This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Corsi has called for George W. Bush's impeachment many times. I think this needs to be incorporated into the article somehow. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/08/the-obama-overr.html
Yes, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJRYzuLehT8. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.173.150 ( talk) 16:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
It would seem to me that the decision to include Corsi's personal opinions from the Free Republic website is improper material for a NPV article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.161.97 ( talk) 07:32, 7 December 2004 (UTC)
This article is blatently biased against Corsi and is far from NPOV. This is one more example of liberal control over Wikipedia -- a state of affairs which, ultimately, will doom this experiment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.87.255.134 ( talk) 04:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The evidence presented at Wikipedia against Corsi is supported in voluminous academic, journalistic, and political studies. Corsi's racially tinged discourse and his politically motivated falsehoods and slander make him the very living definition of racist, liar, and demagogue. This is one Wikipedia entry that is amply and clearly cited, and the tone of the article is judicious -- far too judicious--considering what an execrable character he reveals himself to be via his loathsome revival of unrepentant, long-lived McCarthyism that the Republican Party's Rightwing culture has bequeathed to the nation's politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.167.14 ( talk) 05:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Aletheon resorts to the very same low-road, high cant as does his putative "tribune," the extremely mendacious Jerome Corsi, to wit: When challenged on the logical fallacies and blatant mendaciousness of his "arguments," Corsi resorts to the risibly ridiculous riposte that his critics engage in "quibble" and "equivocating." And now we see that Aletheon resorts to same said "strategy." Now that we have established the slatternly slavishness of said Aletheon with respect to his "tribune" of choice, let us further educate Aletheon thus to the fallaciousness of his "reasoning": "To quibble" is to make a "slight objection or criticism." But in fact, this "pontificator" of New York excoriated Corsi for his (a) "racially tinged discourse and his politically motivated falsehoods and slander,” which make him (b) “the very living definition of racist, liar, and demagogue.”
But then, perhaps Aletheon, like so many Right wing Conservatives, consider racially tinged discourse, politically motivated falsehoods, and slander merely worthy of, well, a "quibble."
As to the demonstrably false charge of "equivocating," I riposte by way of repost, as it were: Voilà, three academic sources that both provide illuminating histories about the origins of the paranoid style of American Right wing politics while exposing, cataloguing, and critiquing their debasing, destructive means and ends: 1) "Anatomy of Fascism," Robert Paxton (Columbia University) 2) "Suburban Warriors: The Origins of the New American Right," L. McGirr (Harvard University) 3) "The Paranoid Style in American Politics: And Other Essays" (Richard Hofstadter, late of Columbia University).
With respect to the utterly unrespectable and coarse Corsi, the Wikipedia entry on his infamy provides ample citation, of which I not only alluded to in my original posts, but also provided the aforementioned academic works for contextual support.
By contrast, Aletheon has made only baseless – not to mention base -- charges that Hillary Clinton "founded" Media Matters. Upon this crude canard, Corsi's acolyte then claims, laughably, that Media Matters is thus not a valid source. Au contraire. First, Media Matters for America (MmfA) a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization founded in 2004 by journalist and author DAVID BROCK, a former Right wing hatchet man, is not a Hillary Clinton vehicle. MMfA bases its withering critiques on a range of sources that includes the mainstream media of record, e.g., The Associated Press, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post, and the actual documented historical and legal record versus the lies and paranoid hysteria Conservative demagogues trade in as a matter of course (see the aforementioned classic, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics: And Other Essays").
For example, in a recent article, MMfA refuted a false claim by David Freddoso, a Conservative partisan, in which said partisan charged that the Illinois Department of Public Health and a letter from the Illinois attorney general's office takes to task Obama's statements with respect to the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975. Much to Feddoso's chagrin --assuming he has any sense of shame ––i MMfA reprints the germane section of the letter, which clearly shows that Freddoso willfully "misrepresents" (e.g., distorts, lies, prevaricates, etc.) as to what said document actually states (refer to http://mediamatters.org/, last accessed 8/20/08).
So, let us look at the score: 1) New York Pontificator proves that he EXCORIATED Corsi, not "quibbled" with the sot, as Aletheon so falsely claimed. 2) New York Pontificator demonstrates that Aletheon either does not know the meaning of "quibble" or willfully misuses the word to advance a false notion. 3) New York Pontificator demonstrates that Aletheon attempts to misrepresent the facts yet again in his false charge of "equivocation," given that Big Apple’s Pontificator has posted this extended, annotated riposte, and finally [home run] 4) New York Pontificator cites definitive works by noted scholars, whereas Aletheon merely restates his earlier falsehoods, as if repeating Rightwing twaddle would somehow convince the readership that down is up, rubbish is gold, and Conservative demagoguery is the light of reason.
No. they aren't.
Well, gee, Aletheon, you are down not by just three, but all four points. If this were baseball, the New York pontificator would have made all of the bases and strolled safetly to home. And you? You struck out and then some. "Damn Yankees," huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.167.14 ( talk) 17:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Quoting someone who calls Corsi a neoconservative and a conspiracy theorist is a joke. Why don't you quote me while you're at it. That's not a legitimate source of information or a fact at all. Comments like that have no business being on this site and should not be presented as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.164.156 ( talk) 00:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
This posting is so unprofessional that I have been motivated to join the wiki movement to make sure it stays on track. I was researching Mr. Corsi and found it impossible to learn anything factual. This is a high profile post and it has ametuer moderation. I think collaborative projects like this are the future but my faith has been rattled and confidence weakened by this pitiful display of opinion and no objective facts. This is an editorial and has no place in a reference library. Shame on the moderator. You are contributing to the downfall of this medium. Inserting opinion does not keep the project alive but kills it. No ones mind is soft enough to be persuaded by a one sided argument and those that question the material are repelled upon discovery of bias. As well even if there is a well established argument, a reference source is not a good forum for argument. Perhaps argument can be a node but not all encompassing. CheckItDontWreckIt ( talk) 22:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The first paragraph was biased, ending with 3 cherry picked authors who criticize Dr. Corsi's 2 New York Times best sellers as having "innacuracies". What about the many people who consider his books credible and pushed it to the top of the NY Times Best Seller List? If he was not credible, people would not buy his books. I added "yet were deemed accurate enough by the public to become best sellers" to the first paragraph. This is an undeniable objective fact, and should be included in Wikipedia. University Internet Cafe Booth 6 ( talk) 04:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
An NPOV marker has been applied to this page, but there is no ongoing discussion. What is the problem? - Willmcw 08:18, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 05:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I have not read Corsi's books and have no view which of his criticisms of Bush, McCain, Kerry, Obama and others are valid. But I was immediately struck by how much this article is an "attack piece" prior to an important election:
1) NPOV doesn't require "further discussion" to stay. Once it's been shown not to be neutral, the point doesn't need to be made again.
2) But just in case the reasons this article is not NPOV have been missed, here are three principles: (a) If someone's views have been attacked and you cite the attacks, you should also cite the defenses offered by the person himself or his supporters. (b) If you select criticism of his views of Kerry or Obama, you should also cite some of his strong arguments against those men so the reader can judge. (c) the neutral way is not to give a laundry list of criticisms of a political activist, but to simply say some have one view, some have another. And you either omit BOTH or you include BOTH.
3)The article includes -nothing- supporting anything Mr. C says and is full of quotes or statements of people who have a viewpoint but *only* those who criticize his views, his integrity, etc. (I suspect if you went to the National Review or WorldNetDaily or even the Wall Stree Journal on the right, to balance the New York Times and mainstream press on the other side, you would have been able to find pages and pages of his arguments and of support for his arguments.)
Here are examples from the article of 'piling on' with only critics being cited.
Below, in brackets, I indicate why the NPOV of view is violated no less than six separate occasions:
i) “ [his books] have received much criticism, including allegations of serious factual errors”
--- [Has it not also received much praise? Including claims that he is –accurate- on many serious factual matters?
ii) “The book was criticized for containing interviews with people who did not serve with Kerry, and many who did serve with Kerry called the book's claims false.[28] Of those interviewed for the book, some asserted that their statements were edited to strip out material favorable to Kerry.[29]”
--- [Is it invalid to include comments about Kerry which relate to issues outside of his military service, or to raise questions about him by people who did not serve? What about those who “did serve with Kerry” who called the books claims true? Do footnotes prove that this is the only point of view possible?]
iii) “a number of controversial comments — some interpreted to be anti-Islam, anti-Catholic, anti-semitic and homophobic[30] — made by Corsi”
--- [What were these comments? Is it worth including if someone ‘interprets’ something but someone else would interpret it in a very different way? Or is this just a smear given permanence in a Wikipedia entry?]
iv) “The Obama campaign issued a 40 page rebuttal called "Unfit for Publication" on his website FightTheSmears.com, alleging serious factual errors.[41] The Democratic National Committee responded calling him "One of the most vile smear peddlers of the 2004 election" and he was "too crazy even for Swiftboat liars."[42] According to various American news sources, many of the accusations made in the book are unsubstantiated, misleading, or inaccurate.”
