Talk:Ben Carson/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

WP:WEIGHT, WP:COATRACK concerns as to Obama content

I've removed this content inserted by Ew34kl09df55, a relatively new editor:

• It gives too much space to the first-day content.
• It gives too much space to an obscure editorial in IBD.
• This article is about Carson, not Obama.
• The HUD spokesman's reaction already includes a sufficient defense of Carson; we don't need to start importing other content on the topic.

Policies that apply as to these sentences: WP:WEIGHT, WP:COATRACK.

--Neutrality^talk 22:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Winkelvi: You've been here awhile, so I am surprised that you would revert before posting on this article talk page, even when I clearly laid out my concerns. You know as well as I do that there is no presumption of inclusion for this extended content. Neutrality^talk 01:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I was waiting to see what the other editor had to say before I commented or offered an opinion myself. At this point, it just looks like pissing-match edit warring to me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Winkelvi, please don't (1) revert to keep challenged text in the article or (2) label regular edits as "reverts." This edit of mine of mine kept the material at issue (even though it is a WP:COATRACK and objectionable) and merely added new material and moved the content to the appropriate section. You mischaracterized it as a "revert" that removed "sourced material." In fact, it was not a revert, did not remove any citations, and retained the disputed Obama text. I would like you to (1) acknowledge this, (2) actually look at the edit and say whether you actually have any substantive problems with it, and either (3) revert yourself or reverting to the status quo ante without the Obama material added by Ew34kl09df55 and the material added by me. Neutrality^talk 01:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I happen to disagree with your reasoning for reverting the content back out. I also see no reason why it can't remain while it's being discussed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The reason it shouldn't remain is because (a) it's been challenged in good faith on the basis of policy—I notice I'm the only one citing policy here—and (b) there is no consensus for it. This is a pretty fundamental thing.

Please explain, exactly, (1) what your objection to this edit is (keeping the disputed Obama content but adding an expert's comment, adding a cite, moving the text to the appropriate place, and removing excessive information like the title of the editorial; and (2) why you think what Obama said in a speech in 2015 is relevant to an article on Ben Carson. Neutrality^talk 01:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Not trying to be contrary or argumentative, but since when is consensus declared a consensus because policy drives the consensus? The thing is, Obama's use of the same terminology two years ago was reported by reliable sources as a comparison to Carson's. While I realize we aren't news, I think it's worth noting that the comparison was drawn in articles on Carson's statement that made for a bit of controversy and fed a news cycle. Or, we could just remove the content altogether since the hullabaloo on it has certainly passed because it was just a news cycle's worth of reported gobbledigook. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any objection to this edit? Neutrality^talk 02:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Given that (1) it's been several days with no further comment on this talk page; (2) the material has been challenged on a policy-based ground; (3) this article is about Carson, not Obama; and (4) only 1 user has weighed in at talk in favor of this additional material, I'm removing the text. Feel free to start an RfC if you want. Neutrality^talk 00:54, 17 March 2017 (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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130721034910/http://www.valdezlink.com/inipol/pages/survive.htm to http://www.valdezlink.com/inipol/pages/survive.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 19:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Pyramids

How come there is nothing in this article about his believes about the pyramids being food storage units? This played a huge role in the elections so I wonder why it is not mentioned. Garnhami (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

