ideals you might also weigh in on those. In the meantime, I am entitled to know what edit you claim constituted continuation of edit warring. The template removal was per discussion and Niteshift and I concurred. The nomination/appointment is a non issue because we agreed on that. You reverted it yourself, check carefully. It seems Niteshift might have inadvertantly believed that I supported use of the term "appointment" but that was an artifact of the previous editor. If he and I talked past one another please don't capitalize on it. Are you an administrator?Wikidgood (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

  • The only edit I would suggest is in the section Trump administration role and selection as nominee for HUD Secretary. It currently says Trump would "appoint" Carson and that's really not correct. Trump will nominate him. I had changed it to read "On December 5, 2016, President-elect Donald Trump announced that he would nominate Carson to the position of Secretary of Housing and Urban Development" earlier. I don't think that's too controversial. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

(Informal) Request for Comments

What is the proper placement and length for the topic of "Public Response to Ben Carson Nomination for HUD Secretary". I am personally open to views and suggestions and not inclined to unilateral action. It is not improbably however that the prevailing consensus resolution of this question will not make everyone happy, possibly yours truly, but there has to be a policy. At this point the topic is not being adequately addressed. Wikidgood (talk) 04:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Shouldn't the first question be whether or not there needs to be a separate section for this? The question here presumes that it's already an accepted fact. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • OK. Fine with me. We were doing fine until someone wanted to play Godfather. I dont know if a section is warranted or an article. I am just trying to get the dialogue on a positive footing. We can revisit other concerns later. There is a lot of work to be done here. Please clarify what do you mean by accepted fact, there is a firestorm of debate in the press on the nomination, pro and con. Wikidgood (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • You're asking what the length and placement of the topic should be. I think first, we need to ask if the topic needs a section. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Controversy section

Hi! The controversy section seems to contain footnotes instead of inline text. Can someone please fix that? The first step is to turn it into inline text, the next step is to remove the controversy section and relocate the content to the appropriate places. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Please see above. Would you be so kind to lend a helping hand? Thanks in advance, (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 01:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Glad to help. I have a meeting this morning, but will try to get to it tonight. Potatoes... Yum... Especially when they are nice and quixotic... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 08:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: Awesome, thank you! (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 04:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Why the double standard?

When Carson was among the front runners in the primary, several editors decided to document then debunk every claim he made in his books. In an amazing coincidence this just happened to occur at the same time that his political opponents were spamming the Internet with "Carson is a liar! Check his Wikipedia page!!!" messages and #BenCarsonWikipedia was one of the most active hashtags on twitter. No other politician on Wikipedia got this treatment, and I don't think it is appropriate. Nobody went through Obama's Dreams from My Father, Clinton's Hard Choices or Trump's The Art of the Deal and filled their Wikipedia page with a blow-by-blow debunking of every claim they made. So why the double standard when it comes to Ben Carson? --Guy Macon (talk) 11:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

None of that has any relevance to what information is included in this article. What people elsewhere on the internet use Wikipedia for is not relevant. If you want to delete this information, find a better reason. Earthscent (talk) 14:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
How's this for a reason? It is a clear violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
So prove that for each item you want to delete. It may or may not be true for each item.Earthscent (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Conjoined instead of Siamese?

I think Siamese Twins in the third paragraph should be replaced with Conjoined twins. The term "Siamese" has fallen out of favor in recent years. Eric Cable  !  Talk  14:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Good point. Siamese twins also redirects to Conjoined twins. I'll make the change. Marquardtika (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Early life and education

I expanded the "Early life and education" section adding details about Carson's residences, schools, and academic and work experience from his books and recent newspaper articles.

This section has more details than usual because this period is the central focus of Carson's books and his experience growing up living in housing in an urban area has been touted as a qualification for his cabinet appointment as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

Since many of the citations for this section are to different pages of a small number of books by Carson, as a next step the "References" section should probably be streamlined by using short citations (WP:CITESHORT) for these.

I have retained the preexisting latter 11 paragraphs of the section concerning challenges raised during Carson's presidential campaign to the accuracy of Carson's accounts of his early life--these paragraphs may better fit in a subsection of the Ben Carson presidential campaign, 2016 article.
Newross (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I would strongly support moving them to the Ben Carson presidential campaign, 2016 article. There have been attempts to do this same sort of "examine every claim made in their books and refute as many as possible" POV pushing in the Obama, Trump, and Hillary Clinton articles, and the community soundly rejected the content on those pages as violating WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE every time. It should be removed from this page for the same reasons. On the other hand, in my opinion the content would be acceptable in the Ben Carson presidential campaign, 2016 article.
It should be noted that the Ben Carson Wikipedia page was used as a tool to derail Carson's candidacy back when he was close to being a front runner.[11][12][13][14] --Guy Macon (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I think this goes into too much detail and should be moved elsewhere per the suggestion above. Also, we're currently using three Daily Mail sources in this article. That's a straight up tabloid, and we should be able to do better than that in terms of sourcing. Marquardtika (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I removed the superfluous November 5, 2015 Daily Mail article source.
I retained as sources the originally reported, biographically significant November 12, 2015 and December 6, 2015 Daily Mail article information cited by a December 6, 2016 Washington Post article.
Newross (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: this section could do with a great deal of trimming/merging to a more relevant article. Any ideas on how we should approach this? Marquardtika (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Moved section to Ben Carson presidential campaign, 2016 per consensus above.[15][16] Will continue editing the material on that page. That's a good place for campaign promises and controversies. In my opinion, this page is best used for actual decisions he makes as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, assuming of course that he gets confirmed. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Great, thanks! Marquardtika (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

This content is repeatedly being edit-warred into the article. It does not adhere to the WP:NPOV policy and includes personal commentary/original research on the topic. I've removed it multiple times but an IP address, 138.128.131.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is repeatedly re-adding it without explanation. I would appreciate it if another editor could remove this content. Marquardtika (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The edit could use some refinement, but it is basically expressing well-sourced facts concerning Carson. For example, on January 24 the Washington Post stated: "But even as Carson’s confirmation appears increasingly likely, he faces persistent questions about his qualifications to lead one of the federal government's most complex departments. Carson, an acclaimed brain surgeon and former GOP presidential candidate, has no previous experience in government. Urban policy experts and activists also worry that Carson’s conservative ideology will make him inherently antagonistic to HUD’s role in combating poverty." [17] The New York Times said on January 11: "Mr. Carson has no experience running a large federal bureaucracy, and aside from a failed run for the presidency, has no background in government. ... Rather than embrace the programs that once sustained his family and the families around him, he has resolutely rejected them, adopting standard Republican beliefs that welfare fosters dependency."[18] (These are hard news articles, not OpEds.) General Ization Talk 21:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
And then there's this (also NYT): Critics Worry Over How Ben Carson, Lacking Expertise in Public Housing, Will Lead It[19]. The article should reflect these concerns and criticisms in some form, probably with direct attribution. General Ization Talk 21:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
@Marquardtika: Also, you have exceeded WP:3RR. I suggest you stop reverting if you want to avoid being yourself accused (with some merit) of edit-warring. You are not the only editor who can address persistent editing by others. General Ization Talk 21:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Carson confirmed

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/02/us/politics/ben-carson-housing-urban-development.html

I have no clue why multiple editors wanted our article to say he was confirmed before it happened, but he is confirmed now, 58-41. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/carson-trump-administration/2016/03/14/id/719044/?ns_mail_uid=96269775&ns_mail_job=1659742_03152016&s=al&dkt_nbr=qb6csixg. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ben_Carson/Archive_2&oldid=1190233506"