--- [What about those news media or even websites or bloggers who have a different point of view? Surely they EXIST for a book atop the best seller list with thousands of enthusiastic readers?]
v) “The Obama Nation has been criticized by Paul Waldman as being "filled with falsehoods", [56] and in a debate with Corsi on Larry King Live, Waldman accused Corsi of using baseless innuendo as a tactic to 'smear' Obama.[57]”
--- [What about a differing point of view? What about some of arguments the author himself offers?
vi) “...has accused Corsi of plagiarizing”
--- [What about a defense? Hasn’t anyone defended him on this charge? If you are going to include one, why don't you slip in the other?]
<>Ulysses
What one needs to do in NPOV is either not present unproven opinions at all (accusations of plagiarism without proof would certainly be an unsubstantiated opinion, as well as all the exclusively negative reviews of this individual) or present reasonably articulate representatives of both sides.
Not cherry pick to find only those who support a POV on a controversial person or issue and then label only them (and all of them) as 'reliable sources'.
And, just to avoid straw men, one needs to allow the person being attacked to have his -best- arguments quoted. To speak articulately for himself.
Remember that if the viewpoints on the other side are weak or poorly reasoned, the reader must be allowed to see them and weigh them for himself.
Otherwise, Orangemike, you are engaged in manipiulation - something akin to brainwashing or thought control in the guise of an encyclopedia article.
(Respond to my previous post in more detail if you still want a serious argument.)
<>Ulysses
Most all of you are talking slander against someone. This is supposed to be factual. Your "opinions" of this man either way have no place in this forum. Remove your need to convince and persuade. Simply discuss. This is my first time posting on Wikipedia and having just read the talk page guidlines most of you are in violation of it. Read it.
```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thoughtrequired ( talk • contribs) 19:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I see no mention of Jerome Corsi's military service, which I believe is fair as he besmirched one of American's Viet Nam heroes (i.e. John Kerry). Sea Wolf 01:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The item which repeats Corsi's statement that Barack Obama endorses abortion even after the birth of the child is entirely correct. I witnessed just tonight Sean Hannity repeating that charge (out of many) from Corsi's book on Obama, to which Corsi instantly agreed and confirmed that was his charge.
It would seem obvious that this charge is contained in Corsi's recent hatchet job book on Obama as this was the topic of discussion when the claim was made.
The article says citation needed. I suggest that Corsi's book be used as the citation, though no amount of money could get me to read it myself. Perhaps some other more daring soul could find this charge within the book and then provide the citation called for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.69.209 ( talk) 10:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
As reported in the press, Corsi's interview with Alex Jones about a 9/11 conspiracy is popular on the internet. Should we add a link under "external links" ( listen here) to the offical interview? Or to the youtube audio mentioned? -- Iii33lll ( talk) 20:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe the article should discuss the North American Union conspiracy more? He talks about it a lot: [13][http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53378][http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53947][http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70864] [14] [15] [16][http://infowars.net/articles/august2007/200807SPP.htm] [17] We66er ( talk) 04:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Corsi's view of abiotic oil is a WP:FRINGE view and must be reported as such. 1) The abiotic oil article gives the history of the concept and explained it only has standing in certain circles in Russian-Ukrainian (former Soviet Union). 2) As the article cited on the Corsi wiki page reviews the history of the idea, the actual science behind the theory is lacking. Thus, by WP:ATT the dispution to the author it makes it sound as if this theory is accepted when in fact he reviews the history to say it does not have consensus in academia. The source for the claim and other information is wiki-linked, demonstrating the fringe view. Corsi is not a scientist and wikipedia must present claims based on due weight.
Until Corsi or others convince the scientific community Petroleum#Formation is wrong the article will present Corsi's claim as WP:FRINGE. We66er ( talk) 01:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The comments in the article to the effect that the abiotic oil idea is utterly daft and not worthy of further consideration are a bit over the top. See for example the Wikipedia article on Thomas Gold. He was a respectable scientist, pretty much an establishment scientist at that, who is fondly remembered for his contributions. Actually he was quite distinguished and was frequently honored by his peers. He was one of the originators of the abiotic origin theory.
Also, I'd drop the snide insinuation that Corsi believes that others think that oil is formed from "dinosaurs", rather than from algae or whatever. Is there no "milk" in human kindness then? It's called a metaphor. 75.165.82.251 ( talk) 04:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, I guess there must have been (or is) lots of life on Titan then, because it's got seas of hydrocarbons. I can understand why there might be disagreement on this issue, but to call it a "conspiracy theory"? It's a scientific hypothesis and in science it's not truth by consensus. We know with good confidence that hydrocarbons can be created without life. If this postulate is false, that would mean that Titan indeed at one time had lifeforms. Have we seen what is called oil created by the decomposition of living material - and is there a theory on how biological lifeforms transform into what we call "oil"? Not yet.
The two hypothesis aren't even incompatible. It could very well be that hydrocarbons we mine are created abiotically, and biotically both. To call this a "conspiracy theory", seems more to do with left over Cold War hysteria than established fact. In fact, it may turn out that the path to abiogenesis starts with abiotic hydrocarbons in which case it would suggest that both hypotheses are correct.
BTW, methane has been detected on Mars as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.125.176.58 ( talk) 00:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
From THE NEW YORK TIMES http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/14/anti-obama-author-on-911-conspiracy/
Mr. Corsi says, “The fire, from jet fuel, does not burn hot enough to produce the physical evidence that he’s produced,” Mr. Corsi said. “So when you’ve got science that the hypothesis doesn’t explain–evidence–then the hypothesis doesn’t stand anymore. It doesn’t mean there’s a new hypothesis you’ve validated. It just means the government’s explanation of the jet fuel fire is not a sufficient explanation to explain the evidence of these spheres–these microscopic spheres–that Steven Jones has proved existed within the W.T.C. dust.”
This needs to be mentioned. His connection to the 9/11 Truth movement has been cited in many stories in the media, lately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.173.150 ( talk) 12:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
See http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/08/the-obama-overr.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heardt ( talk • contribs) 23:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Him being a promoter of conspiracy theories needs mentioned in the lead not only because of many sources, but because the majority of his books, four, are about it compared to his political attack books, two.
Thus, the lead needs to explain what some, in this case the majority of his work has been called. The four books are conspiracies. And that doesn't even include all of this internet columns linked above. We66er ( talk) 16:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
1) Barack Obama is NOT in favor of abortion after birth... that is stupid, ignorant, fallacious and an absolute lie and should be clearly identified as such. To allow such a falsehood to go unchallenged is inexcusable. Obama's votes of "present" in the Illinois Senate, while seemingly evasive, are quite politically adept. Such votes are neither "yes" nor "no". Simultaneously protecting vulnerable members in conservative districts and avoiding personal attacks from the majority Republicans. see http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/obama-abortion-.html
2) Poor Corsi couldn't perform in the service of his country :( He has eczema according to his appearance on "CPAN This Weekend" this morning (8/16/08). I personally watched it.
3) The majority of his sites ("footnotes") are either to himself, one of his blogs, or some right-wing, mostly discredited blogs. He calls himself a journalist (he fails to use the appropriate adjective, yellow). Common opinions identify his "books" to be screeds.