That's covered at Ben Carson presidential campaign, 2016. No opinion on whether it belongs in this article too, but for past presidential candidates, a lot of their campaign-related info ends up on the election pages so that their main biographical pages don't get too long. Marquardtika (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It isn't notable, because it is the belief of at least one subgroup group of seventh day Adventists (who also believe that the government is going to try to force them to worship on Sunday instead of Saturday). When a politician is Roman Catholic we don't point out that he believes that when he goes to church every Sunday he eats the literal flesh and literal blood of Jesus Christ, which through a second miracle still looks and tastes like like bread and wine. When a politician is a Mormon we don't point out that he believes that fossilized dinosaur bones came from other creatures living on other planets that were destroyed when Earth was created 7,000 years ago. And let's mot even get started on the special underwear... Religions have weird beliefs. People belong to religions. None of this is particularly notable or remarkable until someone tries to make it an issue in a political campaign. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I can understand Marquardtika his reply, makes sense. However Guy Macon, your reply is a bit strange to me. I understand your point and yes, I actually agree with your logic when it comes to "general" believes (general statements), however believing the pyramids were grain storage units is a bit far fetched to say it comes with generally accepted religion. This is more a completely nuts type of "religion". I doubt that the statement of the pyramids is part of a generally accepted religion, although, I have to admit I have no idea how "big" this type of seventh day adventists movement is. In general it just seemed weird to me because in major parts of Europe we only know this person as the nut job with his crazy pyramid statement (links that most people here use and apply to search for him on the internet) Garnhami (talk) 08:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, people from one culture can seem extremely eccentric to people from another culture. As a European myself, I have similar feelings toward Republicans. But compared to Guy's other examples of things people believe because of their religion, especially the bread-miraculously-turns-to-flesh-but-miraculously-still-seems-to-be-bread thing, the pyramid belief seems very mundane. Seventh-day adventism in all is variations is pretty common in the US: About 20 million believers. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

As a Seventh-Day Adventist, may I take the opportunity to point out that Carson's statement about the pyramids seems strange to all Adventists that I know? That's not a church belief. Carson subsequently corrected himself.[1]. It was an off-the-cuff misinformed statement that severely affected his campaign, but should not define his beliefs. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 10:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Good information. You Seventh-day Adventists must be doing something right -- you live longer. See Seventh-day Adventist Church#Health and diet. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

BTW, It appears that you posted the wrong citation above. You wrote "Carson subsequently corrected himself.[2]." but the reference says "Last week Carson stood by his belief that Egypt’s great pyramids were built by the Biblical figure Joseph to store grain, an assertion dismissed by experts who say it’s accepted science that they were tombs for pharaohs." I would be interested in seeing a citation where Carson did correct himself. BTW, it appears that the Egyptian pyramids were built thousands of years before the time period most often assigned to Joseph (Genesis).

I am just glad that the current efforts to tear down monuments to long-dead slave owners are confined to the USA and not Egypt... (smile) --Guy Macon (talk) 13:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Egads, I was sure I had read he admitted his error, but I can't find it. I am agog, but I re-iterate this is not an Adventist belief. And Guy, you're statement about Adventists believing the government is going to force Sunday worship is true, but that's like saying that the moon prevents sunlight from reaching the earth. It is a true statement, but hardly gives insight or understanding to the subject. The moon, next Monday, will prevent sunlight from reaching the earth across a large area in the United States for a few minutes. Our belief in compulsory Sunday worship is similar. As a group, we don't predict when this will happen, or even how, but the concept is important to our understanding of the Biblical prophesies in the Gospel of Matthew. There are certainly members, generally on the fringes of the movement, who certainly try to take the role of a "prophet" and make these predictions exactly, these individuals are generally disdained within Adventism. My point is when I hear about the "strange beliefs" (holy underwear, bread-to-flesh, reincarnation, etc) of another group, I try to withhold judgement about the group as whole until I gain a deeper understanding of the what/why/where/when/how, because the news snippets I may hear probably don't give a fraction of the whole truth, and what appears in social media is probably dead wrong. Humanity is weird, and I respect that.... 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Totally unrelated to Carson or Adventists, I just posted something interesting that I found when I researched this. See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Fringe Theory of the month: Dinosaurs helped build the pyramids. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Hob Gadling but that is something different. The example you give is just a general accepted part of the religion (which is indeed stupid, I also find it rather strange people believe this) but what Carson states about the pyramids is completely nuts and not related to his religion as others stated. The reason why I think it is important is because it is an important part on how he is seen (his reputation) and how it played an important role in his race to the presidency. That is why I feel it should be mentioned here. It really played a big role and to many Carson is linked completely with the pyramids statement. spin me exactly as you said, it is not really part of his believes in general so it is weirdGarnhami (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Fetal tissue

According to this blog post by Jen Gunter (who is otherwise notable as a published author), Ben Carson said that fetal tissue research was unnecessary, but Carson himself was a co-author of a paper which resulted from fetal tissue research. https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2015/08/12/ben-carson-did-research-on-17-week-fetal-tissue/ This has been reported in many WP:RS https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/13/ben-carson-no-apologies-for-1992-fetal-tissue-research/ , so it should go in under WP:WEIGHT. --Nbauman (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Try actually reading the Washington Post article you just cited. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Try reading WP:CIVILITY. --Nbauman (talk) 03:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing uncivil about calling you a bald-faced liar if indeed you are a bald-faced liar. Compare the following claims:

MBAUMAN: "Ben Carson said that fetal tissue research was unnecessary" Source: the comment at the top of this thread.