4) Media Matters at least researches their blogs. Lplzydeco ( talk) 20:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)lplzydeco in Denver, CO
Obama "questioned whether the born alive legislation would impede the right to abort and doctor/patient decision-making. He and an American Civil Liberties Union attorney speculated Born Alive would force doctors to resuscitate nonviable aborted babies." He went on to say "[Let] nature be done" and "What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I can’t support that.” http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000007034.cfm
There is no such thing as "abortion after birth", since abortion is defined as "the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death." Providing no medical for an infant is homicide, and has been tried as such for those that do not provide medical care for anyone from infants to the elderly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.164.156 ( talk) 01:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Can somebody re add nationality to the lead. I was removed recently without explaination by an IP. Thank you. -- 70.181.45.138 ( talk) 21:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
What's an explaination? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.72.125.82 ( talk) 14:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I never heard of this Jerome Corsi guy, but his claims are the subject of a very critical article in The Irish Times this morning. 'Using a PhD as a weapon of mass disinformation': http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/0826/1219679947282.html 86.42.119.12 ( talk) 15:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Nice editorial, dumbasses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.7.51.9 ( talk) 02:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree the information should be given, but it would be better to describe the topics covered by his books and mention the cited opinions of critics and let readers figure it out themselves. WP readers are smarter than you might think. :-) Redddogg ( talk) 04:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
This blatantly partisan article about a Blatantly Partisan individual is borderline libelous. http://www.nndb.com/people/244/000059067/ Jerome corsi is a practicing Catholic that was and is disgusted with the actions of the Hierarchy of his Church, as many Catholics are. I understand that partisans hate him for going after Democrat Party Presidential Nominees, but this isn't the place to vent. They imply that he is comparable to some Anti Papal KKK member that took delight in the Church Abuse Scandal and took candid dialogue out of context. His book The Obama Nation had been throughly lawyered, so by their standard I could go to Obama's Wiki Page and start posting the content from his book, which I'm sure would last all of 5 minutes there. Now that the shoe's on the other foot, you allow them to post innuendo from the Nation and other Partisan Rags with axes to grind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whosthatolboy ( talk • contribs) 05:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I also posted a POV tag. I don't object to giving the readers any amount of cited information which makes Mr. Corsi look bad. However I think the tone and wording should be a bit more neutral. For instance calling him a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence. Also the incident in Kenya is very minor (unless they kill him ;-)) and should be moved down the page. Redddogg ( talk) 04:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
RE:
This article could have been a press release from the Obama Campaign. I flagged this because it seemed partisans wanted to impugn this man because he wrote books they didn't like. sure, you can talk about his faults and his gaffes, you don't have to employ all out character assasination against him. This is the equivilent of me posting malicious inneundo about Maureen Dowd or Keith Olbermann just because I found a partisan source to corraberate my assertions. The nndb source was to establish his Roman Catholic Faith. Wiki wouldn't tolerate my doing this to a Left Wing Pundit or Columnist, I just want the same standards applied. Sorry about the gap, I had forgotten about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whosthatolboy ( talk • contribs) 23:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I really don't think he is a neoconservative, even if one source did say so. Mostly they are pro-Bush internationalists. He seems to be best known as an author, maybe the subjects of each of his books can be mentioned in the intro. Then his conspiracy nature would be evident without having to say so. Could we add something like "activist" to "author" as his secondary notability? Redddogg ( talk) 04:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I took out the information that he wanted to give money to George Obama. This is very trivial. Also George Obama's statement that he would not accept the money seems kind of worthless since we don't know the circumstances of him saying that. Redddogg ( talk) 07:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
BTW the "controversy" about Barack Obama's relationship with George Obama is not mentioned on the Obama family article. Why should it be brought up here? (As for myself, I don't have a half-brother so I don't know how I would feel. I do know that historically the relationships of half-siblings have sometimes been difficult.) Redddogg ( talk) 08:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The article says he has made homophobic statements. I don't think being against the sexual abuse of children is homophobic. I don't really think the whole last paragraph about his web postings is really needed anyway. Redddogg ( talk) 17:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I think that the whole "criticism and controversy" section should be removed. Second-hand allegations and web postings are usually not considered so reliable on Wikipedia. There also seems to be enough solid information on Corsi in the article already. However, I will not make an issue about it if people like the controversy section. Redddogg ( talk) 18:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Reopening issue: I think "homophobic" should be removed. A person being called "homophobic" by a left-wing source is no more remarkable than a person being called "a member of the Jewish conspiracy to rule the world" (or whatever) by a right-wing source. Neither one should be repeated in an encyclopedia article. Redddogg ( talk) 23:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I am personally, deeply offended when the sexual abuse of children is defended in the name of "homophobia" or "religion" or "culture" or any other reason. Having said that, I think we have to use our judgement. Only one source added "homophobia" to the other 3. I think it would be fine if the article left it off. Especially since this is a biography of a living person and is subject to more strict WP rules. Redddogg ( talk) 05:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
CORSI: First let's undermine the US in Vietnam. Then we can go for gay marriage. When you get to be Pres. JFK-lite, there will be no end to how much of America we can destroy. (05/17/2004)
CORSI: Perfect Liberal -- lesbian, self-absorbed, hates America, anxious to impose her values on everybody else. [on Martina Navratilova] (06/26/2002)
CORSI: And now we get Pooh-LEFTY pushed on us by the RATS as Minority Leader in the House -- here come the SanFrancisco liberals -- hope the RATS go back to focusing the debate on gay marriages and other pro-choice topics close to Pelosi's heart. (11/18/2002) [56]
I'm not denying that we have sources that call him that, but do most sources describe him as an "activist"? ( [57]) It almost sounds positive. Khoi khoi 21:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
See above:
This is precisely what's wrong with wikipedia and the media. All you have to do is report somebody else's unsourced opinion and that becomes a "fact." Reporters reporting on reporters reporting on reporters. Yes, it's a fact that the opinion was stated, but the opinion itself is not a fact. Face it, whether you like Corsi or not, this article is biased. That's an opinion. That wikipedia is largely biased, however, is a verifiable fact. Sign me "unsigned." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.164.148.45 ( talk) 04:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe that he has appeared multiple times on The Political Cesspool, a white nationalist radio show; in fact, he has canceled an appearance on the show recently after Media Matters published a report of him. [59] [60] Rock8591 06:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I edited one sentence for being POV, and other reasons. Here are the two sentences for comparison.
I changed "Reuters report" to "press reports" because the Reuters report doesn't quote anyone on this particular point except Corsi's publicist, who only said "But the government did not want him to launch his book on Kenyan soil."
The Times report referenced "a source at Nyayo House". However, this source did not give any grounds for thinking that the government would be embarrassed by the accusations. It is equally likely that they simply didn't want Corsi making false accusations about them, and the Times report gives reason to think the accusations are false. -- Mujokan ( talk) 15:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
According to Mwenda wa Micheni in the Africa Business Daily:
Ironically, Mr Corsi has also been involved in a child pornography scandal.
In 2003, US authorities indicate, Mr Corsi was indicted for distributing child pornography, a case that eventually disappeared after he was handed a lenient judgment — something that inspired several conspiracy theories in the US. [61]
Africa Business Daily
is part of Business Daily, a daily newspaper, published by the
Nation Media Group.
IP1956 (
talk)
18:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
That looks like what we're dealing with, especially given that the debate between Corsi and the person being cited is not waht we'd call harmonious. Ed Wood's Wig ( talk) 23:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
This idea that there has been numerous factual debunking or whatever is very poorly sourced and only reflects one side of the issue. We have 3 refs on that one - one cites the Democratic opposition, one is an op-ed referring to "Goons" and implying that Corsi is one of them, and one is the normally-reliable Factcheck.org, which I have no problem with using as a reference but having issue relying on as the single arbiter of truth in this situation. I think the wording is horribly POV and needs to change. [[User:Ed Wood's Wig|]] ( talk) 14:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Corsi is a critic of all parties on international policy. Again, we must call on the adults at Wikipedia to clear out the propagandist mentality and hold students to the scholarly concept of factual objectivity regarding individuals, organizations, & historical events. Wiki truth enlighten ( talk) 06:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Notice: Media Matters for American has generally been agreed upon to be an unreliable source for Biographies of Living Persons. As such I will be removing any use of it as a reference from this article. Most of what has been written is backed up by multiple sources, but in the event that MMfA was the only source I will probably delete the corresponding info also, please feel free to re-instate the info under a new source. Thank you. Ink Falls 23:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree - remove MMfA for failure to be WP:RS complaint, etc. I am amazed at all the times the MMfA soapboxers have to push MMfA into article after article as if MMfA were a legitimate source for unbiased news and information. And what a coincidence, MMfA appears not only as a supposed RS, but also in the main text of the article. It's like Kilroy was here. -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling ( talk) 03:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Media Matters for America has been agreed upon as unreliable by who, exactly? The reality is that they cite their own sources for every article they publish. 75.76.213.106 ( talk) 05:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
This article is heavily slanted against Corsi, which is why I added the POV tag. It is true in all of the sections, but especially the introduction. I do not think that attacks against the author's books belong in the intro to an article about the author. Would we put discussions of the Harry Potter books' alleged relation to witchcraft in the first paragraph of an article about JK Rowling? That material belongs in the subsection of the article that discusses the books. Lunixer ( talk) 03:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I would agree with LUNIXER et.al. that this article violates wikipedia's POV standards and needs serious revision. I also concur with other critical commenters that the label "conspiracy theorist" when used in common parlance is a slanted, pejorative description and needs to be replaced. I would suggest replacing it with "controversial author" which would eliminate the pejorative connotation and would convey a more neutral and balanced tone to the article.
The three sources that are cited for the alleged factual errors are mostly liberal. We have an article titled, and I quote, "Democrats say Corsi's book full of lies, an article by Eugene Robinson, a widely known liberal (and no expert on the subject), and FactCheck.org, which alone is not enough to make this statement, and is very liberal itself (though I do consider it a reliable source). I propose rewording the second sentence in the first paragraph to: Both books, the former written in 2008 and the latter in 2004, attacked Democratic presidential candidates. Their accuracy is considered questionable by some sources. This would be similar to the wording in the second paragraph, which implies that he could be talking about "conspiracy theories" but establishes that there is debate. I am adding back the POV tag because an agreement has not been reached. Lunixer ( talk) 01:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The article claims he was born in Ohio, but offers no proof. Where's the birth certificate? -- TimSPC ( talk) 15:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Should a section be added for "Where's the Birth Certificate?"? I know that it has it's own article already, Where's the Birth Certificate?, but there have been sections for other recent books. Naraht ( talk) 19:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
If any source mentions it, it'd be nice to give some indication of what the subject was doing between 1972 and 1995. It's a large gap, not that this is a resume. Will Beback talk 23:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
...beginning in 1981, Dr. Corsi worked with banks throughout the United States and around the world to develop financial services marketing companies to assist banks in establishing broker/dealers and insurance subsidiaries to provide financial planning products and services to their retail customers. [63]
Still a huge gap. He was well into adulthood in 1981. There is zero information on this guy, pretty much out of nowhere. Fishy to the max, and he looks weird, as if he were a younger man wearing old man makeup. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that he is a totally fake persona. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:89:C601:3CD0:398C:C3FF:82C9:C793 ( talk) 00:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I have raised an objection in WP:BLPN. Interested editors are invited to comment. JakeInJoisey ( talk) 13:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
(per request reposted from that discussion) Clear opinions, as always, no matter who holds them, are only valid as claims of "opinion." The current standards for WP:BLP tend to make exceedingly good and strong sourcing a minimum for any such claim, I seem to recall a statement You would need a good source that called his view a conspiracy theory. It is a very strong term, and means more than a theory that a conspiracy existed which would imply a strong standard for calling any view a "conspiracy theory" and, by extension, anyone would need fully as strong a source for calling anyone a "conspiracy theorist" under the current BLP rules. I would suggest that a single source would not meet that requirement, and likely three independent sources would be a good idea. Collect (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC) Collect ( talk) 14:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Good for the "birther article"...Obama's own brother says that he was not born in the US. Unless we are going to put conspiracy theorist on Anderson Cooper's page for his Trump/Russia theories this stuff needs to be in own section. Putting pejorative terms in the lead of the article violates wikipedia policy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.76.129 ( talk) 07:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
What does conspiracy theory mean? Is it an objective or subjective term? Does it have a connotation; does its use imply that something is fictional? If it is subjective then it seems to violate policies. It seems to me that people say theory when they consider something to be credible and conspiracy theory when they believe something is totally fictional without any possibility of being true. Sam Tomato ( talk) 18:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Simple Facts - a black smokey fire collapsed two modern skyscrapers in a couple of hours - the first and only ones in history. Building 7 collapsed and seems to have never been investigated. An OK federal building collapses from a blast from the street - never been done before - the FBI cancelled their test when they learned it couldn't be done - and not an eyebrow is raised by the news media. ETC
2601:181:8301:4510:D1F:B3F:41D4:DF3F (
talk)
02:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
When someone publishes in an academic journal that an individual is prominently known as a conspiracy theorist, we can use that as a l reliabe source for this fact. See the last diff http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Jerome_Corsi&action=historysubmit&diff=430675099&oldid=430673364 for the source which is to an expert in conspiracy theorists.
Please do not remove this fact unless you have a reliable source which disputes it. I have found none in researching this individual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.169.46 ( talk) 14:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
John Foster "Chip" Berlet (born November 22, 1949) is an American investigative journalist, and photojournalist activist specializing in the study of right-wing movements in the United States, particularly the religious right, white supremacists, homophobic groups, and paramilitary organizations. He also studies the spread of conspiracy theories in the media and on the Internet, and political cults on both the right and left of the political spectrum.
He is the senior analyst at Political Research Associates (PRA), a non-profit group that tracks right-wing networks,...
The bid to raise money off of birtherism also needles author Jerome Corsi... Chicago Tribune
Jerome Corsi, senior staff writer at the extremist website WorldNetDaily and a chief enabler of the Obama-as-foreigner lie,... Los Angeles Times
Biography - Jerome R. Corsi, a Harvard Ph.D., has authored many books, including No. 1 N.Y. Times best-sellers The Obama Nation and Unfit for Command. Along with serving as WND's senior staff reporter, Corsi is a senior managing director at Gilford Securities. Barnes and Noble
Biography - Dr. Jerome Corsi received a Ph.D. from Harvard University in political science in 1972. He is the author of the #1 New York Times bestseller The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality and the co-author of Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, which was also a #1 New York Times bestseller. He is a regular contributor to WorldNetDaily.com. Simon and Schuster
Biography: Dr. Jerome Corsi received a Ph.D. from Harvard University in Political Science in 1972. He has written many books and articles and is an expert on political violence and terrorism. In 1981, he received a Top Secret clearance from the Agency for International Development, where he assisted in providing anti-terrorism/hostage survival training to embassy personnel. Coast to Coast with George Noory
Biography - Dr. Jerome Corsi is a Senior Staff Reporter for World Net Daily where he works as an investigative reporter. In 2004, Dr. Corsi co-authored the #1 New York Times bestseller, Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry. The success of Unfit for Command permitted Dr. Corsi to devote full time to writing. In the past 5 years, he has published 5 New York Times bestselling non-fiction books. In August 2008, he published The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality, which was a #1 New York Times bestseller for a month and remained on the NYT bestseller list for 10 weeks. Amazon
Biography - Dr. Jerome Corsi received a Ph.D. from Harvard University in political science in 1972 and has written many books and articles, including the No. 1 New York Times best-seller, Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry. His latest best-seller was The Late Great USA: The Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada. He is a senior staff reporter for WorldNetDaily.com and the author of two books on contemporary Iran: Atomic Iran and Showdown with Nuclear Iran. In his 2005 book Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil, which he co-authored with Craig. R. Smith, Dr. Corsi predicted oil prices at over $100 a barrel. Bookwire
It (conspiracy theorist) is no more a pejorative, or less accurate, than other descriptors like "Liberal" or "Fundamentalist", where the 'insult' exists in the mind of the ideologically opposed critic using the term, and not in reality.
Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content.
@Lunixer: To answer your question about how I would feel about calling "Obama a socialist in the lede" -- I have no feelings about it at all, if it is properly sourced and accurate. "Socialist" is also not a pejorative term. The same applies to your question about Gore, Moore, Franken, et al. Reviewing the recent posts above (as well as the prior posts by Lunixer in the section titled "Article Heavily Slanted"), I notice that no one has explained why they assume "conspiracy theorist" is pejorative, as Jake says, "as applied to Corsi in this treatment". It isn't. Editors seem to forget that descriptors like "socialist" or "conspiracy theorist" or "fundamentalist" or "nationalist" or any other "-ist", are actually neutral descriptions, and there is no "pejorative nature" except in the reader's imagination, or when the description is inaccurately applied. Consensus appears to be quite clear on that. Xenophrenic ( talk) 18:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
According to: https://post.harvard.edu/olc/pub/HAA/register/register.cgi [1] Searched: Jerome Corsi Results: Degree Doctor of Philosophy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostach ( talk • contribs) 20:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/obamas-ring-there-is-no-god-but-allah/ http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/weddingring.asp Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 11:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Jerome Corsi/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
This article is anything but balanced, fair or informative. Reading the section on Corsi's latest book "Obama Nation" I learned nothing about what the book might contain, only varying degrees of attacks on Corsi by the NYTimes, DNC, Obama's own campaign. All very unbiased sources! Apparently the author of the article and the sources he cites don't want us to know what is actually in the book. At the very least there is a clear conflict of interest because the attacking sources cited are all part of the political machine for Obama. Prof Corsi is absolutely accurate in is new book "America for Sale" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.146.106.157 ( talk) 00:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC) |
Last edited at 00:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 19:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jerome Corsi. 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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Strawberry4Ever ( talk) 18:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Pejoratives need to be removed from the lead. Put editorial opinions critical of the subject of the article in it's own section. Article violates NPOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.76.129 ( talk) 07:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Jerome Corsi. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't know who keeps editing it, but I fixed the education in the infobox for the second time this week now. It's fine the way it is and is in correlation with other articles. Sovietmessiah ( talk) 19:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Corsi has called for George W. Bush's impeachment many times. I think this needs to be incorporated into the article somehow. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/08/the-obama-overr.html
Yes, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJRYzuLehT8. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.173.150 ( talk) 16:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
It would seem to me that the decision to include Corsi's personal opinions from the Free Republic website is improper material for a NPV article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.161.97 ( talk) 07:32, 7 December 2004 (UTC)
This article is blatently biased against Corsi and is far from NPOV. This is one more example of liberal control over Wikipedia -- a state of affairs which, ultimately, will doom this experiment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.87.255.134 ( talk) 04:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The evidence presented at Wikipedia against Corsi is supported in voluminous academic, journalistic, and political studies. Corsi's racially tinged discourse and his politically motivated falsehoods and slander make him the very living definition of racist, liar, and demagogue. This is one Wikipedia entry that is amply and clearly cited, and the tone of the article is judicious -- far too judicious--considering what an execrable character he reveals himself to be via his loathsome revival of unrepentant, long-lived McCarthyism that the Republican Party's Rightwing culture has bequeathed to the nation's politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.167.14 ( talk) 05:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Aletheon resorts to the very same low-road, high cant as does his putative "tribune," the extremely mendacious Jerome Corsi, to wit: When challenged on the logical fallacies and blatant mendaciousness of his "arguments," Corsi resorts to the risibly ridiculous riposte that his critics engage in "quibble" and "equivocating." And now we see that Aletheon resorts to same said "strategy." Now that we have established the slatternly slavishness of said Aletheon with respect to his "tribune" of choice, let us further educate Aletheon thus to the fallaciousness of his "reasoning": "To quibble" is to make a "slight objection or criticism." But in fact, this "pontificator" of New York excoriated Corsi for his (a) "racially tinged discourse and his politically motivated falsehoods and slander,” which make him (b) “the very living definition of racist, liar, and demagogue.”