THE WASHINGTON POST: "Carson had not forgotten and considered the type of research he did to be useful. 'When we obtain tissue like that, we want to know what the origin of that tissue is developmentally,' he said. 'Knowing that helps us determine which patients are likely to develop a problem. It’s one of the reasons why at the turn of the last century, the average age of death was 47. Now, the average age of death is 80. Using the information that you have is a smart thing, not a dumb thing.' " Source: Ben Carson, quoted in The Washington Post (see link in the comment at the top of this thread.).

One of you is lying. I am guessing that it isn't The Washington Post. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2017

Ben Carson's mother died on November 6, 2017. I would like to change to include (Dec. 24, 1928 - Nov. 6, 2017) next to her name.

Reference: http://www.adventistreview.org/church-news/story5649-sonya-carson-ben-carsons-mother-passes-at-88 ebarreiro 03:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to say no to that request. The article isn't about his mother, it's about him. While sad that he has lost his mother, her death dates are not germane to an article on Carson. Maybe someone else will see this and disagree with my take on the content. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Partly done: Added the years since the father also has them. Terra ^(talk) 04:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

TerraCodes, the article really shouldn't have either. Again, as I stated above, the article isn't about Ben Carson's parents' lives, it's about his. We can mention something in the article that he lost his father in such-and-such year and integrate into the article that his mother died in November 2017, but we aren't an ancestry site. Having the years of birth and death for an srticle subject's parent isn't really typical and is usually discouraged. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: Wouldn't we be adding more about the parents by adding a few sentences rather than just adding the birth and death years tho? --Terra ^(talk) 08:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

TerraCodes: I just don't see the point when the article subject is Ben Carson, not the Carson Family Genealogy. Adding the birth and death years for his parents pretty much equates trivia. It doesn't help the reader better understand the article subject when you add trivia. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Note, articles on politicians like Vladmir Lenin (a FA), FDR, Donald Trump, etc. all provide even greater detail about parents than this article does. Briefly mentioning birth and death dates -- with a reliable source of course -- isn't that trivial.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Goodness, how in the world did you end up here, TheGracefulSlick? You've never edited the article and have never commented at this talk page before... Curious. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Rather easily. I typed in "Ben Carson" and found an article on him. I never edited the Donald Trump talk page until a few days ago yet no one found that "curious". But if you must know, I came here to see how the page described a recent article idea I had -- Carson's campaign book A More Perfect Union. Considering I have explored topics ranging from Delta blues to Negro league baseball -- and, yes, political books (see Crippled America) -- I apologize if I do not find this as "curious" as you do.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Winkelvi, That's an irrelevant red herring. It's as if I disparaged your comments because I have been editing Wikipedia since 2006 but you only started in 2012. Please address TheGracefulSlick's argument rather than responding with an Ad hominem attack. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Guy, my comment to TGS is completely void of ad hominem and is in no way a red herring. I was seriously intrigued because I did not recall seeing TGS at any of the political articles I have edited previously. It further took me by surprise because, as stated on her talk page, she prefers editing articles on "the history of rock, blues, and folk as well as all associated genres - with an emphasis on obscure, but still notable, acts" and "the history of early baseball, particularly the Negro Leagues" and "other more broad sports topics". Based on that knowledge I had previously about her, I was only wondering what brought her here, nothing more, nothing less. Like I said above, I was "curious". -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Not that I want to dwell on this, but my userpage also says "...but every once in awhile I will delve into other areas of interest" right below those other points you mentioned. Some of my interests are spontaneous; like right now I am working on much-needed content expansions for First Lady Edith Roosevelt and obscure Confederate General John B. Magruder in my sandbox. By reading GA and FA articles on politicians and military figures, I came to the conclusion, if reliable sources discuss it, there is no disbenefit from including birth and death dates for parents. In fact, it is a routine practice.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Winkelvi, I apologize for misinterpreting your comment. It really looked to me like you wanted to talk about TheGracefulSlick's editing history rather than address TheGracefulSlick's argument (that across Wikipedia pretty much nobody thinks that "adding the birth and death years for his parents pretty much equates trivia") Despite my polite request that you address TheGracefulSlick's argument you have once again failed to do so. Can we expect a response any time soon, or should I give up and stop asking? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Coatracking

WP:COATRACK
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Any comment from Ben Carson on his family's *shithole* heritage? --90.90.19.39 (talk) 13:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC) You're free to look it up online and see what you can find at a reliable source. Even so, if Carson wasn't directly involved in the statement allegedly made by the president, I don't see how it would be germane to Carson or this article. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC) I don't see how the president's comment would not be germane to Carson in article on Carson, since Carson's heritage, obviously not Native American (Norwegian, maybe?), must have its roots in some *shithole* country. Looked at it from that angle, the president's comment is a direct insult to every Black American, Carson included. Should Carson have the guts to take a courageous stand against his boss, his comment will be included in this article, together with the reliable source. --90.90.19.39 (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

More Coatracking

WP:COATRACK
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why coatrack pertinent questions/comments on a talk page? Those concerned Mr. Carson's stand - or rather silence - as a Black African-American, on the president's disparaging comments. Again: in this case, removed discussion was on talk page, not part of article. --90.90.19.39 (talk) 09:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC) Please read WP:NOTFORUM. This talk page is for discussing how to improve the article on Ben Carson. It isn't a platform for open discussion. If you think Trump's racist comments should be part of this article, you will need to find reliable sources which discuss this issue, and from those we can figure out if/how to include it. If you just want to discuss it, sorry, you'll have to go somewhere else. Grayfell (talk) 10:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC) asfdsafa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.97.67.112 (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2018

Please fix the broken link in External links, Dmoz template. It should be

Ben Carson/Archive 3 at Curlie 174.197.11.200 (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done PriceDL (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2019

Please change "pioneering the first successful neurosurgical procedure on a fetus inside the womb;" to "pioneering the first successful neurosurgical procedure on a fetus inside the womb; " JordanMichael58 (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done I removed the claim from the sentence altogether, as it is not mentioned at the source for the rest of the sentence, and because I could find no source that supported the claim that Carson performed the first surgery of this type (though he has clearly performed neurosurgeries on fetuses). The claim may be restored as a separate sentence, but only with a citation of a reliable source. General Ization ^Talk 17:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Anti-trans rule at HUD

Under Ben Carson's direction, HUD will roll back the Obama administration’s Equal Access Rule which "would allow shelters to refuse homeless transgender individuals seeking shelter". Homeless Transgender Individuals No Longer Protected by Equal Access Rule. --2601:C4:C080:81C:D14E:75BB:C5EE:E35E (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2019

National Prayer Breakfast <---wiki page exists for this, needs link.

}} JGoldman76 (talk) 00:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Net Worth

what is the relevance of showing his net worth on wikipedia in this matter? 2A02:A03F:8B18:9300:913E:E11:DF84:6C81 (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Political view

Abah Sule Sr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SULE ABAH (talk • contribs) 17:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I am unsure what you mean. Would you care to clarify? Is there an edit you want made, etc.? Gargantuan Brain (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Paris Attacks

The statement, "his polling support began to decline following scrutiny of his foreign policy credentials after the November 2015 Paris attacks," isn't supported at all by the referenced citation, which merely says that his results were down, leaving only Donald Trump left. The article doesn't mention foreign policy positions or Paris.

DouglasHeld (talk) 11:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

--47.16.111.3 (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Political positions too long?

I just feel that they take up too much of the article in light of the biography not being that long and that they should either be condensed or removed in their entirety. Informant16 7 May 2016

Adding to this, the entire article seems somewhat negative. Numerous accounts of his lies to the press and public that don't make much difference. I'd like to see the medical career section expanded on which suffers from a similar issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:802:8301:54B0:F536:1D08:DC63:C919 (talk) 03:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)