But then, perhaps Aletheon, like so many Right wing Conservatives, consider racially tinged discourse, politically motivated falsehoods, and slander merely worthy of, well, a "quibble."
As to the demonstrably false charge of "equivocating," I riposte by way of repost, as it were: Voilà, three academic sources that both provide illuminating histories about the origins of the paranoid style of American Right wing politics while exposing, cataloguing, and critiquing their debasing, destructive means and ends: 1) "Anatomy of Fascism," Robert Paxton (Columbia University) 2) "Suburban Warriors: The Origins of the New American Right," L. McGirr (Harvard University) 3) "The Paranoid Style in American Politics: And Other Essays" (Richard Hofstadter, late of Columbia University).
With respect to the utterly unrespectable and coarse Corsi, the Wikipedia entry on his infamy provides ample citation, of which I not only alluded to in my original posts, but also provided the aforementioned academic works for contextual support.
By contrast, Aletheon has made only baseless – not to mention base -- charges that Hillary Clinton "founded" Media Matters. Upon this crude canard, Corsi's acolyte then claims, laughably, that Media Matters is thus not a valid source. Au contraire. First, Media Matters for America (MmfA) a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization founded in 2004 by journalist and author DAVID BROCK, a former Right wing hatchet man, is not a Hillary Clinton vehicle. MMfA bases its withering critiques on a range of sources that includes the mainstream media of record, e.g., The Associated Press, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post, and the actual documented historical and legal record versus the lies and paranoid hysteria Conservative demagogues trade in as a matter of course (see the aforementioned classic, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics: And Other Essays").
For example, in a recent article, MMfA refuted a false claim by David Freddoso, a Conservative partisan, in which said partisan charged that the Illinois Department of Public Health and a letter from the Illinois attorney general's office takes to task Obama's statements with respect to the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975. Much to Feddoso's chagrin --assuming he has any sense of shame ––i MMfA reprints the germane section of the letter, which clearly shows that Freddoso willfully "misrepresents" (e.g., distorts, lies, prevaricates, etc.) as to what said document actually states (refer to http://mediamatters.org/, last accessed 8/20/08).
So, let us look at the score: 1) New York Pontificator proves that he EXCORIATED Corsi, not "quibbled" with the sot, as Aletheon so falsely claimed. 2) New York Pontificator demonstrates that Aletheon either does not know the meaning of "quibble" or willfully misuses the word to advance a false notion. 3) New York Pontificator demonstrates that Aletheon attempts to misrepresent the facts yet again in his false charge of "equivocation," given that Big Apple’s Pontificator has posted this extended, annotated riposte, and finally [home run] 4) New York Pontificator cites definitive works by noted scholars, whereas Aletheon merely restates his earlier falsehoods, as if repeating Rightwing twaddle would somehow convince the readership that down is up, rubbish is gold, and Conservative demagoguery is the light of reason.
No. they aren't.
Well, gee, Aletheon, you are down not by just three, but all four points. If this were baseball, the New York pontificator would have made all of the bases and strolled safetly to home. And you? You struck out and then some. "Damn Yankees," huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.167.14 ( talk) 17:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Quoting someone who calls Corsi a neoconservative and a conspiracy theorist is a joke. Why don't you quote me while you're at it. That's not a legitimate source of information or a fact at all. Comments like that have no business being on this site and should not be presented as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.164.156 ( talk) 00:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
This posting is so unprofessional that I have been motivated to join the wiki movement to make sure it stays on track. I was researching Mr. Corsi and found it impossible to learn anything factual. This is a high profile post and it has ametuer moderation. I think collaborative projects like this are the future but my faith has been rattled and confidence weakened by this pitiful display of opinion and no objective facts. This is an editorial and has no place in a reference library. Shame on the moderator. You are contributing to the downfall of this medium. Inserting opinion does not keep the project alive but kills it. No ones mind is soft enough to be persuaded by a one sided argument and those that question the material are repelled upon discovery of bias. As well even if there is a well established argument, a reference source is not a good forum for argument. Perhaps argument can be a node but not all encompassing. CheckItDontWreckIt ( talk) 22:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The first paragraph was biased, ending with 3 cherry picked authors who criticize Dr. Corsi's 2 New York Times best sellers as having "innacuracies". What about the many people who consider his books credible and pushed it to the top of the NY Times Best Seller List? If he was not credible, people would not buy his books. I added "yet were deemed accurate enough by the public to become best sellers" to the first paragraph. This is an undeniable objective fact, and should be included in Wikipedia. University Internet Cafe Booth 6 ( talk) 04:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
An NPOV marker has been applied to this page, but there is no ongoing discussion. What is the problem? - Willmcw 08:18, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Ruthfulbarbarity 05:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I have not read Corsi's books and have no view which of his criticisms of Bush, McCain, Kerry, Obama and others are valid. But I was immediately struck by how much this article is an "attack piece" prior to an important election:
1) NPOV doesn't require "further discussion" to stay. Once it's been shown not to be neutral, the point doesn't need to be made again.
2) But just in case the reasons this article is not NPOV have been missed, here are three principles: (a) If someone's views have been attacked and you cite the attacks, you should also cite the defenses offered by the person himself or his supporters. (b) If you select criticism of his views of Kerry or Obama, you should also cite some of his strong arguments against those men so the reader can judge. (c) the neutral way is not to give a laundry list of criticisms of a political activist, but to simply say some have one view, some have another. And you either omit BOTH or you include BOTH.
3)The article includes -nothing- supporting anything Mr. C says and is full of quotes or statements of people who have a viewpoint but *only* those who criticize his views, his integrity, etc. (I suspect if you went to the National Review or WorldNetDaily or even the Wall Stree Journal on the right, to balance the New York Times and mainstream press on the other side, you would have been able to find pages and pages of his arguments and of support for his arguments.)
Here are examples from the article of 'piling on' with only critics being cited.
Below, in brackets, I indicate why the NPOV of view is violated no less than six separate occasions:
i) “ [his books] have received much criticism, including allegations of serious factual errors”
--- [Has it not also received much praise? Including claims that he is –accurate- on many serious factual matters?
ii) “The book was criticized for containing interviews with people who did not serve with Kerry, and many who did serve with Kerry called the book's claims false.[28] Of those interviewed for the book, some asserted that their statements were edited to strip out material favorable to Kerry.[29]”
--- [Is it invalid to include comments about Kerry which relate to issues outside of his military service, or to raise questions about him by people who did not serve? What about those who “did serve with Kerry” who called the books claims true? Do footnotes prove that this is the only point of view possible?]
iii) “a number of controversial comments — some interpreted to be anti-Islam, anti-Catholic, anti-semitic and homophobic[30] — made by Corsi”
--- [What were these comments? Is it worth including if someone ‘interprets’ something but someone else would interpret it in a very different way? Or is this just a smear given permanence in a Wikipedia entry?]
iv) “The Obama campaign issued a 40 page rebuttal called "Unfit for Publication" on his website FightTheSmears.com, alleging serious factual errors.[41] The Democratic National Committee responded calling him "One of the most vile smear peddlers of the 2004 election" and he was "too crazy even for Swiftboat liars."[42] According to various American news sources, many of the accusations made in the book are unsubstantiated, misleading, or inaccurate.”
--- [What about those news media or even websites or bloggers who have a different point of view? Surely they EXIST for a book atop the best seller list with thousands of enthusiastic readers?]
v) “The Obama Nation has been criticized by Paul Waldman as being "filled with falsehoods", [56] and in a debate with Corsi on Larry King Live, Waldman accused Corsi of using baseless innuendo as a tactic to 'smear' Obama.[57]”
--- [What about a differing point of view? What about some of arguments the author himself offers?
vi) “...has accused Corsi of plagiarizing”
--- [What about a defense? Hasn’t anyone defended him on this charge? If you are going to include one, why don't you slip in the other?]
<>Ulysses
What one needs to do in NPOV is either not present unproven opinions at all (accusations of plagiarism without proof would certainly be an unsubstantiated opinion, as well as all the exclusively negative reviews of this individual) or present reasonably articulate representatives of both sides.
Not cherry pick to find only those who support a POV on a controversial person or issue and then label only them (and all of them) as 'reliable sources'.
And, just to avoid straw men, one needs to allow the person being attacked to have his -best- arguments quoted. To speak articulately for himself.
Remember that if the viewpoints on the other side are weak or poorly reasoned, the reader must be allowed to see them and weigh them for himself.
Otherwise, Orangemike, you are engaged in manipiulation - something akin to brainwashing or thought control in the guise of an encyclopedia article.
(Respond to my previous post in more detail if you still want a serious argument.)
<>Ulysses
Most all of you are talking slander against someone. This is supposed to be factual. Your "opinions" of this man either way have no place in this forum. Remove your need to convince and persuade. Simply discuss. This is my first time posting on Wikipedia and having just read the talk page guidlines most of you are in violation of it. Read it.
```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thoughtrequired ( talk • contribs) 19:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I see no mention of Jerome Corsi's military service, which I believe is fair as he besmirched one of American's Viet Nam heroes (i.e. John Kerry). Sea Wolf 01:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The item which repeats Corsi's statement that Barack Obama endorses abortion even after the birth of the child is entirely correct. I witnessed just tonight Sean Hannity repeating that charge (out of many) from Corsi's book on Obama, to which Corsi instantly agreed and confirmed that was his charge.
It would seem obvious that this charge is contained in Corsi's recent hatchet job book on Obama as this was the topic of discussion when the claim was made.
The article says citation needed. I suggest that Corsi's book be used as the citation, though no amount of money could get me to read it myself. Perhaps some other more daring soul could find this charge within the book and then provide the citation called for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.69.209 ( talk) 10:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
As reported in the press, Corsi's interview with Alex Jones about a 9/11 conspiracy is popular on the internet. Should we add a link under "external links" ( listen here) to the offical interview? Or to the youtube audio mentioned? -- Iii33lll ( talk) 20:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe the article should discuss the North American Union conspiracy more? He talks about it a lot: [13][http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53378][http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53947][http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70864] [14] [15] [16][http://infowars.net/articles/august2007/200807SPP.htm] [17] We66er ( talk) 04:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Corsi's view of abiotic oil is a WP:FRINGE view and must be reported as such. 1) The abiotic oil article gives the history of the concept and explained it only has standing in certain circles in Russian-Ukrainian (former Soviet Union). 2) As the article cited on the Corsi wiki page reviews the history of the idea, the actual science behind the theory is lacking. Thus, by WP:ATT the dispution to the author it makes it sound as if this theory is accepted when in fact he reviews the history to say it does not have consensus in academia. The source for the claim and other information is wiki-linked, demonstrating the fringe view. Corsi is not a scientist and wikipedia must present claims based on due weight.
Until Corsi or others convince the scientific community Petroleum#Formation is wrong the article will present Corsi's claim as WP:FRINGE. We66er ( talk) 01:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The comments in the article to the effect that the abiotic oil idea is utterly daft and not worthy of further consideration are a bit over the top. See for example the Wikipedia article on Thomas Gold. He was a respectable scientist, pretty much an establishment scientist at that, who is fondly remembered for his contributions. Actually he was quite distinguished and was frequently honored by his peers. He was one of the originators of the abiotic origin theory.
Also, I'd drop the snide insinuation that Corsi believes that others think that oil is formed from "dinosaurs", rather than from algae or whatever. Is there no "milk" in human kindness then? It's called a metaphor. 75.165.82.251 ( talk) 04:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, I guess there must have been (or is) lots of life on Titan then, because it's got seas of hydrocarbons. I can understand why there might be disagreement on this issue, but to call it a "conspiracy theory"? It's a scientific hypothesis and in science it's not truth by consensus. We know with good confidence that hydrocarbons can be created without life. If this postulate is false, that would mean that Titan indeed at one time had lifeforms. Have we seen what is called oil created by the decomposition of living material - and is there a theory on how biological lifeforms transform into what we call "oil"? Not yet.
The two hypothesis aren't even incompatible. It could very well be that hydrocarbons we mine are created abiotically, and biotically both. To call this a "conspiracy theory", seems more to do with left over Cold War hysteria than established fact. In fact, it may turn out that the path to abiogenesis starts with abiotic hydrocarbons in which case it would suggest that both hypotheses are correct.
BTW, methane has been detected on Mars as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.125.176.58 ( talk) 00:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
From THE NEW YORK TIMES http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/14/anti-obama-author-on-911-conspiracy/
Mr. Corsi says, “The fire, from jet fuel, does not burn hot enough to produce the physical evidence that he’s produced,” Mr. Corsi said. “So when you’ve got science that the hypothesis doesn’t explain–evidence–then the hypothesis doesn’t stand anymore. It doesn’t mean there’s a new hypothesis you’ve validated. It just means the government’s explanation of the jet fuel fire is not a sufficient explanation to explain the evidence of these spheres–these microscopic spheres–that Steven Jones has proved existed within the W.T.C. dust.”
This needs to be mentioned. His connection to the 9/11 Truth movement has been cited in many stories in the media, lately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.173.150 ( talk) 12:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
See http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/08/the-obama-overr.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heardt ( talk • contribs) 23:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Him being a promoter of conspiracy theories needs mentioned in the lead not only because of many sources, but because the majority of his books, four, are about it compared to his political attack books, two.
Thus, the lead needs to explain what some, in this case the majority of his work has been called. The four books are conspiracies. And that doesn't even include all of this internet columns linked above. We66er ( talk) 16:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
1) Barack Obama is NOT in favor of abortion after birth... that is stupid, ignorant, fallacious and an absolute lie and should be clearly identified as such. To allow such a falsehood to go unchallenged is inexcusable. Obama's votes of "present" in the Illinois Senate, while seemingly evasive, are quite politically adept. Such votes are neither "yes" nor "no". Simultaneously protecting vulnerable members in conservative districts and avoiding personal attacks from the majority Republicans. see http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/obama-abortion-.html
2) Poor Corsi couldn't perform in the service of his country :( He has eczema according to his appearance on "CPAN This Weekend" this morning (8/16/08). I personally watched it.
3) The majority of his sites ("footnotes") are either to himself, one of his blogs, or some right-wing, mostly discredited blogs. He calls himself a journalist (he fails to use the appropriate adjective, yellow). Common opinions identify his "books" to be screeds.
4) Media Matters at least researches their blogs. Lplzydeco ( talk) 20:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)lplzydeco in Denver, CO
Obama "questioned whether the born alive legislation would impede the right to abort and doctor/patient decision-making. He and an American Civil Liberties Union attorney speculated Born Alive would force doctors to resuscitate nonviable aborted babies." He went on to say "[Let] nature be done" and "What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I can’t support that.” http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000007034.cfm
There is no such thing as "abortion after birth", since abortion is defined as "the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, resulting in or caused by its death." Providing no medical for an infant is homicide, and has been tried as such for those that do not provide medical care for anyone from infants to the elderly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.164.156 ( talk) 01:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Can somebody re add nationality to the lead. I was removed recently without explaination by an IP. Thank you. -- 70.181.45.138 ( talk) 21:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
What's an explaination? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.72.125.82 ( talk) 14:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I never heard of this Jerome Corsi guy, but his claims are the subject of a very critical article in The Irish Times this morning. 'Using a PhD as a weapon of mass disinformation': http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/0826/1219679947282.html 86.42.119.12 ( talk) 15:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Nice editorial, dumbasses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.7.51.9 ( talk) 02:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree the information should be given, but it would be better to describe the topics covered by his books and mention the cited opinions of critics and let readers figure it out themselves. WP readers are smarter than you might think. :-) Redddogg ( talk) 04:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
This blatantly partisan article about a Blatantly Partisan individual is borderline libelous. http://www.nndb.com/people/244/000059067/ Jerome corsi is a practicing Catholic that was and is disgusted with the actions of the Hierarchy of his Church, as many Catholics are. I understand that partisans hate him for going after Democrat Party Presidential Nominees, but this isn't the place to vent. They imply that he is comparable to some Anti Papal KKK member that took delight in the Church Abuse Scandal and took candid dialogue out of context. His book The Obama Nation had been throughly lawyered, so by their standard I could go to Obama's Wiki Page and start posting the content from his book, which I'm sure would last all of 5 minutes there. Now that the shoe's on the other foot, you allow them to post innuendo from the Nation and other Partisan Rags with axes to grind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whosthatolboy ( talk • contribs) 05:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I also posted a POV tag. I don't object to giving the readers any amount of cited information which makes Mr. Corsi look bad. However I think the tone and wording should be a bit more neutral. For instance calling him a conspiracy theorist in the first sentence. Also the incident in Kenya is very minor (unless they kill him ;-)) and should be moved down the page. Redddogg ( talk) 04:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
RE:
This article could have been a press release from the Obama Campaign. I flagged this because it seemed partisans wanted to impugn this man because he wrote books they didn't like. sure, you can talk about his faults and his gaffes, you don't have to employ all out character assasination against him. This is the equivilent of me posting malicious inneundo about Maureen Dowd or Keith Olbermann just because I found a partisan source to corraberate my assertions. The nndb source was to establish his Roman Catholic Faith. Wiki wouldn't tolerate my doing this to a Left Wing Pundit or Columnist, I just want the same standards applied. Sorry about the gap, I had forgotten about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whosthatolboy ( talk • contribs) 23:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I really don't think he is a neoconservative, even if one source did say so. Mostly they are pro-Bush internationalists. He seems to be best known as an author, maybe the subjects of each of his books can be mentioned in the intro. Then his conspiracy nature would be evident without having to say so. Could we add something like "activist" to "author" as his secondary notability? Redddogg ( talk) 04:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I took out the information that he wanted to give money to George Obama. This is very trivial. Also George Obama's statement that he would not accept the money seems kind of worthless since we don't know the circumstances of him saying that. Redddogg ( talk) 07:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
BTW the "controversy" about Barack Obama's relationship with George Obama is not mentioned on the Obama family article. Why should it be brought up here? (As for myself, I don't have a half-brother so I don't know how I would feel. I do know that historically the relationships of half-siblings have sometimes been difficult.) Redddogg ( talk) 08:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The article says he has made homophobic statements. I don't think being against the sexual abuse of children is homophobic. I don't really think the whole last paragraph about his web postings is really needed anyway. Redddogg ( talk) 17:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I think that the whole "criticism and controversy" section should be removed. Second-hand allegations and web postings are usually not considered so reliable on Wikipedia. There also seems to be enough solid information on Corsi in the article already. However, I will not make an issue about it if people like the controversy section. Redddogg ( talk) 18:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Reopening issue: I think "homophobic" should be removed. A person being called "homophobic" by a left-wing source is no more remarkable than a person being called "a member of the Jewish conspiracy to rule the world" (or whatever) by a right-wing source. Neither one should be repeated in an encyclopedia article. Redddogg ( talk) 23:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I am personally, deeply offended when the sexual abuse of children is defended in the name of "homophobia" or "religion" or "culture" or any other reason. Having said that, I think we have to use our judgement. Only one source added "homophobia" to the other 3. I think it would be fine if the article left it off. Especially since this is a biography of a living person and is subject to more strict WP rules. Redddogg ( talk) 05:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
CORSI: First let's undermine the US in Vietnam. Then we can go for gay marriage. When you get to be Pres. JFK-lite, there will be no end to how much of America we can destroy. (05/17/2004)
CORSI: Perfect Liberal -- lesbian, self-absorbed, hates America, anxious to impose her values on everybody else. [on Martina Navratilova] (06/26/2002)
CORSI: And now we get Pooh-LEFTY pushed on us by the RATS as Minority Leader in the House -- here come the SanFrancisco liberals -- hope the RATS go back to focusing the debate on gay marriages and other pro-choice topics close to Pelosi's heart. (11/18/2002) [56]
I'm not denying that we have sources that call him that, but do most sources describe him as an "activist"? ( [57]) It almost sounds positive. Khoi khoi 21:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
See above:
This is precisely what's wrong with wikipedia and the media. All you have to do is report somebody else's unsourced opinion and that becomes a "fact." Reporters reporting on reporters reporting on reporters. Yes, it's a fact that the opinion was stated, but the opinion itself is not a fact. Face it, whether you like Corsi or not, this article is biased. That's an opinion. That wikipedia is largely biased, however, is a verifiable fact. Sign me "unsigned." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.164.148.45 ( talk) 04:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe that he has appeared multiple times on The Political Cesspool, a white nationalist radio show; in fact, he has canceled an appearance on the show recently after Media Matters published a report of him. [59] [60] Rock8591 06:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I edited one sentence for being POV, and other reasons. Here are the two sentences for comparison.
I changed "Reuters report" to "press reports" because the Reuters report doesn't quote anyone on this particular point except Corsi's publicist, who only said "But the government did not want him to launch his book on Kenyan soil."
The Times report referenced "a source at Nyayo House". However, this source did not give any grounds for thinking that the government would be embarrassed by the accusations. It is equally likely that they simply didn't want Corsi making false accusations about them, and the Times report gives reason to think the accusations are false. -- Mujokan ( talk) 15:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
According to Mwenda wa Micheni in the Africa Business Daily:
Ironically, Mr Corsi has also been involved in a child pornography scandal.
In 2003, US authorities indicate, Mr Corsi was indicted for distributing child pornography, a case that eventually disappeared after he was handed a lenient judgment — something that inspired several conspiracy theories in the US. [61]
Africa Business Daily
is part of Business Daily, a daily newspaper, published by the
Nation Media Group.
IP1956 (
talk)
18:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
That looks like what we're dealing with, especially given that the debate between Corsi and the person being cited is not waht we'd call harmonious. Ed Wood's Wig ( talk) 23:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
This idea that there has been numerous factual debunking or whatever is very poorly sourced and only reflects one side of the issue. We have 3 refs on that one - one cites the Democratic opposition, one is an op-ed referring to "Goons" and implying that Corsi is one of them, and one is the normally-reliable Factcheck.org, which I have no problem with using as a reference but having issue relying on as the single arbiter of truth in this situation. I think the wording is horribly POV and needs to change. [[User:Ed Wood's Wig|]] ( talk) 14:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Corsi is a critic of all parties on international policy. Again, we must call on the adults at Wikipedia to clear out the propagandist mentality and hold students to the scholarly concept of factual objectivity regarding individuals, organizations, & historical events. Wiki truth enlighten ( talk) 06:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Notice: Media Matters for American has generally been agreed upon to be an unreliable source for Biographies of Living Persons. As such I will be removing any use of it as a reference from this article. Most of what has been written is backed up by multiple sources, but in the event that MMfA was the only source I will probably delete the corresponding info also, please feel free to re-instate the info under a new source. Thank you. Ink Falls 23:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree - remove MMfA for failure to be WP:RS complaint, etc. I am amazed at all the times the MMfA soapboxers have to push MMfA into article after article as if MMfA were a legitimate source for unbiased news and information. And what a coincidence, MMfA appears not only as a supposed RS, but also in the main text of the article. It's like Kilroy was here. -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling ( talk) 03:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Media Matters for America has been agreed upon as unreliable by who, exactly? The reality is that they cite their own sources for every article they publish. 75.76.213.106 ( talk) 05:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
This article is heavily slanted against Corsi, which is why I added the POV tag. It is true in all of the sections, but especially the introduction. I do not think that attacks against the author's books belong in the intro to an article about the author. Would we put discussions of the Harry Potter books' alleged relation to witchcraft in the first paragraph of an article about JK Rowling? That material belongs in the subsection of the article that discusses the books. Lunixer ( talk) 03:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I would agree with LUNIXER et.al. that this article violates wikipedia's POV standards and needs serious revision. I also concur with other critical commenters that the label "conspiracy theorist" when used in common parlance is a slanted, pejorative description and needs to be replaced. I would suggest replacing it with "controversial author" which would eliminate the pejorative connotation and would convey a more neutral and balanced tone to the article.
The three sources that are cited for the alleged factual errors are mostly liberal. We have an article titled, and I quote, "Democrats say Corsi's book full of lies, an article by Eugene Robinson, a widely known liberal (and no expert on the subject), and FactCheck.org, which alone is not enough to make this statement, and is very liberal itself (though I do consider it a reliable source). I propose rewording the second sentence in the first paragraph to: Both books, the former written in 2008 and the latter in 2004, attacked Democratic presidential candidates. Their accuracy is considered questionable by some sources. This would be similar to the wording in the second paragraph, which implies that he could be talking about "conspiracy theories" but establishes that there is debate. I am adding back the POV tag because an agreement has not been reached. Lunixer ( talk) 01:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The article claims he was born in Ohio, but offers no proof. Where's the birth certificate? -- TimSPC ( talk) 15:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Should a section be added for "Where's the Birth Certificate?"? I know that it has it's own article already, Where's the Birth Certificate?, but there have been sections for other recent books. Naraht ( talk) 19:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
If any source mentions it, it'd be nice to give some indication of what the subject was doing between 1972 and 1995. It's a large gap, not that this is a resume. Will Beback talk 23:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
...beginning in 1981, Dr. Corsi worked with banks throughout the United States and around the world to develop financial services marketing companies to assist banks in establishing broker/dealers and insurance subsidiaries to provide financial planning products and services to their retail customers. [63]
Still a huge gap. He was well into adulthood in 1981. There is zero information on this guy, pretty much out of nowhere. Fishy to the max, and he looks weird, as if he were a younger man wearing old man makeup. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that he is a totally fake persona. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:89:C601:3CD0:398C:C3FF:82C9:C793 ( talk) 00:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I have raised an objection in WP:BLPN. Interested editors are invited to comment. JakeInJoisey ( talk) 13:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
(per request reposted from that discussion) Clear opinions, as always, no matter who holds them, are only valid as claims of "opinion." The current standards for WP:BLP tend to make exceedingly good and strong sourcing a minimum for any such claim, I seem to recall a statement You would need a good source that called his view a conspiracy theory. It is a very strong term, and means more than a theory that a conspiracy existed which would imply a strong standard for calling any view a "conspiracy theory" and, by extension, anyone would need fully as strong a source for calling anyone a "conspiracy theorist" under the current BLP rules. I would suggest that a single source would not meet that requirement, and likely three independent sources would be a good idea. Collect (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC) Collect ( talk) 14:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Good for the "birther article"...Obama's own brother says that he was not born in the US. Unless we are going to put conspiracy theorist on Anderson Cooper's page for his Trump/Russia theories this stuff needs to be in own section. Putting pejorative terms in the lead of the article violates wikipedia policy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.76.129 ( talk) 07:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
What does conspiracy theory mean? Is it an objective or subjective term? Does it have a connotation; does its use imply that something is fictional? If it is subjective then it seems to violate policies. It seems to me that people say theory when they consider something to be credible and conspiracy theory when they believe something is totally fictional without any possibility of being true. Sam Tomato ( talk) 18:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Simple Facts - a black smokey fire collapsed two modern skyscrapers in a couple of hours - the first and only ones in history. Building 7 collapsed and seems to have never been investigated. An OK federal building collapses from a blast from the street - never been done before - the FBI cancelled their test when they learned it couldn't be done - and not an eyebrow is raised by the news media. ETC
2601:181:8301:4510:D1F:B3F:41D4:DF3F (
talk)
02:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
When someone publishes in an academic journal that an individual is prominently known as a conspiracy theorist, we can use that as a l reliabe source for this fact. See the last diff http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Jerome_Corsi&action=historysubmit&diff=430675099&oldid=430673364 for the source which is to an expert in conspiracy theorists.
Please do not remove this fact unless you have a reliable source which disputes it. I have found none in researching this individual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.169.46 ( talk) 14:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
John Foster "Chip" Berlet (born November 22, 1949) is an American investigative journalist, and photojournalist activist specializing in the study of right-wing movements in the United States, particularly the religious right, white supremacists, homophobic groups, and paramilitary organizations. He also studies the spread of conspiracy theories in the media and on the Internet, and political cults on both the right and left of the political spectrum.
He is the senior analyst at Political Research Associates (PRA), a non-profit group that tracks right-wing networks,...
The bid to raise money off of birtherism also needles author Jerome Corsi... Chicago Tribune
Jerome Corsi, senior staff writer at the extremist website WorldNetDaily and a chief enabler of the Obama-as-foreigner lie,... Los Angeles Times
Biography - Jerome R. Corsi, a Harvard Ph.D., has authored many books, including No. 1 N.Y. Times best-sellers The Obama Nation and Unfit for Command. Along with serving as WND's senior staff reporter, Corsi is a senior managing director at Gilford Securities. Barnes and Noble
Biography - Dr. Jerome Corsi received a Ph.D. from Harvard University in political science in 1972. He is the author of the #1 New York Times bestseller The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality and the co-author of Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, which was also a #1 New York Times bestseller. He is a regular contributor to WorldNetDaily.com. Simon and Schuster
Biography: Dr. Jerome Corsi received a Ph.D. from Harvard University in Political Science in 1972. He has written many books and articles and is an expert on political violence and terrorism. In 1981, he received a Top Secret clearance from the Agency for International Development, where he assisted in providing anti-terrorism/hostage survival training to embassy personnel. Coast to Coast with George Noory
Biography - Dr. Jerome Corsi is a Senior Staff Reporter for World Net Daily where he works as an investigative reporter. In 2004, Dr. Corsi co-authored the #1 New York Times bestseller, Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry. The success of Unfit for Command permitted Dr. Corsi to devote full time to writing. In the past 5 years, he has published 5 New York Times bestselling non-fiction books. In August 2008, he published The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality, which was a #1 New York Times bestseller for a month and remained on the NYT bestseller list for 10 weeks. Amazon
Biography - Dr. Jerome Corsi received a Ph.D. from Harvard University in political science in 1972 and has written many books and articles, including the No. 1 New York Times best-seller, Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry. His latest best-seller was The Late Great USA: The Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada. He is a senior staff reporter for WorldNetDaily.com and the author of two books on contemporary Iran: Atomic Iran and Showdown with Nuclear Iran. In his 2005 book Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil, which he co-authored with Craig. R. Smith, Dr. Corsi predicted oil prices at over $100 a barrel. Bookwire
It (conspiracy theorist) is no more a pejorative, or less accurate, than other descriptors like "Liberal" or "Fundamentalist", where the 'insult' exists in the mind of the ideologically opposed critic using the term, and not in reality.
Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content.
@Lunixer: To answer your question about how I would feel about calling "Obama a socialist in the lede" -- I have no feelings about it at all, if it is properly sourced and accurate. "Socialist" is also not a pejorative term. The same applies to your question about Gore, Moore, Franken, et al. Reviewing the recent posts above (as well as the prior posts by Lunixer in the section titled "Article Heavily Slanted"), I notice that no one has explained why they assume "conspiracy theorist" is pejorative, as Jake says, "as applied to Corsi in this treatment". It isn't. Editors seem to forget that descriptors like "socialist" or "conspiracy theorist" or "fundamentalist" or "nationalist" or any other "-ist", are actually neutral descriptions, and there is no "pejorative nature" except in the reader's imagination, or when the description is inaccurately applied. Consensus appears to be quite clear on that. Xenophrenic ( talk) 18:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
According to: https://post.harvard.edu/olc/pub/HAA/register/register.cgi [1] Searched: Jerome Corsi Results: Degree Doctor of Philosophy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostach ( talk • contribs) 20:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
http://www.wnd.com/2012/10/obamas-ring-there-is-no-god-but-allah/ http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/weddingring.asp Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 11:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Jerome Corsi/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
This article is anything but balanced, fair or informative. Reading the section on Corsi's latest book "Obama Nation" I learned nothing about what the book might contain, only varying degrees of attacks on Corsi by the NYTimes, DNC, Obama's own campaign. All very unbiased sources! Apparently the author of the article and the sources he cites don't want us to know what is actually in the book. At the very least there is a clear conflict of interest because the attacking sources cited are all part of the political machine for Obama. Prof Corsi is absolutely accurate in is new book "America for Sale" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.146.106.157 ( talk) 00:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC) |
Last edited at 00:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 19:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jerome Corsi. 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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Strawberry4Ever ( talk) 18:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Pejoratives need to be removed from the lead. Put editorial opinions critical of the subject of the article in it's own section. Article violates NPOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.76.129 ( talk) 07:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Jerome Corsi. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't know who keeps editing it, but I fixed the education in the infobox for the second time this week now. It's fine the way it is and is in correlation with other articles. Sovietmessiah ( talk) 19:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)